August 22, 2008 by pmelcher.

I am no friend of fair use.  “Fair Use is a USA law that provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test.  In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

This law does not even require that someone get a permission from the author or, at least,  informed them of such usage. Guess common courtesy does not exist in US copyright laws. Obviously, “non- licensed” means free. Fortunately, most people do not abuse this law that is widely open to interpretation.
This law has been in existence for a long time and is to me, much more damaging then the potentially upcoming Orphan Work Bill. After all, in this case, one knows the copyright owner but is still allow to use his/her work for free and without having to be polite about it.
Created to help scholar use reference work without going bankrupt, it has become the principle doorway to common copyright infringement.
Why not offer a small $1 licensing fee for those poor scholars that cannot afford paying full price. Or a special “education” fee, like Apple does with its computers. ( mmm…you have to see how much the US University charge per year/per student . Wonder what they do with that money instead of paying artists).
The idea is that every work used should be compensated, regardless of the amount. There has been work done thus compensation should be applied.
However that is not the worst. A famous blog situated on one of these new community based portal ( no, not DigitalRailroad) has been using an insane amount of images. At first, it seemed that since it is a professional blog, created with the obvious intend to drive traffic to its Collection, it would be properly licensing these images.
Imagine my shock ( and awe) when I heard that it does not. It recently used an image from a very well known photo agency that it ripped from another online legitimate publication and used it, along others, on its blog. No permission and no money exchange.
When asked why they would use images without licensing them when they are in image licensing business?  they  responded, “I can’t answer that question.”
They did pull the image down, only to be replaced by another from another agency. Probably without permission. What compels a company that is itself in the image licensing business to not pay for images that they clearly use for promotional usage?  Especially after screaming loud and clear they would be spending over $1 million in marketing this year. Is there no % in that budget to pay for licensing other people images ?

It would be nice, and honest, for that company, to clearly define their policy on the usage of photograph and stop claiming their are the defenders of the photographers when they boldly rip images from other sites like cheap second hand robbers.

Posted in copyright, technology, license, No sense, editorial, transaction, law | Print | 3 Comments »

August 4, 2008 by pmelcher.

let them eat cake, she had said. As the eyes of the world are turning toward China and the upcoming Olympics, this is a good time to reflect on how photography is evolving. Not as a medium, but as a media.

Getty images licenses a series of exclusive images to People and Hello! for a reported $14 million. No one questions this. furthermore, no one seems to believe that the number is just plainly insane. On one side of the spectrum, images sell at a buck a piece and on the other, at double digit millions of dollars.  Doesn’t make much sense. And I will tell you why : Image pricing was a combination factor of quality/difficulty/usability. The more an image was going to be used, or seen, the more it would cost. The better, or rather, the more relevant the images were, the more its price would go up. Finally, the more an image was hard to get, the more the price would go up. If you look at the RF microstock model, none of the above is true anymore. Does the Jolie twins bring so much value that they will reep sales above $7 million ( assuming People paid half the bill ?) . lets see : Angelina first baby picture sold for $4million. People sold 2.2 million copies at a cover price of 3.95. That is roughly  $ 8.8 million if you complitely ignore the subscribers. If they raised their advertising space rate, they should have broken even. At $7 million, it becomes more of a problem. After all , it is not because she had twins that there will be double the readership, is it ?

Actually, these images have become a story by themselves. They were priced way before Angelina even had the babies. And by whom ? The media. Rumors, speculation, interviews, opinions were running  like a mountain stream in Spring, finally settling around anywhere from $11 million to $14 million.

Interesting thus, that Getty sold these images for the same price as people assume someone would sell these images. Did the  megastar couple take the hint from the crowdsourcing pricing or is it just hype ? After all, the crowd will be more eager to see images that are worth $14 million dollars than a few bucks. Thus both Getty, People and Hello ! profit from screaming that those images were sold for $14 million. It benefits everyone, even the couple who gets to give even more money to charity.

Furthermore, does anyone who has been in this industry for a while really think that competing magazine USweekly or IN TOUCH  stop bidding at 13,999,999 .00 and said we give up ? Or that if the National enquirer had bid $15 million, it would have been in their latest issue ? Publicists and stars want to be in People magazine, not in tabloids.

Who cares if it is not true, really. What matters here is that these images  got a celebrity status, even before they were even taken.

The second incident is the revelation by Newsweek DP that the Olympics will be mostly a .com event. Ex-photography director, Mary Ann Golon had told me that TIME will be doing the same a few months back . Seems that this Olympic season will be online with additional reporting in print. The slow decay of the paper support is becoming more apparent as it cannot compete with the feeding frenzy. Photography becomes free at last of the written word and regains a position of strength. It can live, breath and exist by itself  on an online slideshow that doesn’t need much explanation. This will only continue to erode the news weeklies here and worldwide. It will also put much more pressure on the photographers to fully report with images and not just be an accompaniment to the text. Its good news.

Posted in license, TIME, celebrity, magazine, Newsweek, photojournalism, slideshow, Royalty free, getty, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | 4 Comments »

July 29, 2008 by pmelcher.

This is not the next challenging mountain  path of the Tour de France. It is neither the now too familiar trend of the Getty stock. It is, however, the devastating path of the Jupiter Image stock.  Minus 68% in six months, for a company that is neither linked to the subprime rate or the price of oil, that is pretty bad. It looks to me, and I am not a stock market expert, that this little company is going right down the exit and is just prime for 2 fruity options : being acquired or shut down.

Insider info has also informed us of massive lay offs in New York last week, apparently kept very hush hush. As much as the numbers are unconfirmed, they are talks of maybe 100’s. As we all know, when a public company is failing, the first to be offered at the altar of the Wall Street gods are the employees. The old rituals of human sacrifice revisited for the business world.

There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that Alan Meckler and is team are doing the right thing. It is somewhere in its application by the common employee that something went wrong and thus they should be punished.

Without significant numbers, it is hard to figure out why Jupiter is having such a hard time. Guess is that they are suffering from the same effect as Getty Images : a declining rights manage market, a suffering traditional RF demand, and a microstock division not covering for the losses.  The “Call” where Alan Meckler will reveal it all  is scheduled for August 7. He is probably hoping that most people will be on vacation.

“That is obviously a bellwether of what the future brings and the fact of the creative destruction that is going to happen here.” once said Alan Meckler to PDN. I guess that was not the kind of destruction he had in mind.

Posted in Jupiter, commercial stock, finance, transaction, Royalty free, getty, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

July 27, 2008 by pmelcher.

Who said that editorial photography doesn’t pay ? Dave Hogan, or “Hogie” for those who know him well, is hosting the British prime minister in his 1.2 million pounds house for the summer.

I have had the pleasure of working with Hogie for many years while at ImageDirect and can reassure everyone that he deserves every penny that he has ever made. His talent is only matched by his friendliness and  his ease to work with.

read the full article here

Posted in celebrity, magazine, photojournalism, finance, transaction, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »

July 24, 2008 by pmelcher.

Apple cracker jack buys debt from A21. Press release of the week Month Year :

a21, Inc. Signs Non-binding Letter of Intent with Applejack Art Partners, Inc.

Translation: A company with the dubious name of A21 (probably taken from a heavy drinking casino party) signed a non binding ( meaning its worthless) letter of intent ( meaning they might or might not do it) with Applejack ( a fruit juice company? it’s actually the name of the owner spelled backwards. Genius !!) to pay for its out of control debt.

The press release continues:

Transaction Would ( note the word “would” here. It can be replaced by IF, Maybe, Sort Of or Would Not) Result in Applejack Owning a Majority Stake in a21  ( making the company formally known as a21 now called 21applesjack)

Jacksonville, FL,( Who in their right mind has headquarters in Jacksonsville, Florida? Why not Middleof Nowhere, Arkansas ? ) July 22, 2008 . a21, Inc. (”a21″) (ATWO.OB), a leading ( in what universe?) online digital content marketplace ( new buzz word alert. No one is an agency anymore, everyone is a marketplace. The stock photo world is a giant Mall), today announced that it has entered into a non-binding Letter of Intent (LOI) with Applejack Art Partners, Inc. (Applejack). Pursuant to the LOI, Applejack would purchase all of a21’s outstanding notes ( that’s another word for debt) (an aggregate principal amount of $18,000,000) from the holders of such notes and also purchase all of the shares of a21 common stock owned by a21’s note holders (an aggregate of approximately 41 million shares). a21 would then exchange approximately 110 million newly issued shares of its common stock with Applejack in satisfaction of approximately $13,000,000 of such notes.( woopsie, another $13 million dollars borrowed against worthless shares)

The closing of the transactions contemplated by the LOI is subject to various conditions, including execution of definitive agreements by a21 ( ya, like they would say no. They just issued a press release even before the deal was signed), the note holders ( they want their money back, no objections here), and Applejack ( intention unknown). It is the intent of all parties to complete this transaction as described in the LOI as soon as possible.( You betya, specially those a21 guys)

In addition, on July 16, 2008, Applejack made a credit facility available to a21 pursuant to which a21 could borrow up to $500,000 with the consent of Applejack. One hundred thousand dollars has already been advanced to a21. The amounts outstanding under the credit facility bear interest at 12% per year.( they couldn’t wait for the deal so they already borrowed a hundred grand to pay the bills, or the gas for the car)

So, here is the deal in plain English:

Dude,  I owe a big “aggregate principal amount”  ? can you help ?

How much?

not much, about $18 million.

what do I get in exchange ?

Bro, give me a break. I ‘ll give you some of my worthless common stock if you want. How’s 151 million of them?

Ok.

Dude, you rock. Can we agree to maybe agree in the future ?

sure

Can I tell everyone that we are thinking about maybe agreeing ?

ya

By the way, while you think about agreeing , can I borrow 100 grand ?

Sure.

John Ferguson, Chief Executive Officer of a21, said, “We are excited to be working with Applejack and believe the transaction should be beneficial to a21’s stockholders, employees, and other stakeholders. This transaction will result in a significant reduction in a21’s outstanding indebtedness and position the company to execute its growth strategy.”( growth strategy that has been up to now : borrowing money to pay for a failing company)

Jack Appelman, Chief Executive Officer of Applejack, said, “We are pleased to make an investment in a21 and believe that our complementary product offerings should result in greater sales opportunities and efficiency for both companies.”(Good luck on this one, Appleman).

end of press release.

Please  note that nowhere in this release is there any mention of photography or photographers. A21 could be selling candies, it would sound the same.

Furthermore, I am sure that all the photographers currently submitting images to SuperStock are overjoyed at the prospect of continuing not to see any sales and pleased to realize that the management is  focused on confabulated  financial deals rather than photo licensing.

NOW IT MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE : ( send by one of my readers)

 UPDATE :   On July 10, 2008, a21, Inc. (the Company”) entered into an amended and restated employment agreement with John Ferguson, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to which Mr. Ferguson will be entitled to receive (in addition to the compensation specified in his original employment agreement): (i) a special bonus of up to $125,000, in the event that the Company undergoes a change of control and a greater than $9,000,000 reduction in the amount of the Company’s outstanding promissory notes occurs; and (ii) an increase in the severance payments to be received in the event that Mr. Ferguson is terminated by the Company without Cause (as defined in the agreement) after a change in control of the Company from an amount equal to six (6) months salary, or $125,000, to an amount equal to twelve (12) months’ salary, or $250,000, payable over a period of one year.

as per yahoo business news

Posted in commercial stock, No sense, finance, transaction | Print | No Comments »

July 23, 2008 by pmelcher.

Woke up this morning to this news: “Dubai, United Arab Emirates, July 21, 2008. Celeb Arabia, subsidiary of Dubai Photographers Agency, the source for authentic celebrity images, today announces the launch of its Middle East Celebrity Photo Collection at CelebArabia.com.”

Cool, I thought… let’s discover Arabian celebrities :  The local Britney Spears or the Sheik heiress that is behaving like Paris Hilton.Who’s hot and who’s not. Well, it was quite a disappointment. The Paris Hilton of Dubai and region is…Paris Hilton.

Pretty damn disappointing.. I know that corporate America is a champion at exporting its brands and I very well know that what happens in Hollywood has more repercussion then  that annoying butterfly in the Amazon forest responsible for so many hurricanes. But still. Europe has a lot of local celebrities, so why not Dubai ? . Can’t they make more money with their celebrity rather than having to import American ones ? Sad…very sad.

However, that is not what really shocked me. The pricing is the biggest smack in my face :

Celebrity photos, and rather good ones, taken by pros, at $44,90 an image ? Ouch ! Cheaper if you buy 100 !!. Paparazzi by the pound. Not sure how it works in Dubai, but usually paparazzi images, being hard to get, sell for a premium. Maybe because they look sometimes out of focus, the “Dubainese” market considers them as midstock material ? The license seems to be “rights ready” as it is mentioned a few time on the site. If it is anything like the Getty one, that means 10 years, $44,90. an image.Well, that is a market that is dead even before being commercially interesting.

Seriously, there should be a license that people should pass before having the right to sell images. Like Real Estate agents. This is getting totally ridiculous with absolutely no sense on how the images are priced.

The pricing of images is like walking into a frat house the day after blow out party : its all over the place and it smells bad. It is embarrassing for those of us trying to make it a ligitimate business because image buyers think we follow some kind of rule.

The rule is simple these days : “My images are cheaper than the guy next door. Even if he moved out. “

Posted in magazine, technology, Pacific coast news, celebrity, license, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

July 19, 2008 by pmelcher.

It is not the usage but the image. A flew of photo agencies, including recently Alamy, have come out with special pricing plans for blogs ( non commercial ones).  It appears to be specially arranged  to compete against  microstock, as the prices are very, very low.

Which begs the question and realization that more and more, these days, images are sold based on usage and never on content.  Since the value of an image can vary immensely from one person to another, corporations, like Corbis or Getty have just decided to ignore it in their budgets. It is a known fact that corporations hate variables. So they take a whole sloosh of images and apply the same pricing. All of these over there are RF, these are Rights Ready, and those are too old. Furthermore, they believe that an image only has a value when it is used and that value is only quantified by the way it used.

As much as simplicity is appealing, as much as it doesn’t reflect the real value of an image. As we all know, some are really easy to get ( the Eiffel tower, for example) and some are really hard ( Angelina Jolie posing with her newborn twins) . One would never apply the same pricing rules to those 2 images, if one was a little versed in photography sales. But it doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. In between these two images, exist a whole range of pictures that are either more or less easy to take and also, have added value created by the photographers themselves ( the Eiffel tower taken by a National geographic photographer).

Example:

let say I take a nice image of the Eiffel Tower.  Nothing special. I license this image to a blog. I get 5 cents. Same image, I license it to Microsoft worlwide 10 years unlimited rights desktop usage. $60,000.  Hmmm… what is the value of my image? 5 cents or $60,000?

But more important, is it really the usage of my image that defines its value ? Shouldn’t be the image itself ? More like a painting ? You will buy a Picasso for millions of dollars regardless you put in a closet or decide to attach it on the walls of the British Museum.

Aaaaah, but photography is not art, you will say. You cannot compare. Well, my friend, why would an Angelina  Jolie and Twins go for a cool $11 million ?

Well, it is not the photographer that matters here, it is the subject, you will argue.

Absolutly !!! my point exactly. Photography is even more wicked that its value is not even obvious by who took the image, but what is on it. Sure you have the Masters who commend a certain price. But the bulk load of images are taken by complete unknowns that will remain so. But some of their image will command huge prices.

Because of how they are used? Or because of their content?

At this point you have to agree with me.

While editorial agencies are very aware of the statue and value of their image, stock couldn’t care less. Here, you can have all these images for a penny an image, because after all, no one comes and visits your site. Well, that is terribly wrong and reinforce the idea to clients that photography is a commodity. If someone doesn’t have the budget to pay for a great image, too bad, blog or no blog.

There is value in some images and client should pay for that value.

On another completely unrelated note:  Rumors are spreading that Getty and other wire service are asking their news  photographers to shoot  events with commercial stock resale in mind. Meaning that those  photojournalists no longer shoot what they see but try to , for example, to purposelessly blur peoples faces in order not to need a model release later. To maximize the lifetime potential for an image. As much as it make sense for the agency, as much as it is digging a little bit more in the wound of photojournalism, making it less and less credible every day.

We will probably see more and more denature photographs of world events as photographers will try to cover them on a more “stocky” way .

Posted in photojournalism, license, celebrity, commercial stock, transaction, editorial, Royalty free, getty, corbis, news, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

July 10, 2008 by pmelcher.

As per a press release of today : “Open Text Corporation (Nasdaq: OTEX; TSX: OTC), a provider of Enterprise Content Management (ECM) software, has acquired eMotion LLC from Corbis Corporation of Seattle, Washington. Open Text purchased the division for approximately US $5 million, net of cash and assets, effective July 2, 2008.eMotion is a provider of hosted business applications for managing digital media assets and marketing content. eMotion is headquartered in Seattle and has an office in Rockville, Maryland.

Corbis acquired eMotion, Inc. of San Francisco, California for an undisclosed amount in July 2005.

Corbis is a visual media provider for the creative community, licensing the widest array of award-winning contemporary, historical and entertainment photography as well as extensive collections of acclaimed illustration and footage.

Waterloo, Ontario based Open Text is a leading provider of Enterprise Content Management (ECM) software solutions. It offers a wide range of ECM products that help its customers ensure compliance with industry regulations and internal policies, controlling information flows, and helping solve other content-intensive business challenges. Open Text currently employs approximately 2,700 people worldwide.”

end of press release.

credit Techfinance.com

In 2005, Scott Wilson, CEO, eMotion said : “Corbis and eMotion’s services are a natural complement,”

Mmm. I guess not. At least not long term.

“Our clients are increasingly seeking ways to manage the still and moving imagery they use in their creative projects,” said Mark Sherman, about the deal, senior vice president of assignment & representation and emerging businesses at Corbis, at the time.

I  believe he got fired since.

One year later Business Week Magazine added ( 2006):
“A year ago, finishing off a year when revenue rose 20%, Corbis’ leaders confidently predicted that they would turn the company profitable. That didn’t happen. Instead, organic revenue growth slowed to 4%, though overall growth topped 34%. The total take was $228 million, thanks to the company’s mergers and acquisitions spree. (Getty Images grew 17.9% to $733.7 million, mostly organically, and pulled in $150 million in profits.)”
Ouch !!

the  same article continues:
“Corbis’ acquisition spree was partly aimed at placing bets in emerging markets. For instance, last July the company bought eMotion, a provider of hosted digital-asset management software. Yet image licensing remains a dominant part of its business. To boost profit potential, Corbis is beefing up its own collections and the custom-photography service, which involves assigning photographers to capture images. “end of Business Week Magazine quote.
You remember that guy from Star Wars Episode I ?  The Rasta guy with the tongue sticking out after being caught in the electric field of  Anakin’s pod racer ( do i sound like a geek right now?) ?

Well, whatever his name is, that is the Corbis management right now: tongue sticking out saying : blabadabaaaadabadaaaaa. Bladaabadaaaaaaaaaa.aaaaaaaaa.

Corbis ex- CEO, Steve Davis said, according to the Corbis press release, at the time: “In 2005 we doubled our global footprint ( How the hell do you double a footprint ? With bigger feet ?)  and rounded out our content and service offering. As a result we are the only company in the industry with the ability to provide comprehensive solutions—great content, the rights to use it, and the ability to manage it.”

And  I should add, big feet …

Shouldn’t someone have smelled E-Motion footprint at the time,because, apparently, it smelled bad. Certainly, not the sweet smell of success.

By the way, how much is a “footprint” going for these days ? 1 dollar a footprint ? what the hell is a footprint in photography ?

Gaaaaaaaaary ? any idea ? where is Gary anyways?

There he is (or was):

British Journal of Photography july 4th 2007, reports ( almost exactly a year ago):

“Days after taking on his role, Corbis’ new CEO has slashed 160 staff in 17 offices worldwide.

Gary Shenk took over from Steve Davis on Monday (02 July 2007), but the decision to cull 15% of the company’s workforce was announced late last week. The job losses are as a result of a three-month strategic review, led by Shenk and his management team, which is driven by the ambition to pull Corbis into profitability for the first time.”

and probably out of the “footprint” business.

the article continues :

“Corbis is also to sell its Digital Asset Management (DAM) division, which currently manages media libraries for large corporations. The service, which was officially launched only last summer (BJP, 16 August 2006), came about after the acquisition of eMotion in 2005. Like the Assignment Division, it has been performing well, says Perlet, and has won 25 new customers in the last 12-18 months.”

I guess ( actually, I know) Corbis hates, just painfully and  physically hates, anything that performs well.

E-Motion:

Bought in 2005,

analyzed in 2006,

destroyed in 2007,

sold in 2008.

Welcome to the club, dude.

Corbis  does it, again

Posted in Canada, technology, commercial stock, multimedia, No sense, corbis, transaction, finance, getty | Print | 1 Comment »

July 7, 2008 by pmelcher.

Even in a world of quirky names, content continues to rule. Picapp, the source for free legal images for blogs, has just signed up celebrity news agency Splashnews as a new provider. Here’s the deal : 2 companies, one similar idea. How to license images to the high volume community of bloggers worldwide ( 6 billion , I believe). Also, how to license images without these images ever leaving the server, thus avoiding illegal duplication. ( Orphan work anyone ?)

Historically, Picapp was the first to launch, with a revenue sharing deal that made advertising the only source of revenue. GumGum, not far behind, launches with a similar idea. However, the user here has a choice of adverting or paying a pay per view fee.

But the business model is not enough to grab attention, you need the right content. Again, two strategies : Picapp leverages its existing relationship through Picscout and draws the big guns ( i.e Getty). Gumgum, in order to outsmart them and after looking at the blogosphere, goes for entertainment. After all, the celebrity obsessed blogs are not only the most active, but also the biggest consumers of photos. What would be a celebrity site with no images, right ? They quickly signed Pacific Coast news, Splash news and Starmax. The show can begin. And it did. While Picapp runs around making deals with blog publishers and refine their offering ( ie multi size images, hidden Picguy, etc), GumGum seems to be satisfied with their offering.And it seemed to work.

But Picapp is no dumdum. They just signed Splashnews too, realizing they where the biggest money making content provider of Gumgum. Ouch ! The result will soon be felt. One has vast offering, from sports to paparazzi celeb, while the other seems stuck in the muck. Same technology and very similar business model. Who do you think will win?

At the end, it is always the same result. Technology is not an answer in itself, it is just a pipe. You can have the greatest system in the world, if you do not have the content, you die. Think Betamax or more recently, Blu Ray. Geeks are the worst managers of their own technology as they always, always make the same mistake in believing it can overcome everything.  It can’t.

Posted in technology, gumgum, Pacific coast news, idee, license, transaction, finance, web 2.0, editorial | Print | No Comments »

June 23, 2008 by pmelcher.

So revenues from traditional clients seem to decline. Price per image are stagnating, if not dropping, while market shares seem to be eaten away by more aggressive, younger companies that have much lower operating costs. The cost of entry in the photo agency world has dropped so low that a new photo agency is born almost every month. In all categories, RM, RF, Micro, editorial. While they are not really offering anything new, nor do they have any long term planning, they dilute the general offering of stock image on the market by making more of the same images available.

Sites like Alamy, Photoshelter and others like microstock have even broken the traditional link between photographers and agencies and are now just acting as distributors and plain lean mean selling machines. They have little or no personal regards for the photographers they represent, have never met them nor do they intend to, have no connections with their careers, have no clue what they will shoot next and almost couldn’t care less. All they want to do is connect them with as many buyers as possible and collect a percentage on every license granted, a la Ebay.

Some traditional agencies  distributors have already done that (think Getty Images here). Part of Istockphoto recent growth must be heavily tied to its introduction to existing Getty Image clients. It still remains compartmentalized, for now. The very near future will be to see all prices and all contributors on the same platform. There is no reason to keep the brand separated on different websites, is there ?

So, what is a photo agency to do in such a world ? Well, some are looking for collateral revenues. The editorial celebrity space is a good place to look for answers. Most have created their own blogs, along with advertising. Traffic generates attention but also revenue. They were already receiving a lot of hits from consumers looking for the latest images, so why not capitalize on it ? Some like X17 ( x17online)  are doing quite well. Getty Image, with its ViewImages and Jamd’ are also in this space, in a slightly different way.

Splashnews has introduced an interesting experiment recently. Under the heading of Splash Style, they take  online fashion shopping to the next level > here is how it works. You watch one of their paparazzi videos and click on a dress or handbag that you like. It appears on the right as still picture. You can then proceed, by clicking on the still, to go to an online store who will be more then happy to sell you that dress.

Obviously, Splash is taking a commission on the sales, even maybe just on the click to the store. After all, someone might not purchase that dress immediately. While clicking on a specific body part of someone who doesn’t want to be filmed is a tricky exercise, ( go ahead, try it. I’ll wait here.

…Ok, back ? Hard, no ?,

the concept is appealing. How to make money with stills, or videos, on your site, without licensing any images and respecting your traditional clients and no overhead. Without even needing inside information, it is quite evident that this model is not very lucrative. Yet. But it is another very good example of how modern photo agencies need to break out of the traditional licensing model and aggressively seek new revenue streams. We had touched on that topic here.

The days of quietly waiting at a desk for someone to call seeking for an image that you might or not have are over. Gone. Finished. Someone has gotten to them faster, sooner and probably cheaper. Nothing personal, they needed to, in order to survive. They made the mistake of entering this business because it was cheap and looked really easy. Now they are stuck in it. And you are stuck with them.

So, instead of waiting for the good old days to come back, ( which they will not because they never existed), or Getty to call and offer a few hundreds of millions for you archive ( they will not, they have what they need right now), or just some incredible lucky break ( better play the Lotto..), it is time to look for those collateral revenues that might just end up being your main revenue.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, technology, commercial stock, license, finance, getty, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | No Comments »