July 15, 2008 by pmelcher.

The truth about your photo organizations is that they have either no idea what they are talking about or they have no idea  what they are doing. Either way, they are slowly becoming obsolete and useless.
Take PACA for example. The Picture Archives Council of America is preparing for its next “international” meeting to be held in New York sometime in October of this year. One of the panel they have organized for their members   is called ““What Role Will Technology Play With New Business Opportunities?”.
I had to read it twice. Does it say “will” ? Like in the future “will” ? Has anyone at PACA looked around and noticed what is already going on here and now ? How technology is running their business already. For an industry that currently runs 95% on technology ( it always did , by the way) it is a weird panel to have. But this is not the worst part.

The worst part is that they are “excited” to announce that they have secured the participation of  Ben London/Executive Director, Northwest, of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Now, I do not know this gentleman and I am sure he is a fine person but inviting the RIAA to explain what opportunities exists in technology is like asking a bear what to do in winter.

I wonder what went into the PACA committee’s collective brain who set that up : “lets find an industry that has completely missed the boat on new technologies and is currently gasping for air, for what they think about new technologies and opportunities ?”

I mean, makes complete sense, no ? The RIAA is now known worldwide for its smooth aptitude to deal with change and a prime example of what the photo industry should do. Let’s see what we can take from the RIAA lessons:

Do nothing and then sue everyone.
Desperately refuse the introduction of new technologies and stubbornly hold on to antiquated business models.
Install technology that alienates your customers so intensively that they prefer to break the law then license anything from you.
When desperation comes, jump on any new business model around and dramatically slash your prices ( think iTunes). Regret your decision 2 years later.
Keep on suing. Maybe that will cover the losses
Alienate you artists until they also leave you for new business models
Merge or die.

Rich (it is a very expensive proposition to attend this congress) and successful PACA members will come from the whole world to listen to this man explain how brilliantly the RIAA has handled technology and new business opportunities. And then, after a few drinks, when all is said and done, everyone will go home with the deep satisfaction that this was money well spend . Some will even dream of a potential merger of the RIAA and PACA,  strongly united against the advent of new technologies, new business models and plenty of lawsuits.

Mmm, I wonder why Getty Images decided to sponsor that one event ?

For the latest from PACA, please go here.

Posted in technology, commercial stock, CEPIC, PACA, getty, law, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

May 30, 2008 by pmelcher.

In a predictive move, Uber microstock giant Istockphoto, owned by Getty, is launching a contributor-wide call for exclusivity. The 6 top microstock companies share about 90 to 95% of their photographer, thus their content. In order to leave the pack, anyone of them should request exclusivity in order to offer their image buyers something the others do not have. With 1.4 downloads per second ( General Motors only sells a car every 3 seconds), Istockphoto is in a very good position to dry up the contributors pool by sucking them in an exclusive relationship.

Obviously they will offer a higher commission in order to make the offer appealing and help their contributor compensate for their possible losses. It seems, from the outside at least, that unlike the Long Tail theory would like us to believe, most of the microstock sales comes from a pool, rather large, of the same contributors. Otherwise, Istock would have not bothered doing this move. If Istockphoto can take them out of the rest of the market they will certainly make their competition suffer,  a lot. They will also make it even more difficult for new companies to enter the microstock field, at least with pertinent content.

The reaction from competitors will be interesting to watch . They could go down the same path, declaring an exclusion war that will leave most contributors baffled and confused. One aspect of RF, and a strong one, is its non-exclusivity.Why be exclusive with a product that is sold on a non exclusive basis? After all, isn’t a big part of the microstock game in volume and not on a per image sale. Will an exclusivity with Istock generate enough sales to compensate those lost by leaving its competitor ?Only if a huge amount of contributors decide to make the move simultaneously forcing image buyers to follow them. If 6 or 7 photographers decide to pull out their images from other platforms, there will be not effect. If thousands do so, then image buyers will have no other choice to go where the choice is. Either way, Istock cannot loose.

Some contributors might, however.

And for those who are still confused on how successful microstock is, this traffic ranking from Alexa should help them visual it:

Even Getty Images, with all its fire power cannot even come close to Istock and barely makes it over Dreamstime. Corbis and Jupiter don’t even have a chance. As traditional stock companies continue their stop loss policies, as beautifully explained by Julia Dudnik Stern in Chasing Lost Business Ignores New Markets on sellingstock.com ( subscription only), they fail to understand that they are fighting the battle in the wrong battlefield.

Ever thought why most microstock companies are not attending CEPIC, PACA and BAPLA congress ?

Posted in alexa, technology, commercial stock, Jupiter, CEPIC, getty, corbis, PACA, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

May 23, 2008 by pmelcher.

Just imagine. Just imagine if a company like Google, or Yahoo, or even Microsoft put their hand on microstock and social photography. Not only Istockphoto projections of $171 million revenue within a few years would be pulverized into unknown heights but it would be the end of both RM and traditional RF forever.

Why ?, you might ask. Simple. Right now, the only reason Istock is not growing faster is its lack of reach compared to better known sites like Google. Given that firepower, there is absolutely no reason why the whole market not tip over into a microstock Tsunami.  Let’s face it, Rights Managed is a badly protected island. And part of its protection came from the purposely shallow amount of choice. A lack of choice is what makes  RM potentially valuable, or what others call “bleeding edge” photography. Thus, out of a pool of 10 images, it is important to secure exclusivity. Out of a pool of millions, who cares?

Furthermore, it would be so simple to “retire” an image automatically for a higher price, thus making that image exclusive by automation.

Why would anyone  consider putting their images anywhere else than on Google Stock ? Already, everyone, from photographers to photoagency are taking night courses in  SEO to pump up their ranking. Most will buy huge amounts of adwords. If Google opens the gates and starts welcoming images in order to license them, there will be no holding back. From no one. It would be an act of suicide not to be part of it.  And since microstock pricing has now set the tone for commercial usage pricing, everyone will seek the low-priced volume sale. And, besides the user generated sites, no one will survive.

RF would quickly become  standard and no one would even bother with any other of those complicated and boring licensing  models. The only way for agencies and photographers to survive will be to jump, or stay, on the assignment peak. Those who have created a market for their photography, their personal work ~ the way professional photography first started~will continue to be untouched by this whole stock mess.

Not sure this will happen ? Well, think about it. Why did Getty go private ? and more important, why do you think someone paid $2.5 billion for it ? So it can watch it grow slowly like a small pet kitten ? Not their style. And what do you think will happen when Newscorp, Google, Yahoo, AOL and others feel they have managed to control most of the channels. What will be their next target to increase their appeal to advertisers ? Content, you said ? Indeed. By having the most compelling content, eyeballs will be attracted. And who has the highest volume of well targeted eyeballs will sell the most ads. Like it used to be with the TV network. But this next battle is happening online and will include stills.

Hopefully, some will stop asking me why I think this industry has not yet seen the worst ( or best) of it. Why there is no more reasons to attend Cepic or PACA congress. The waters are retreating already and I am no fool.

Posted in google, Midstock, technology, commercial stock, web 2.0, CEPIC, Royalty free, getty, transaction, PACA, Microstock | Print | 4 Comments »

April 1, 2008 by pmelcher.

How many times will  members of this industry get together and talk about IPTC, keywording and other metadata. How many meetings, conferences, synopsis, “get togethers”, panels, parties, does it take ? Both the ASPP conference in Arizona and CEPIC in Malta have scheduled hours long conferences on this subject. Again. The one in CEPIC is 8 hours long !!!

It used to be that the IPTC was a small geeky association of nerds looking into how to standardize metadata in images. It has now become the most sought-after organization. More than the dying PLUS coalition.

The amusing part is that none of the attendants are keywording their own images. They have staff people to do that. Furthermore, none of the companies that offer this service are on the panels( JaincoTech, Keedup, OnAsia Digital, Etc) They would know better, wouldn’t they?  Instead, you have marketing managers or agencies owners sitting in stuffy rooms, vaguely writing notes while waiting for the suffering to end until they can finally get a free drink at the evening’s cocktail party.

At a time when the temple of controlled vocabulary  ( the Library of Congress) has decided to pull out from its antiquated method of keywording by putting 4,000 of its images into Flickr and ask for crowdsourcing wisdom, the photo agency world is wasting time and money into desperately trying to impose a standardized form of controlled vocabulary. Some probably spend more time and money on attending these panels than they do in a whole year of marketing.

The aim, apparently, is to define a series of code words that could be transported from one databank to another and yield the same results. Thousands of them. Same keywords. Wether they are related to the real world is irrelevant as the priority is to standardize and eventually give photo buyers a book on which word to use and how. And then what, have university offer a degree in photo researching, transforming photo buyers into bonified librarians? It is bad enough that some “photo editors” have no visual experience, it gives me the shivers to think what would become if this would happen.

There are few misconceptions here :

Language, unless dead, evolves all the time. Even dictionary publishers worldwide know  as they add and delete words every year.  Who uses “walkman” anymore ?

Keywording is not a marketing tool:  A bad or irrelevant  image well keyworded is still a bad image. It will not sell.

Controlled Vocabulary does not include local cultures. If it does, than it cannot be controlled anymore. It is arrogant, pedant and quite simply foolish to even believe that one controlled vocabulary can and will apply to the whole world.

A word is not a definition. It is only a description. It takes many words to skim the surface of what an image is. Thus keywording should be an accessory to search, not its main engine.

In the long term, keywording will die. Already, there are other emerging ways to search for images : visual, color, face recognition, similar, pattern recognition. In the text world, there is even semantic search, which allows you to search by meaning instead of exact match.

Google images, which everyone sees as the ultimate “find me tool” does not even index IPTC.

They say insanity is repeating the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. Seems to be that the photo industry is banging over and over on the same door and it will just not open.

The solutions ? Exactly what the user generated content agencies are doing. Let the keywords be offered by the source . They shoot, they keyword. And they keyword well because they are using an everyday vocabulary that the buyers are also using. A vocabulary that changes and evolves all the time. A vocabulary that is not “controlled”. Organized chaos.

Or follow the giants. Getty, which you never see at these repeated panels, as well as AP, Reuters, Corbis and others, have hired outside companies to do their keywords. Because it is not their chore business and do not feel it necessary to have a full time dedicated team of librarians. They seem to prefer selling images rather than cataloguing them.

It would be an interesting exercise to calculate how much time was wasted in “perfectly” keywording images that never sold in some of the medium or smaller agencies that seem to be obsessive about doing in house keywording .

Would it be more interesting for these congress, meetings, conference to have a panel about how to make great pictures that sale ?

Worst that could happen would be a few hours looking at great image.

Posted in keyword, Search, Plus, Zymmetrical, google, flickr, corbis, PACA, CEPIC, getty | Print | No Comments »

February 28, 2008 by pmelcher.

“my first (and probably my last, unless you tell me it is a good idea) guest post :”

How did it start?Was it the 1890’s ?Photographers took pictures, pushed the edge of the envelope but could not do everything, they needed agents.In the meantime copyright came along to try and stop the exploitation of artists, there where always those with money willing to exploit the talents of an impoverished artist.Come the 1950’sAgents came along and entered into a partnership with the photographers, 50/50 or whatever, photographers owned the copyright, agents sold and kept the collections in hard chemical form, their business grew in the center of cities, large amounts of real estate holding pictures.

Pictures where sold for 1st rights, 2nd rights, 3rd rights and so on, the sellers had a firm grip on the marketplace.

Photographers if they where good made money in editorial, rights managed, it was a financial meritocracy, the best made the most. Art and creativity was king.

Agencies like Sygma, Sipa, Magnum, Rex, and stock agencies like Tony Stone all flourished, not by employing photographers but entering into partnerships with photographers.

20 years went buy and they became big business.

It’s the 1990’s along came digital, Getty and Corbis.

Digital, binary code was an astonishing revolution allowing millions of images to be stored in a box the size of a car instead of a 10 story building, on top of that images could be sent thousands on miles in a few seconds and reconstructed to the original quality thanks to jpeg compression, opportunity was knocking and along came the bankers and big business.

Getty and Corbis knew with a few million spent wisely they could dominate the industry, they started their acquisitions

Most of the agencies sold out but this was the first knife in the back for the photographers, the content creators, whilst an agency owner pocketed the $ 20 million from Corbis the photographer got nothing and in Sygmas case an assumption by Corbis that they owned the archive!!! I think the lawsuits are still continuing. What did I last hear Microsoft has $ 40 billion dollars in cash, what chance does a poor photographer stand?

Getty, owned by bankers saw an opportunity for consolidation and cost saving, they also thought “ Art” could be created on a 9-5 hour day, a salary and no incentive. They went ahead and spent $ 500,000 million dollars acquiring photo agencies.

Bill Gates, he initially just wanted art on his walls digitally, constantly changing to fit his mood, this was when big screen plasmas cost $ 30,000

These where tough times for artists, creative photographers who ideas where stolen, their percentages crushed, financial ruin approaching.

The agencies new owners drove hard bargains and percentages to the photographers, if you did not sign, get lost, plenty to fill the departing artists shoes, plenty of styles to copy.

A typical business model bulk sold content on monthly deals, sending thousands of pictures a day to clients, 1st rights, 2nd rights, 3rd rights became a thing of the past, your pictures where likely to be bundled at a $ 100,000 deal a month for 200,000 images used, you do the math !

By 2000 the creative photographer had been destroyed, art had become sterile, its becoming obvious bankers are not good for art!!!

Mix with this through the late 90’s early 2000 the growth of Google, a search engine with a bland front end. What the hell was this and it was free!!!

By 2004 we knew what Google was, an advertising agency who had managed to optimize the Internet and its revenue through click through revenues and who was being screwed the most in this, as if in a double whammy, creative photographers and newspapers, in fact anyone who published!!!

Those bulk all you can eat deals really paid of for Google with free rights in perpetuity as they displayed the web pages of most of the publications in the World, blatantly using fantastic images for free to drive click through revenue to their advertisers. The poor old content creator ( photographer) got nothing

Catching onto what was happening the media industry jumped on the Google band wagon and followed Getty’s lead and obtained pictures under tough contracts ,  New York Times, Tribune Group, Associated Newspaper, News International and almost every publishing group in the World started their own web sites, using pictures for peanuts whilst lamenting, “ We are loosing Money” they continued to make money off pictures through CPMs, “ accidentally” using pictures without paying  or sometimes purchased for ridiculously low fees.

Then came the blogs who where inspired by Googles claim to free usage under the The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 and other internet users of pictures, all claiming they where making no money, whilst the poor old photographer where having to spend money to apparently make nothing
Then came blogs and other internet users of pictures, all claiming they where making no money, whilst the poor old photographer where having to spend money to apparently make nothing.

In 2007 the World implodes, what happened to the American Dream ?

In 2008 when Getty Images sells for $ 2.4 billion with a failing business model they still do not understand what they did and their errors. Quite simply they where conducting business using digital with analog business models, they distributed full resolution digital images on a daily basis to hundreds of users, millions of asset files that could be stolen and used by everyone for free, whilst those users made millions on click through advertising revenue in perpetuity.

It all seemed hopeless and then along came GumGum, and they have suggested a solution that could get the creators back in financial control of their lives and the industry back on a firm foothold.

For in the end it’s the creators of new art that drives the marketplace but the industry must change the way it markets images in this maturing digital age. The artists have to be paid and then the flow of great marketable images will continue and big business through shared revenue will make even more money and survive.

And I suspect Bill Gates will still be rich!!!!

Paul Harris

Pacific Coast News
Celebrity Home Photos
Pacific Coast News Video
United States Head Office
BWP Media USA Incorporated

Posted in Midstock, license, multimedia, Search, newspaper, copyright, idee, Pacific coast news, gumgum, technology, magazine, keyword, google, editorial, law, news, corbis, finance, PACA, web 2.0, photojournalism, wire service, CEPIC, getty | Print | No Comments »

November 23, 2007 by pmelcher.

There are some that still combat royalty free in what seems to be an unfounded hope that it will disappear. Others that turn a blind eye towards microstock and its user generated content. If I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist. Then, there are those who strongly believe that this whole technology thing is just a fad and sticking with the old fashion way of doing business is but the obvious way of doing it.

And all this while, image buyers are having a field trip. More choices, a huge and illogical range of pricing structure, extremely isolated image suplliers competing in tight corners. It is a good time to buy images or rent a photographer. I would even say, it is the best of times. You can get really great images for a bargain these days. The photo industry is so focused on survival rather than growth, on retention rather than expansion, that it has adopted an “any sales is better than nothing” attitude. And that means accepting any prices given to them.

It has also put then in a no investment position. Many agencies or independent photographers do not even want to consider cost saving solutions as they do not feel it is the right time to spend money. They are not willing to analyze their work flow in order to reinvent the rules.

It is quite ironic, since this industry was created by risk takers. From the crazy photographers who picked up a camera in the early 50’s and decided to sell their images to the crazier day dreamers who brought them together and build the first licensing offices. From its inception, the photo industry was lead by wild innovators with a sharp sense of business. The photo industry owes its phenomenal growth to those who chose to do things a different way. To those who did not believe in rules.

Today, its the “copy and save” model. When you introduce anything new in this business, the first question you get: is my neighbors doing it ? or my competitor ? if not, than why should I ? The second is : How much will it cost me ? It is never, ever, how much will I save or better yet, how much more revenue will it generate ? and the final one is always the killer : Can you give me some numbers to prove it ? An example ? I love this one the most because it puts the burden of running the business on the solution provider, not on the business owner.

The underlying thinking is that you do not invest in anything new unless someone else has done it before you and proved its success. In the mean time, you keep with the the status quo and desperately try to protect your business from others. Thus, the “Copy and Save” model.

If NASA had waited for an example to walk on the Moon, we would still be waiting. Do we really think that Apple, who everyone admires, really had accurate projections for its Ipod and Itunes?

Japanese archers never need to check their targets after they shoot arrows : If the movement, the position, the aim and the equipment’s is perfect, the arrow will most certainly hit the bullseye. The outcome is defined at the moment the arrow leaves the bow, not when it hits the target. At the instant the archer lets go the arrow, the outcome is already obvious.

Most business owners wait for the arrow to hit  the target to see if they succeeded. They seem to  hope that, regardless of their aim, there is some magical interference that will happen in between them releasing their arrow and the bullseye. They repeat it over and over in the hope of scoring a hit. The result, for them, is the justification of their action. They do not realize that the action justifies the result.

The photographers that succeed, and the photo agencies that grow are the ones that constantly innovate and master their tools. The ones that go with the gut feeling and the instinct. The ones that smell good ideas million of miles away and focuses on the benefits, not the costs.

There are great products and solutions on the market right now that can make an agency or photographer highly competitive for the next 5 years. Some have already adopted them and are reaping the benefits of being early adopters.

The rest are still busy waiting for the next industry meeting to see if it is really worth it.

Posted in keyword, license, web 2.0, CEPIC, PACA, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »

October 31, 2007 by pmelcher.

Just returned from 3 days of Paca international conference in Sin city. How appropriate to have held the yearly convention in a gambling town full of hard core, die hard risk takers. Our industry, the photo industry is very similar in its model.

When we take images for stock, we purchase lottery tickets. we invest our time and money into a series of images that we hope we will license, over and over, for millions of dollars. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t . A bit like a poker game, we have some idea if we have a winning hand but we never know what the competition is holding, and if they might bankrupt you.

Furthermore, when we negotiate pricing for an RM image, we try to find out how badly an image buyer wants an image and price it accordingly. Of course, they might pass and move on to another image to satisfy their needs. So we gamble with ours quote, not completely informed of what set of card the opponent carries.

Finally, Las Vegas teaches us that to make money, you have to spend money. As I very shyly approached the slot machines, I only used the ones with one quarter. My losses where minimal but so where my gains. I lost a few quarters. The second day, I boldly tried the one dollar machines and my success rate was a little better. I came out even. I gambled $5 dollars, I won five dollars back. Mmm..what is the point of that, I asked myself. The last night, I went all out and started inserting 20 dollar bills . Things got much more exciting. At some point I was down to maybe a dollar, but all in all, I started winning 65 dollars here, and 50 there. I left with double of what I had played, extremely satisfied.

The photo business is the same. The less you invest, the less your return. You have to be a risk taker and go out boldly, both in spending and in creative investment.

It appears, and some image buyers on a panel confirmed this, that more of the same images are being offered. it is not a saturation of offer that we are seeing, but a saturation of similitude . Everyone copies each other, thanks to the visibility of everyone’s content on each others website, creating a pool of identical thus boring images.

As much as this industry is a business, it is also a labor of love, a pool of creativity. The winners are the risk takers, those who are not afraid to gamble big in order to receive big. Those who do not follow change, but created it.

The PACA Congress was overall interesting, even if the panels where maybe not very exciting in their content. I was part of one, so I can safely say this. On a question by Ron Rovtar of the Stock Asylum during our panel, who asked who was making more money than last year, the vast majority raised their hands. The others where making the same.

The marketing hub, where some companies had tables a la CEPIC, was extremely busy with intense business negotiation , and the hallways where buzzing with incessant networking, impromptu meetings, and extensive conversations.

It would be great to see next year, in New York, a panel, or even a room, entirely reserved to technology companies that can improve photo agencie’s life . To reach out to other businesses that have comprehensive solutions and ideas that will enhance this industry. Have photographers come and talk about their experiences and challenges. Have slide shows or exhibits. Invite editorial photo agencies to connect the bridge between the two very similar worlds. In a word, to open up these congress to the outside world and break wide open the doors of this little private club. Bring in some fresh thinking.

In a word, see PACA gamble.

Posted in license, SIPA, web 2.0, CEPIC, PACA | Print | 2 Comments »

October 26, 2007 by pmelcher.

I went to PictureHouse NY this year, not as an exhibitor, but as an image buyer. It was a very rewarding experience. The first, and probably foremost experience was the terribly empty and deserted video footage room. With at most 5 distributors, but none of the big players, they must have stared at each other for a whole day.

This confirms a little bit more what I suspected. The still photo buyers are not the video buyers. While everyone ( not me) is screaming about the upcoming brutal replacement of still photography by some type of moving footage, it is not here. And quite frankly, by what will a photo of a lonely tree in a green field be replaced by . A 3 minute long footage of the same tree? One has to be very careful in making hasty declaration in how the video will eventually replace stills. As everyone prepares or a starting to license video, no one has an offering of multimedia, which I found quiet strange and a little bit sad.

Another point of interest was the always gently chaotic aggregation of completely unrelated content next to each other, tables after tables of pens, t shirt, water bottles, staplers, stuff and mostly pens. It seemed to be more of a competition of marketing pen than a photo industry gathering. One could get two years worth of school supplies and I would not be surprised if some actually do. The second item is bags. Lots of heavily branded bags, which made some image buyers look like walking Christmas trees.

A lot of the agencies had screen displays showing a slide show of their images, which was nice, but one could get really eye sick by seeing over and over the same type of images. Funny how most of the participant spend more money on heavily branded and rather cool pens rather than creating an original source of imagery. Its the copycat game which, as we all know, is currently eating away this industry. It used to be, when you looked at a series of images, you could immediately tell what photo agency they came from. Now it  seems that  there is only one photographer that everyone represents.

There were more commercial stock photo agencies and the few editorial ones seemed a little bit at a lost, especially since they did not have any of the cool little give away widgets.

Beside the guys from Brightqube and their very sexy interface, there was not much to get excited about. It also unscientifically seemed there were less images buyers than last year.

Interestingly enough, only one microstock company was there, Shutterstock, and while I approached them to ask them a rather complex licensing question, I was abruptly answered that if I didn’t purchase their subscriptions model, there was no way we could work together. So much for flexibility. I didn’t even get a free “thing”, not that I wanted one. I guess they are not used to working with human beings.

Finally, there was a whole section, rather deserted and for good reasons, of trade associations (ASMP, PACA, PLUS, SAA and so on). They looked more like a tax fulfillment center than anything related to photography . It is a great idea to include them, especially PLUS, but it better if they had an opportunity to have their brochure in the general PictureHouse bag. Those who would have missed their stand would have an opportunity to read about them further. Or have them participate in the stamp game which always attracts a lot of traffic.

Hopefully, next year will see new and more powerful features and improvement, better traffic workflow, more new and various agencies, millions of extremely wealthy image buyers who cannot stop buying images and just a little less pens and more great images.

and what about the full moon ? not much.

Posted in multimedia, license, PACA, editorial, Royalty free, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

September 15, 2007 by pmelcher.

Getty and $49:

How many association of photographers does it take to bring down Getty? Apparently 6 is not enough. After sending an e-mail to Jonathan Klein, they are answered by a posting from Nick Evans Lombs. Personally, I would have been insulted. But that is just me, I guess. The giant was grateful enough to listen and modify the license, but only in duration. A bis slap in the face of these associations who were complaining about the pricing, not the terms.

What we have here is an exact replica of what mega distributor Wal-Mart does : squeezing suppliers to better increase their revenues.

C’mon guys, time to pull out the big guns, not your little whistle. Threaten to pull out your images or start a submission embargo. See how Wall Street  reacts if thousands of Getty contributors band together and stop submitting. I can guarantee that Jonathan Klein, himself, this time, would answer. And where are the trade association like CEPIC, BAPLA, or PACA. Do they approve ?

The photo agency killers:

First Alamy, then a myriad of smaller platforms, and now Photoshelter. The idea? band together enough independent photographers  on a distribution platform to create a global offering that can compete with the agencies. But the result smells very much like an agency to me. You submit, they license. The only difference is that they have no control over what is being submitted and rely entirely on their search engines to do the editing. There is no creative intelligence, nor do they have an editorial desk. By saving money on these key and essential poles of a photo agency, they offer alluring commissions to photographers. But, as much as a photographer needs help in licensing his images, he also needs help in knowing what content to create. None of these platforms offer this service.

Instead, they follow the microstock model of “you should submit in masses and the best images shall win”. That model has proven somewhat effective for the platforms ( does any make a profit ?) but terribly ineffective for the contributors. PhotoShelter insists that the presence of a linguist in their staff will create all the difference. A bad image, perfectly key worded (if there is such a thing), remains a bad image.

However, let’s see how they do as they, once again, follow DigitalRailroad in their every footsteps.

Posted in keyword, CEPIC, PACA, getty, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

September 13, 2007 by pmelcher.

Getty images is not a newcomer in trading prices versus quantity. Quite the opposite. When a company wants to gain market share in an industry already heavily populated with suppliers, it reduces its cost of doing business to a minimum and slashes prices to force the competition into bankruptcy. Economy of scale, it is called.

They did, and are doing it with editorial where their “all you can use” subscription plan has been highly successful. For about $1,000 a month you can use any and all the images they have on the wire. No questions asked. Selling those subscription in large quantities worldwide has shown to be quite profitable for them, while giving the old mom and pop editorial agencies an almost impossible challenge.

Getty was also in the forefront of the microstock revolution by plunging head first and much deeper than Jupiter Images did. Bargain photography is certainly what Getty knows best.

Now, it is all about midstock. While Alan Meckler says “Midstock sounds exciting but it might already be dead.” , Getty responds by putting as much fire power in it as it can. First in Valueline hosted by the sad looking punchstock website ( the last press release posted dates from 2006) and now with the infamous $49.00 web usage pricing.

Someone is wrong here and we will soon find out who. Surely, Getty did not go along with this pricing without extended reflexion and analysis. It is my experience and my belief that most images on the web are going at about that price already. Yes, a corporate usage for a year on a home page could be priced at $1,000 or more but then, who really purchased such a license. Furthermore, Getty acknowledges that Istock and all other microstocks main market is web usage and thus makes these type of high level pricing forever impossible to achieve.

Getty is now trying to canabilize the microstock market and regain market share with its midstock approach . It is competing directly with all the microstock agencies by offering a similar license for a slightly more expensive pricing in the hope that the quality and the quantity of the offering will attract budget conscious image buyers.

In a way, Getty is the first and only agency firing back at the microstock invasion. While photographers have a right to complain, they should do so by pulling out there images instead of posting endless comments. I do not see this happening. And up to know, I haven’t seen any traditional photo agency taking dramatic measure to attract the new breed of customers that the microstock industry has brought in.

Getty is not the guardian of the photography world, nor does it has ever claimed to be the defender of photographers rights to a fair income. Jonathan Klein famously said years ago at a PACA meeting in New York, “Photo Editors pay my bills, not photographers”, or ssomething close to that.  He hasn’t change course.

Posted in PACA, editorial, getty, Microstock | Print | No Comments »