[STOCKPHOTO] Five contributions to decline of stock
Kathryn Wagner
what does everyone think of exerpts from this article? It's full
version is currently on PDNonline. In you current experience do you
find this to be true? I am wondering if all these doomsday
propositons are just the results of a downturn in the market.
Kathryn Wagner
klwphoria@yahoo.com
1. The decline of print media.
Many newspapers and magazines have reported steep circulation drops.
The market for print encyclopedias is all but dead, and it's a safe
guess that many textbooks will eventually shift to a digital form.
To stay alive, media companies and advertisers are looking toward the
Internet, which is gradually replacing ink and paper. Internet ad
spending was up an impressive 23.3 percent in 2005, according to a
Nielsen Monitor-Plus report, outpacing all other forms of advertising
measured in the study.
It's hard to spin this into a positive outlook for stock photography,
at least in the short term.
For now, web site advertising has no room for bold, high-resolution
imagery. Google AdWords, the breakthrough service that has become one
of the most popular ways to advertise online, features no artwork at all.
Another growing area is online video, which is not a major market for
stock photography. The emerging mobile device market also doesn't hold
much promise for big photo buys. (Ever been impressed by a photo on a
cell phone? Neither have we.)
Editorial and informational web sites do buy stock photography, but
they generally run it small and pay less for it.
It is unfortunate that the shift toward digital media is also a shift
away from expensive, high-quality images, but it is the reality. Getty
Images recently blamed the transition to digital platforms, among
other factors, for its declining stock imagery sales volumes.
The softening demand for photos looks even worse when you consider our
next threat.
2. An oversupply of stock photography.
It is fun to take pictures. In the past, it took expertise, talent,
commitment as well as money to do photography right. But now that last
barrier has fallen.
Cameras have gotten fantastically better and cheaper in the last
decade. And digital workflow makes it possible to process and
distribute photos on an inexpensive home computer. With such a low
level of investment required, amateurs who submit their snaps to a
stock photo site risk nothing, except perhaps a bruised ego if their
images are rejected.
The result is an explosion in the quantity of available photographs.
It's a boom time for micropayment sites like iStockPhoto and
Shutterstock, which get their images from tens of thousands of
semi-professionals and amateurs.
Alamy, the stock photo site that lets its members submit practically
any image they choose, claims to be adding 200,000 images a month.
That's one new image every 13 seconds. Need a photo of a balloon?
Jupiterimages has 2,500 from which to choose.
A large supply drives prices down, which brings us to our next threat.
3. Super-cheap images.
One of the great mysteries of advertising right now is why anyone is
paying large sums of money for generic, unimaginative stock images
when so many micropayment sites are now offering them for as little as $1.
We recently heard the head of a big stock photo agency (OK, it was
Steve Pigeon of Masterfile) speak at a panel discussion at the
PhotoPlus Expo. He said his agency still sells plenty of old-school
stock photos for tens of thousands of dollars a pop – even on a
non-exclusive basis. Images of a jar of pennies and frost on a window,
for instance, are big sellers for Masterfile.
We think ad agencies will only be able to bill for this expense until
word gets around that there's a cheaper way.
At iStockPhoto, a search for "window frost" turns up 208 images, many
of them excellent, all available for high-resolution, royalty-free use
for $5. At these prices, iStock and other micropayment sites are
poised to undercut anyone else who is selling bread-and-butter images
of light bulbs, piggy banks and businesspeople shaking hands.
Of course, expense line items die hard. There is also the overwhelming
sentiment that expensive photos are of better quality and have been
more carefully vetted for model releases or other legal concerns.
The early numbers, however, speak for themselves. Over the last year,
micropayment stock sites have grown rapidly, while traditional stock
photo sales, as noted by the few companies that report their sales
figures, are stuck in the doldrums. Seeing the writing on the wall,
both Getty and Jupitermedia invested in micropayment sites this year.
4. Google Images, Flickr, and user-generated content.
Even if the major stock agencies and micropayment sites all let you
down, there's one more chance to find that perfect picture: Google Images.
We've seen no hard data on this, but anecdotally, we know some art
buyers use Google Images to search for obscure or hard-to-find images
on the web. At a stock photo conference earlier this year, we heard a
photo editor for a news web site describe how he used Google to find a
photo of a labradoodle, a trendy breed of dog that the major stock
agencies hadn't added to their collections yet. The editor contacted
the owner of a labradoodle web site and negotiated to buy the image
rights directly.
For an art buyer, this is a sensible and fair business move. For
people who make a living selling photographs, it should set off alarm
bells.
Another potential threat to stock agencies is consumer-focused photo
sharing sites, including the Yahoo!-owned juggernaut Flickr. Flickr
members have the option to tag their images as free for commercial
use, and many do, apparently for the good feeling that comes from
knowing their pictures may be useful to someone.
We have been carefully watching Flickr and have yet to notice a case
where a free Flickr image saw the light of day in a major ad campaign.
Still, it may be just a matter of time, especially given the
trendy-ness of "user generated content."
5. Customer and contributor confusion.
If you're in the picture business, you probably already know what the
phrases "royalty free" and "rights managed" mean. You might even be
familiar with Getty's "rights ready" pricing, know what you can and
cannot do with an image purchased on a subscription site, and
understand the different ways an image can be licensed on an exclusive
basis.
But for new customers and new photographers, stock photography is a
confusing muddle. Even though Getty, Corbis and Jupiterimages market
themselves as cohesive brands, they are actually made up of dozens of
smaller image libraries that each have their own pricing schemes.
A simple question – How much will it cost to license this picture for
this use? – often leads to a complicated tree of conditions and
hypotheticals. Customers will put up with only so much jargon before
they look for a simpler solution – say, a micropayment site.
Meanwhile, photographers feel disenfranchised when stock agencies
treat search engines and sales trends as trade secrets. Increasingly
skeptical contributors just have to trust their agencies to properly
edit and market their images.
Stock photo companies are now banking on their web sites to get the
right images in front of the right buyers. Getty, in particular, has
invested a great deal of time and money in its upcoming web relaunch,
and recently named a new senior vice president for "customer experience."
A brilliant new web platform could solve many of the problems facing
stock customers and photographers. But a bad misstep could drive even
more customers away, and even the best web site won't stop the tide of
cheap imagery that's flooding the
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Fred
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Wagner" <klwphoria@...>
wrote:
>
> what does everyone think of exerpts from this article? It's full
> version is currently on PDNonline. In you current experience do you
> find this to be true?
I do and I find all of this quite obvious, as do most thinking,
reasoning people.
The shocker is that some refuse to accept these changes and even try
to blame the changes on those who take advantage of new technologies
and methods.
Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it and one only
has to look at the publishing industry in the past few decades to see
what's going to happen: technology will democratize our industry,
ushering in an era of "creative distruction" and then we will see a
settling period as the dust settles.
IMO, we are in the middle of the creative destruction period right
now and anyone who isn't making adjustments to deal with the changes
had better be brushing up on their burger-flipping skills because
only the strong will survive.
At the very least every photographer should be implementing a
keywording system that will allow data and images to be easily
redirected as needed. Most are not doing that from what I see. A
minority of photographers are actually keywording their images prior
to uploading.
Use of the Internet is vital for anyone marketing images. With one
little change Google could totally alter the landscape of stock
imagery and only a tiny percentage of stock sellers are prepared for
this.
In truth there are only 2 main contributors to the "decline" of
stock: digital cameras and the Internet. All other factors are
superfluous and are only a distraction from dealing with the real
issues that are altering our industry.
But that's just my opinion.
Fred Voetsch
ACCLAIM STOCK PHOTOGRAPHY
http://www.acclaimimages.com/
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Ian Murray
> In truth there are only 2 main contributors to the "decline" of
> stock: digital cameras and the Internet. All other factors are
> superfluous and are only a distraction from dealing with the real
> issues that are altering our industry.
>
> But that's just my opinion.
>
> Fred Voetsch
> ACCLAIM STOCK PHOTOGRAPHY
> http://www.acclaimimages.com/
Hi Fred,
I enjoyed reading your post and agree with most of it. In the
section above that I cut you are referring to supply and
distribution but I don't agree that they are the only factors. Using
the retail analogy in our daily lives we have seen a shift from
local to global in a relatively short number of years. But at the
local scale businesses prosper through offering specialisms and
services that the global giants don't and, more importantly, simply
can't. We have been going through a 'concentration of capital'
phase in stock photography (excuse the Marxist terminology). The
other side of this is almost palpable. I'd suggest it will bring the
resurgence of specialist suppliers offering service, knowledge and a
quality buying experience and product. The image superstores will
have 30 million images of everything, but the resurgent specialist
agency on Trees, Portugal, Cats, Cars, Cornwall, Jazz Music, Trains,
Flowers, etc will thrive because they will know their stuff, edit,
be trustworthy and reliable. They will also be RM only.
Regards,
Ian Murray
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Bobbi Chukran
> The image superstores will
>have 30 million images of everything, but the resurgent specialist
>agency on Trees, Portugal, Cats, Cars, Cornwall, Jazz Music, Trains,
>Flowers, etc will thrive because they will know their stuff, edit,
>be trustworthy and reliable. They will also be RM only.
>
Hi Ian,
As a photographer who wants to eventually build up to specializing in
a topic, how many photos would you say it would take to actually get
the attention of a buyer? Assuming I don't have photos of rare and
endangered whatevers...thousands? hundreds?
thanks....
bobbi c.
http://www.bobbichukran.com
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Ian Murray
Hi Bobbi,
I didn't mean to sound as though I was knowledgeable. I'm certainly
not and am myself just finding my way through this rather bizarre
stock photography industry.
I'm just trying to think what might happen in the future given a
gazillion more images available and immediate global supply at the
click of a mouse.
In my local small town there was enormous concern when the new out of
town store was going to be built that all the small local family
businesses would die. But ten years after the high street is full of
many of the same shops as well as new specialist ones. I do a lot of
my general shopping at the superstore but also use the specialist book
shops, delis, wine shops, opticians, etc - they have a better choice,
knowledgable staff. I enjoy using them and supporting them even though
the prices are often a bit higher. If I just want a few things I avoid
the huge store because it is too big and it takes too much time to
find everything, even the staff struggle to know what they have in
stock and where it is in the building. Asking them for advice about
which brand is best is a waste of time because they simply don't know
enough.
I think, though this is purely my opinion, that in the future we will
want things at a human scale more and that small specialist stock
agencies will undergo a resurgence. As a photographer I would expect
to place all my images with the huge image superstores and then send
selections to specialist non exclusive agencies. The specialists will
edit tightly and be much more fussy over captioning and other
standards because they will be offering a value added service to their
customers. They will tend to stick out for higher prices.
But if you ask me for details then I'm sorry I haven't a clue and need
to add the proviso that I could be completely wrong!
Regards,
Ian Murray
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> As a photographer who wants to eventually build up to specializing
in
> a topic, how many photos would you say it would take to actually get
> the attention of a buyer? Assuming I don't have photos of rare and
> endangered whatevers...thousands? hundreds?
>
> thanks....
>
> bobbi c.
> http://www.bobbichukran.com
>
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
John Fowler
> As a photographer who wants to eventually build up to specializing in
> a topic, how many photos would you say it would take to actually get
> the attention of a buyer?
How do you eat an elephant?
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Bobbi Chukran
> > As a photographer who wants to eventually build up to specializing in
>> a topic, how many photos would you say it would take to actually get
>> the attention of a buyer?
>
How do you eat an elephant?>
LOL. That's one of my favorite mottoes...and how I do most
everything....one bite at a time.
bobbi c.
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Bobbi Chukran
Hi Ian,
>I didn't mean to sound as though I was knowledgeable. I'm certainly
>not and am myself just finding my way through this rather bizarre
>stock photography industry. >
Oh, I didn't think that! I'm new at this, too, and am stumbling
through, trying to learn.
>I'm just trying to think what might happen in the future given a
>gazillion more images available and immediate global supply at the
>click of a mouse. >
Right, that bothers me, too. And other stock experts say the same
thing as you do....that specializing is the only way to go,
especially these days.
>I think, though this is purely my opinion, that in the future we will
>want things at a human scale more and that small specialist stock
>agencies will undergo a resurgence.>
I definitely agree. I also live in a small town, and the same thing
has happened around here with the smaller shops, restaurants, etc.
>But if you ask me for details then I'm sorry I haven't a clue and need
>to add the proviso that I could be completely wrong!
>
I guess it depends on what your specialty is as far as how many
images are really needed. If you have something truly unique, then
you'd probably need less images.
regards,
bobbi c.
http://www.bobbichukran.com
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
John Blair
On Nov 11, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Bobbi Chukran wrote:
> As a photographer who wants to eventually build up to specializing in
> a topic, how many photos would you say it would take to actually get
> the attention of a buyer? Assuming I don't have photos of rare and
> endangered whatevers...thousands? hundreds?
Bobbi,
In my opinion, you will need to have a fairly good-sized (generally
in the thousands in a specialty) collection since you specified that
you do not have rare photographs. You will also have to have a
specialty (or specialties) that are in enough of a demand or broad
enough so that it is worthwhile for you to pursue it.
John
---
John G. Blair Studio
Occidental, California
(about an hour north of the Bay Area)
http://www.jgblairphoto.com - general photography
http://www.johngblairstudio.com - commercial and stock photography
http://www.johngblair.com - author website
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Stanley Rowin
A couple of months ago I gave a talk to the ASMP DC Chapter on the state of the industry.
Most of the points in this article I touched on, but the people who asked me to speak gave
me the task of not having it just be a "downer." They asked me to come up with solutions.
I tried to. I used positive examples from the current economic theories detailed in books
like "The World is Flat" and "The Long Tail" and by expanding on terms like "crowd-
sourcing."
One of the positive (and simultaneously negative) aspects of the new technological and
market driven changes is the great leveler known as Google. Give them a few years and
Google can make the 20th Century stock portals like Getty and Corbis irrelevant, while
allowing smart entrepreneurial stock shooters to license their images directly, with no
commission, through Google.
"The truth is, what Google is doing now is transferring the wealth out of the hands of
rights holders into Google," Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft said recently.
When even Microsoft is scared, it's time for all of us to take a step back to determine if we
can exploit the new tools of the 21st Century, or if they will be the final nail in the photo
stock industry coffin.
It's time to start thinking out of the box.
Stan Rowin
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Ian Murray
Give them a few years and
> Google can make the 20th Century stock portals like Getty and
Corbis irrelevant, while
> allowing smart entrepreneurial stock shooters to license their
images directly, with no
> commission, through Google.
> Stan Rowin
Dear Stan,
I wonder if there is any way that the shape that this could take -
and I agre that it is a strong possibility given Google's history -
can be influenced by 'smart entrepreneurial stock shooters' and
their organisations at this stage? For example, with way to add
rights useage and exclusions.
How do Goggle make money from this?
Regards,
Ian Murray
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
CHIPSTEAK
I too am new to this stock photography world. I also live in a small
town. No, you don't understand, it's a SMALL town of 2,500 people. I
don't have any exposure to stock photography. If we even were to have
a theater Love Story would be showing. The WELCOME TO and the YOU ARE
LEAVING signs are back-to-back on the same pole. Where can I go to
sit down and talk with someone familiar with the business who is
willing to give up a few of the ins and outs? I would HAVE TO
specialize in something. There aren't enough things around here to
diversify. I'm in the middle of the dead and dying Anthracite Coal
area. Can someone give me some advice?
Chip Blair
>
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
David Kilpatrick
CHIPSTEAK wrote:
>
>
>I too am new to this stock photography world. I also live in a small
>town. No, you don't understand, it's a SMALL town of 2,500 people. I
>don't have any exposure to stock photography. If we even were to have
>a theater Love Story would be showing. The WELCOME TO and the YOU ARE
>LEAVING signs are back-to-back on the same pole. Where can I go to
>sit down and talk with someone familiar with the business who is
>willing to give up a few of the ins and outs? I would HAVE TO
>specialize in something. There aren't enough things around here to
>diversify. I'm in the middle of the dead and dying Anthracite Coal
>area. Can someone give me some advice?
>
>Chip Blair
>
>
>
>
>
>
Chip, in the 1980s (a different world, gone) I had a studio in a dead or
dying town of 2,500 people in a part of the British coalfields now
effectively closed. It had no services, really, just one former good
hotel because it was on a main north-south highway. We successfully
marketed studio advertising photography from myself and from employed
photographers - normally just one photographer working for me at any
time - to clients across the UK, charging more than local photographers,
but less than London. The location was seen as the reason we were
cheaper than London. A lot of photographers did the same thing and we
eventually sold the studio to a London photographer moving 150 miles out
of town.
I spent very little time there, most of it travelling or on assignment
while our studio photographer did the catalogues, food, engineering,
wallpapers, mirrors, paintings, bricks and all sorts of other stuff we
photographed. I always made sure I was the one going 200 miles to shoot
the exterior of a building while our staff photographer shot the panels
with paint samples and the cans of the product. I also got plenty of
library pix en route to assignments, and when travelling on holiday or
to shoot new pix for publishing projects. Three different photo
libraries made the trip to see US in those days, going through the files
and selecting images. One reason they were interested circa 1983 was
that I shot travel and scenic using 6 x 6cm, 6 x 7cm and 6 x 9cm with
good modern equipment (Hasselblad SWC-M, Plaubel Makina 67W, Pentax 6x7
etc) and Fuji film. All the libraries were full of Ektachrome and
Kodachrome, which looked dated and dull. They were desperate for Fuji
originals, which look much better on a lightbox - and they wanted
rollfilm not 35mm. We also had state-of-the-art flash, pyrex dome tube
Multiblitz with continuously variable power and 650w halogen modelling.
Compared to other studios, ours was like walking into a film set for the
brightness of the lighting just from the modelling lamps. That plus new,
clean camera gear and Fujichrome enabled us to grab large contracts off
long-established studios who had old Bowens flash, old Sinars with
barely-coated lenses, lousy in-house E6 processing with poor chemicals,
and never looked beyond Ektachrome 64.
Today... sh*t, you can't tell the difference between a 10 megapixel
point and shoot and a £25,000 MF-DSLR back once reduced to a thumbnail.
Just exactly how you drive a wedge between your own work and the rest of
the world, except by remarkable subject matter, I have no idea. I
succeeded for almost three decades by using technical superiority;
editorial work in the 1970s with hand-made b/w prints that blew away the
typical press print; then on to colour commercial work using new types
of film and lighting, updated camera gear with better lens coatings and
flare suppression, and immaculate presentation - special black card
masks (actually, we used a type of black plastic mask which look a
thousand per cent more classy), display cabinets, lightbox briefcase
with sheets of custom presented portfolio work. 1984, first Mac
installation in the UY with a laserwriter. Then around 1990, already
switching to digital capture (Logitek and Canon), own scanners, own
imagesetting, own colour proofing - 1995 own websites etc. £50,000
investments at 5-years intervals from 1980 to 1995, roughly. 1980
cameras and lighting; 1984 graphic computer systems; 1989 imagesetting
and colour scanning; 1994 major websites.
By 1999 it had all begun to change. In 2006, I know that what I actually
need is a warehouse sized studio with 30 kilowatts of continuous
daylight quality lighting and a cove large enough to drive a truck into,
plus a 39 megapixel Hasselblad H3D system, full digital/proof backup,
and a location anywhere except in the Scottish countryside (which is
where we are now). I could go out and buy exactly that tomorrow, but
what's the point? In five years' time half of it would be worth nothing,
and the building would have cost me as much in local taxes (rates) as
its original cost over again. I would have to work myself to death
hunting down clients to keep it busy, and any stock shoot tackled would
be just as likely to yield images selling for $50 a throw as $5000 a
throw. The only time anyone could tell the quality difference, unlike
the days when just placing a sheet of Fujichromes in black mounts in
front of them did the job, would be at pixel-peeping 100 per cent level
using a screen twenty feet wide which doesn't exist...
Maybe an amazing website is the answer, the quality difference. Maybe
HDR processing and unique colours and feel to images. Maybe some
exceptional slant on subjects. Perhaps replacing white backgrounds with
intense primary colours for thousands of 'simple object' shots?
I suspect the answer is HDTV movie clips (that's why I put 'continuous'
lighting in the para above). Five years from now, the market will not be
still images. The web medium will use image windows which show short
movie clips when mouseovered or mousedowned, a step beyond animated gifs
of the past, and not necessarily always like Java sites of today. The
stock shot will be 50-100mb still image file behind which hides a hi-res
10 second movie. You'll go on to a stock website, and there will be an
icon under the image on the lightbox which tells you this shot is also
downloadable as an HDTV clip.
I won't be shooting them. I'll probably be writing about them. But will
you be shooting them, and more important, will you start doing it now?
Because I switched to shooting Fujichrome in 1980, my shots from 25
years can be scanned now and look like modern shots. I hate it when I
find the occasional good Kodachrome or Ektachrome shoot from the past,
especially in 35mm form. They just look dated. But the E6 Fujis,
especially in rollfilm, scan so well that if the pic is timeless they
could have been shot yesterday. In ten years, most of today's digital
captures will look just as dated. The image colour and contrast palette
will have changed, as HDTV influences our tastes over time and the
printed media continue to develop. Only the very best of today's digital
images will continue to look up to date.
What do you switch to? H3D? Ensuring you use Capture One Pro and a
custom generated camera ICC profile for every conversion from raw?
Storing source files in a wide gamut RGB? Archiving them as 16-bit
because one day soon clients will start wanting 16-bit? Shooting HDTV
clips alongside your still work for every shot?
In the 1980s, I would invest the price of a small house in new
technology or production gear and then do it again a few years on,
because even for a provincial UK photographer, the rewards were six
times the national average earnings and a single stock image sale could
easily match the entire annual wages for a YTS (Youth Trainee Scheme)
junior.
I have to keep asking myself - what would persuade me to make the same
investment now? How would I secure £200-300,000 a year salary which
would put me back in relative terms where I was then? Actually, I try to
avoid asking myself, because the answers are either so challenging or so
depressing it's easier to move on to other things, like a quiet life...
David
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Stanley Rowin
"Ian Murray" wrote:
> How do Goggle make money from this?
Google will make money from this by selling advertising on the page relevant to the search
words, just as they do now.
The key is for smart photographers to optimize for more photo buyers using Google to look
for images than Getty. Unfortunately the fees will probably never return to where they were.
And if you see about what's being planned for "Web 3.0" (yes they are already planning 3,
before 2 even arrives) you see that there will even be life after Google's search technology
matures and fades away.
Stan Rowin
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Fred
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, "Stanley Rowin" <slr@...> wrote:
>
> "Ian Murray" wrote:
> > How do Goggle make money from this?
Providing information is how you make money these days and Google is
great at that. They follow a simple formula: provide the best content
for free and then allow people to buy ads outside of that free content.
They never sell listings inside the free content and they take great
pains to make sure that nobody can manipulate the listings beyond
providing good content that the rest of the world finds of interest.
The way to take advantage of this for an individual is to have a nice
web site that has your own unique content. That means images and text.
Each image should be caprioned and keyworded with great attention to
detail because once that info is on the site it can be pulling in
traffic for years or even decades.
The next step is to constantly market your site by networking with
others' in your community. Links in are the key but you should always
assume that Google is smart enough to see beyond closed linking
strategies.
If you want to see what is possible in web marketing for the stock
photography industry watch the site I have posted in my SIG below. It
has been sitting for years now with little traffic because I was
concentrating on other things. Within a few months it will have tens of
thousands of visitors a day and top listings in Google for various
stock photography topics.
Fred Voetsch
Stock Photography
http://www.picturesof.net/
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Joseph Pobereskin
Google? Did somebody say Google??
http://tinyurl.com/ymm74o
--
Joseph Pobereskin
joseph@pobereskin.com
+1 (973) 762-1943
"Eat At Joe's"
http://cafejoetogo.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------
Why do I need T.V. when I've got T-Rex?
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Ernest H. Robl
At 11:34 PM 11/12/06 -0000, Chip Blair wrote:
>
>I too am new to this stock photography world. I also live in a small
>town. No, you don't understand, it's a SMALL town of 2,500 people. I
>don't have any exposure to stock photography. If we even were to have
>a theater Love Story would be showing. The WELCOME TO and the YOU ARE
>LEAVING signs are back-to-back on the same pole. Where can I go to
>sit down and talk with someone familiar with the business who is
>willing to give up a few of the ins and outs? I would HAVE TO
>specialize in something. There aren't enough things around here to
>diversify. I'm in the middle of the dead and dying Anthracite Coal
>area. Can someone give me some advice?
Probably the most difficult thing to understand about stock is
that there is not one single stock photography reality that
works the same for everyone. Much depends on your
interests, your photographic talents, your style of shooting,
access to subject matter, and your business skills. And,
there's luck involved, too.
There may not be a single topic in which to specialize, but
rather a series of overlapping ones.
Small-town life: try to find iconic images of what makes a
small town different from a big city. (One advantage
of a small town may be that people may be more
willing to sign releases if you know them.)
America's dwindling industrial jobs/industries: Padlocked
gates at industries or mines; signs declaring that a
business is closed; rusting equipment and crumbling
factory buildings, etc.
How far are you willing to travel and how much are you willing
to invest in stock shoots? Are you planning to work through
an agency or do you want to market stock images yourself?
Are you interested in photojournalism? Are you willing to
write text to go with your images (or to work with someone
who does)?
More questions than answers, but if you ask yourself these
questions, maybe they will help you find some answers.
These days, much of my use of stock images is to illustrate
articles that I write for magazines, though I still license
individual images, too.
I have both geographic and subject specialties, with the
latter focusing on transportation. Am I a good person to
give business advice? Probably not.
-- Ernest
--
Ernest H. Robl, Durham,NC,USA Stock photos; photojournalism; writing
Specializing in transportation and travel subjects for more than 35 years.
mailto:ehr@mindspring.com Phone +1 (919) 401-9480 Fax 402-0721
Web site: http://www.robl.w1.com "I'd rather be on the train."
Intermodal Container FAQ: http://www.robl.w1.com/Transport/intermod.htm
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
palisander007
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Wagner" <klwphoria@...> wrote:
>
> what does everyone think of exerpts from this article? It's full
> version is currently on PDNonline. In you current experience do you
> find this to be true? I am wondering if all these doomsday
> propositons are just the results of a downturn in the market.
> Kathryn Wagner
> klwphoria@...
>
The mentioned PDN article gives a good framework for thinking about
the future. Still the current discussion among photographers seems to
be on a surprisingly low level.
Photographers talk a lot about today but no one seems to be willing to
discuss how the world might look in some years. Everyone loves to
fight about the differences between RM, RF and Microstock but very few
people seem to accept that the fundamental changes will be very
similar whatever business model you have choosen personally.
For agencies it seems to be pretty obvious how to adapt to the
changing landscape: Attract as much talented contributors as possible
and build distribution networks that are profitable independently from
how much you charge your customers or how much your contributors earn.
Look at istockphoto.com or at alamy.com for seeing what I mean.
But what is about us, the photographers? Is it really enough to accept
that the market is in a changing process, make some smart business
adjustments and after that we are fine? I'm afraid this will not be
enough for most of us to survive. My personal guesstimate is that 60
percent of todays photographers will not be in business in 2010.
John Heymann
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Bobbi Chukran
> In my opinion, you will need to have a fairly good-sized (generally
>in the thousands in a specialty) collection since you specified that
>you do not have rare photographs. You will also have to have a
>specialty (or specialties) that are in enough of a demand or broad
>enough so that it is worthwhile for you to pursue it.
>
Thanks, John....that's what I figured.
I just *wish* I had a bunch of rare photos, that would be nice.....
bobbi c.
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Stockphoto Seller
Neither iStockphoto nor Alamy is an agency. Photographers are confused enough. No need to confuse them further by mixing busines models.
Carl May/BPS
palisander007 <palisander@gmx.net> wrote:
....
For agencies it seems to be pretty obvious how to adapt to the
changing landscape: Attract as much talented contributors as possible
and build distribution networks that are profitable independently from
how much you charge your customers or how much your contributors earn.
Look at istockphoto.com or at alamy.com for seeing what I mean.
....
Recent Activity
19
New Members
Visit Your Group
New Message Search
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
Share feedback on the new changes to Groups
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Ian Murray
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@...>
wrote:
>
> Neither iStockphoto nor Alamy is an agency. Photographers are
confused enough. No need to confuse them further by mixing busines
models.
>
> Carl May/BPS
Dear Carl,
I agree that neither iStock or Alamy are an agency but both share the
strategy of spreading the butter more and more thinly. A strategy that
Getty has perhaps decided to follow through its new photography
placement scheme?
Regards,
Ian Murray
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Rubens Abboud
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Murray" <idmurray@...> wrote:
>
> --- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Neither iStockphoto nor Alamy is an agency. Photographers are
> confused enough. No need to confuse them further by mixing busines
> models.
> >
> > Carl May/BPS
>
> Dear Carl,
>
> I agree that neither iStock or Alamy are an agency but both share
the
> strategy of spreading the butter more and more thinly. A strategy
that
> Getty has perhaps decided to follow through its new photography
> placement scheme?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian Murray
I see no commonality between Alamy and the other two at all.
Alamy has grown successful by:
1. returning the lion's share of commissions to the photographer;
2. listenning and responding to their contributor's concerns with
respect;
3. offering ALL photographers who can meet a minimum set of technical
criteria the opportunity to participate in a growing market;
4. allowing each contributor to edit their own collections; and
5. offering ALL photographers a non-exclusive contract.
Furthermore, I don't know if I need to point out that when Alamy did
charge contributors a per-image storage fee:
1. this fee was $1.20/year (vs. $50/year for Getty);
2. Alamy returned an even GREATER percentage of royalties to the
contributor, not the other way around (Alamy Green = 75% vs. Getty
Open = 30%); and
3. the plan was optional: contributors always had the choice of using
Alamy Blue to distribute images and pay nothing per image and still
get the highest royalty in the business: 65%
These three distributors cannot be called "agencies" in the strictest
sense of the term, but in my book only one can be called a fair
photographer's partner.
The way I see it, the only butter being spread more and more thinly
is the one over the bread of a Getty photographer.
Best regards,
Rubens.
http://www.TheImageNation.com
Travel stock photography
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Ian Murray
Hi Rubens,
I don't know about you but when I look at three years worth of sales
at Alamy the actual split is very close to 50-50 after all the
various deductions. Of course 50% and no storage fees is favourable
compared with Getty asking $25 a year and 30%. The one missing thing
from that sum is total sales!
I remain a great fan of the Alamy model. I'd suppose that the number
of pictures (from a greater number of Alamy contributors) is growing
faster than sales so to that extent the 'butter' gets spread
further. This is simply a coment not a criticism. Alamy's business
is based on more images, from more and more sources, rather than has
been the closed door policy of the picture sellers ( agencies?).
Getty have now opened the door slightly. $25 a year ( £12.50 for the
first ten) doesn't look that bad a prospect given Getty's record.
But then established Getty shooters will talk of dilution and
falling sales...
Regards,
ian murray
>
> I see no commonality between Alamy and the other two at all.
>
> Alamy has grown successful by:
> 1. this fee was $1.20/year (vs. $50/year for Getty);
> 2. Alamy returned an even GREATER percentage of royalties to the
> contributor, not the other way around (Alamy Green = 75% vs. Getty
> Open = 30%); and
> 3. the plan was optional: contributors always had the choice of
using
> Alamy Blue to distribute images and pay nothing per image and
still
> get the highest royalty in the business: 65%
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Singh, Shangara
On 15 Nov 2006, at 11:53, Rubens Abboud wrote:
> These three distributors cannot be called "agencies" in the strictest
> sense of the term, but in my book only one can be called a fair
> photographer's partner.
Rubens
I've had agents and have an agent now. Alamy do what agents to: find
you a gig, negotiate a fee, negotiate a contract and take a
percentage of the fee. Since Alamy do all of these things, in my
book, Alamy is an agency.
It's true Alamy don't find a gig for all the photographers they
"represent" but they do for a considerable number and, AFAIK, do not
charge extra.
Shangara Singh.
Author & Photographer
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Hacking Photoshop CS2 http://www.shangarasingh.co.uk
Stock Photography http://www.mpxstockimages.co.uk
Examaids for Adobe-Macromedia http://www.examaids.com
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Bobbi Chukran
>--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> Neither iStockphoto nor Alamy is an agency. Photographers are
>confused enough. No need to confuse them further by mixing busines
>models.
>
Hi Carl,
I thought they were agencies, but then again, I'm new to a lot of the
stock business.
Curious.....what ARE some of the agencies, then?
thanks.
bobbi c.
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Peter Bennett
Ian,
Getty will be charging $50 per image, but offer a discount of $250 for the
first 10 images, also the maximum number of images you can submit a quarter.
I believe the commission they take is 60-70% of the sale.
Although a part of me is intrigued by the prospect of having images
available on Getty, I believe that is exactly what they are banking on. It
becomes a money making machine for them with the photographers absorbing all
the cost and the risks.
I'd rather support and seek out business models that empower photographers,
not ones that turn them into revenue streams.
Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640
Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
>
> From: "Ian Murray" <idmurray@totalise.co.uk>
>
>
> Hi Rubens,
> I don't know about you but when I look at three years worth of sales
> at Alamy the actual split is very close to 50-50 after all the
> various deductions. Of course 50% and no storage fees is favourable
> compared with Getty asking $25 a year and 30%. The one missing thing
> from that sum is total sales!
>
> I remain a great fan of the Alamy model. I'd suppose that the number
> of pictures (from a greater number of Alamy contributors) is growing
> faster than sales so to that extent the 'butter' gets spread
> further. This is simply a coment not a criticism. Alamy's business
> is based on more images, from more and more sources, rather than has
> been the closed door policy of the picture sellers ( agencies?).
> Getty have now opened the door slightly. $25 a year ( £12.50 for the
> first ten) doesn't look that bad a prospect given Getty's record.
> But then established Getty shooters will talk of dilution and
> falling sales...
>
> Regards,
>
> ian murray
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Rubens Abboud
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Murray" <idmurray@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Rubens,
> I don't know about you but when I look at three years worth of
sales
> at Alamy the actual split is very close to 50-50 after all the
> various deductions. Of course 50% and no storage fees is favourable
> compared with Getty asking $25 a year and 30%. The one missing
thing
> from that sum is total sales!
Ian,
2.5 years = 60%/40% split in my favour. Only charge I am aware of is
$8 for issuing cheque. Lower than 65% royalty is due to blended
higher commissions (55% vs. 35%) for distributor sales.
With all due respect, Ian, justifying Getty's $50/image fee + 30
cents on the dollar royalty by factoring in "total sales" is not any
different to me than someone justifying earning 20 cents on the
dollar on the micros and making it up in "volume".
> Getty have now opened the door slightly. $25 a year ( £12.50 for
the
> first ten) doesn't look that bad a prospect given Getty's record.
Again, I am sorry but I simply do not understand this comment. How
is Getty's offer to photographers any better than, say, iStockphoto's?
Best regards,
Rubens.
http://www.TheImageNation.com
Travel stock photography
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Rubens Abboud
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, "Singh, Shangara" <forum_talk@...>
wrote:
>
> On 15 Nov 2006, at 11:53, Rubens Abboud wrote:
>
> > These three distributors cannot be called "agencies" in the
strictest
> > sense of the term, but in my book only one can be called a fair
> > photographer's partner.
>
> Rubens
>
> I've had agents and have an agent now. Alamy do what agents to:
find
> you a gig, negotiate a fee, negotiate a contract and take a
> percentage of the fee. Since Alamy do all of these things, in my
> book, Alamy is an agency.
>
> It's true Alamy don't find a gig for all the photographers they
> "represent" but they do for a considerable number and, AFAIK, do
not
> charge extra.
>
> Shangara Singh.
Shangara,
My understanding of the term "agent" is that it involves a much
narrower, closer and personal relationship with the photographer than
Alamy aims and claims to offer (they refer to themselves as
a "portal").
Analogy:
Alamy, Getty and iStockphoto: like large image shopping malls in
which each photographer has the opportunity to sell to shoppers who
come to the mall.
An agent: akin to having a personal sales rep who will get on the
phone to market to a targeted clientele, and open up opportunities
matching a photographer's specific talents.
The added value is very different for each relationship and,
consequently, the commission split should be too.
Best regards,
Rubens.
http://www.TheImageNation.com
Travel stock photography
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Stockphoto Seller
Everything at a corporate conglomerate like Getty is about short-term "revenue," the kind that impresses and provides return on investment to shareholders. They don't care where it comes from--the photo sources on the supply side or the photo users on the sales side. Preferably both if you are their kind of company.
When I was younger and living in a rural area, I had an idea for a business that paid coming and going. It was in weathered wood. The notion was to get paid by farmers and ranchers for tearing down and removing their old barns and outbuildings, then, after the wood was fumigated and cleaned up a bit, selling everything from the beams to the siding into the weathered wood market that was all the rage at the time. (Started dabbling in income property instead, but others eventually came up with the same idea and worked it for a while.) It's basically the same deal Getty has come up with for (sucker) photographers, getting paid for taking on the images, incorporating them into a part of their dominating system, then getting paid again when clients license the images.
Oh yeah, "agency." An agency *represents* a photographer's images, actively seeking out uses for them. A portal like Alamy differs in that it simply displays what it has in its collection to clients; and for any given photographer this means, essentially, having their images thrown up along with unwashed masses of others among the millions of pictures at Alamy that fit someone's search criteria. By not having the overhead that comes with organizing and promoting each photographer's images, a portal can, theoretically, pass on a larger portion of permission fees to photographers.
Carl May
Peter Bennett <pb@ambientimages.com> wrote:
....
I'd rather support and seek out business models that empower photographers,
not ones that turn them into revenue streams.
....
Recent Activity
18
New Members
Visit Your Group
New Message Search
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
Share feedback on the new changes to Groups
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
David Sanger
Stan.
Google is already very effective as a sales mechanism. I never thought it
would happen but I make regular large sales to art buyers who find me
through Google searches. And these aren't fly-by-night cheapies, but large
companies- Bloomingdales, Kodak, Paramount Pictures, Warner Brothers, Volvo.
Some are four-figure RM sales to boot.
Money spend understanding and investing in good search engine results
placement (SERP) is worthwhile if you can consummate the transaction with
hi-res download and online payment processing.
Alternatively you can direct the photo buyer to your distributor's website.
David Sanger
----------------------------------
David Sanger Photography
Travel assignments and stock worldwide
510-526-0800 voice
510-526-2800 fax
510-685-2512 mobile
david@davidsanger.com
http://www.davidsanger.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Ian Murray
Hi Rubens,
'Pay to play' is nothing new. As far as I know Getty have been
charging $75 for two years exposure under the Photographers Choice
scheme for several years. All that is new is that the door has
opened to previously non-Getty shooters. Whether this works out to
be a worthwhile investment for anyone I don't know - depends on the
images one submits as much as anything else I guess. But £6 ($12.50)
per image per year for the initial submission seems a rather better
deal to me that 20 cents per sale on iStock. If high percentages
rather than high sales turn you on try MyLoupe where you get 80% and
no storage fees. Or sell through your own website and keep 100%. To
me, if you don't interpret these percentage figures through the all
important ingredient of actual sales potential then you are missing
the point. But each to their own.
Regards,
Ian Murray
> With all due respect, Ian, justifying Getty's $50/image fee + 30
> cents on the dollar royalty by factoring in "total sales" is not
any
> different to me than someone justifying earning 20 cents on the
> dollar on the micros and making it up in "volume".
> Again, I am sorry but I simply do not understand this comment.
How
> is Getty's offer to photographers any better than, say,
iStockphoto's?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rubens.
> http://www.TheImageNation.com
> Travel stock photography
>
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Ian Murray
Dear Peter,
I totally agree. Now all we need is such a business model. Mira?
Picade? Please, a genuine please, point me towards such a thing. Does
it exist?
Regards,
Ian Murray
>
> I'd rather support and seek out business models that empower
photographers,
> not ones that turn them into revenue streams.
>
> Peter Bennett
> Ambient Images Inc.
> P: 310-312-6640
>
> Specializing in New York and California images
> http://www.californiastockphoto.com
> http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
>
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Rubens Abboud
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Murray" <idmurray@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Rubens,
>
> 'Pay to play' is nothing new. As far as I know Getty have been
> charging $75 for two years exposure under the Photographers Choice
> scheme for several years. All that is new is that the door has
> opened to previously non-Getty shooters. Whether this works out to
> be a worthwhile investment for anyone I don't know - depends on the
> images one submits as much as anything else I guess. But £6
($12.50)
> per image per year for the initial submission seems a rather better
> deal to me that 20 cents per sale on iStock. If high percentages
> rather than high sales turn you on try MyLoupe where you get 80%
and
> no storage fees. Or sell through your own website and keep 100%. To
> me, if you don't interpret these percentage figures through the all
> important ingredient of actual sales potential then you are missing
> the point. But each to their own.
>
> Regards,
> Ian Murray
Ian,
I suppose with all the rhetoric about how RF'ers and microstockers
are destroying the industry for their own selfish short-term gain, I
find it puzzling that you appear to have a much less principled view
of an enterprise that will be paying its contributors less than 30
cents on the dollar while using their 70%+ cut to subsidize:
1. production of wholly-owned content;
2. funding their ownership of the largest microstock portal; and
3. continuing to sell vast quantities of RF material themselves.
I evaluated RF and microstock models on their business merits and, of
course, considered gross sales as an important factor, if not THE
most important factor. I shall be evaluating Open similarly, but
then again stock was always about making rational business decisions
for me.
My surprise is in seeing principled individuals justify Open while
apparently disregarding the criteria they used to chastise others.
But you are right: each to their own.
Best regards,
Rubens.
http://www.TheImageNation.com
Travel stock photography
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Ian Murray
Hi Rubens,
The original thread was about the trend somebody recognised about
agencies/distributors ceasing to represent small groups of
photographers and 'spreading the butter' thinly. I added that this
strategy seemed to ring true for iStock, Alamy and now possibly for
Getty who had hitherto been more exclusive about who it distributed
for. The original point was that in this business model, as opposed
to traditional agnecies, the company does not need to safeguard
photographers' income in order to make a good profit.
Like it or not Getty dominates some 60-70% of the stock industry.
I'm not a Getty contributor so I suggest that you take your
complaints to those that are. I don't recall justifying anything
about Getty or specifically about Getty Open. But I do see that £6 a
year per image on Getty is a better bet than selling at 20 cents a
time on iStock. It might well be a better deal than selling for 65%
and no costs on Alamy.
With respect you are jumping to so many personal conclusions here
that I see no purpose carrying on with this discussion. I'm left
wondering what point you are actually trying to make.
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
l...@leonideprincipe.com
... and Photographer Direct? it look a good model on the photographer
side. I have a little images (80) and I make a sale in my first month.
I receive requests and the direct contact with the buyer is a good
think.
I have the first approved submission at Alamy, but I am deciding the
direction to go: send hundred of images to Alamy? upload to myLoupe?
concentrate on PD?
Surely I invest heavy on my site with improved search (php scripts).
I am working now to improve my keywording, because I need different
sets for different agents, in two different languages, in one month I
have to define my way...
Thanks for good sharing, Leo
Leonide Principe
Amazon Stock Photography
http://www.leonideprincipe.com/
Quoting Ian Murray <idmurray@totalise.co.uk>:
> Dear Peter,
>
> I totally agree. Now all we need is such a business model. Mira?
> Picade? Please, a genuine please, point me towards such a thing. Does
> it exist?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian Murray
>
>
>>
>> I'd rather support and seek out business models that empower
> photographers,
>> not ones that turn them into revenue streams.
>>
>> Peter Bennett
>> Ambient Images Inc.
>> P: 310-312-6640
>>
>> Specializing in New York and California images
>> http://www.californiastockphoto.com
>> http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
>>
>
>
>
>
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Bobbi Chukran
> Oh yeah, "agency." An agency *represents* a photographer's images,
>actively seeking out uses for them. A portal like Alamy differs in
>that it simply displays what it has in its collection to clients;
>and for any given photographer this means, essentially, having their
>images thrown up along with unwashed masses of others among the
>millions of pictures at Alamy that fit someone's search criteria. By
>not having the overhead that comes with organizing and promoting
>each photographer's images, a portal can, theoretically, pass on a
>larger portion of permission fees to photographers.
>
Thanks, Carl, for the definition of what an agency is *supposed* to do.
I'm wondering, is there a list of "real" photographer's agents
somewhere online?
Bobbi C.
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Jeff Greenberg
> It's time to start thinking out of the box.
> Stan Rowin
=====
Or taking outside of the "taking box."
Take salable photos which few take. jeffgreenberg
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Stockphoto Seller
Bobbi,
The entire lexicon of stock photography has become so muddled in recent years that the only way to truly see if an operation is an agency (vs. a portal or some other scheme) or if the permission fee mode is RM (vs. RF and all the other junk stock) is to learn the definitions, decide what you are looking for, and then check out the individual operations for yourself. There is so much bad advice out there that one needs a definition of "real" going in in order to appraise what one finds.
Most successful professional stock photographers are working with several business models at once. These include promoting direct to photo users, stocking with one or more agencies, putting loads of images onto one or more portals, and so on. The approach needs to be geared to each photographer's strengths and specialties and constantly reappraised as new marketing schemes emerge and as the few corporate conglomerates (Getty, Corbis, Jupiter, and maybe a few others trying to become one of the big do-everything companies) try to become even more dominant in the industry.
Carl May/BPS
Bobbi Chukran <bobbi@bobbichukran.com> wrote:
> Oh yeah, "agency." An agency *represents* a photographer's images,
>actively seeking out uses for them. A portal like Alamy differs in
>that it simply displays what it has in its collection to clients;
>and for any given photographer this means, essentially, having their
>images thrown up along with unwashed masses of others among the
>millions of pictures at Alamy that fit someone's search criteria. By
>not having the overhead that comes with organizing and promoting
>each photographer's images, a portal can, theoretically, pass on a
>larger portion of permission fees to photographers.
>
Thanks, Carl, for the definition of what an agency is *supposed* to do.
I'm wondering, is there a list of "real" photographer's agents
somewhere online?
Bobbi C.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___