MicrostockGroup

Maybe thats how they got big - by not wasting money.

As you say, hardly anyone would have noticed (at least someone did hence the articles).  I am sure there are hundreds of examples that never get picked up though.  ie. regional campaigns where they dont want to spend big money.

It will be interesting.



Whether they make a profit or not, revenue is increasing:
http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/articles/a5wn022007-corbisfigs.htm

You also have to understand that Corbis has a licensing model where they buy the rights outright from photographers.  In a scheme like this, there would be a lot of cash outlay from the onset, then revenue from the continued sales.



Don't make the same mistake the old school traditional photographers make by not paying attention to other business models.  I know of a sale in late 2006 at Alamy that went for about $18,000 - it was of the Statue of Liberty and would have been eligible at any of the micros.  RM and RP imagery is not dead or dying.

If you look at the pricing differences between RF at the traditionals and RM at the traditionals as well as study the terms of service, you'll see that you aren't comparing apples and apples.  At Alamy, a RF licensed image can be used just like an extended license image at the micros.  Unlimited use for unlimited reasons.  At places like DT, they restrict that usage to 500,000 copies under a standard usage agreement.  At Alamy, that same $300 image can be sold multiple times - at DT, you're buying exclusive rights to the image starting at $300.

There is also a whole world of editorial imagery - from lifestyle to newsworthy events that the micros haven't tapped into.  Shutterstock has only skimmed the surface and based on their noise requirements, they are only going to continue to skim the surface.

Probably important to jump on board Corbis as soon as they launch.

Will be interesting to see what pricing model they use - will they try to attract millions of images by higher pricing and commissions like DT, or will they go lower with exclusive bonuses like IS.

Anyone heard any further news about Corbis?

http://news.com.com/Corbis+to+take+microstock+plunge/2100-1025_3-6187931.html

Looks like we'll have microcorbis in July.

I'll be interested to see how many images they launch with, the quality of those images, and who supplied those images. There's no way that site goes live with zero or even a couple hundred images. To be competitive off the bat, I'd have to assume Corbis has tapped their existing contributors to supply seed images. Plus, this might be a way to keep the peace with their existing photogs -- to give them first dibs in this "new" and "non-competing" market.

Corbis has never made a profit.  why? Because they purchased a lot of the photos outright rathr than just taking a commission.  As such, they could put in a lot of the photos which they own, but have never sold (or even have sold).  They could use these to have critical mass at lauch and if they wanted to, take them out once other photos have replaced them (or leave them in).

Plus, if they have enough bandwidth and reviewers, and they can read ITPC, my guess is they will have 100,000's of photos within a month as everyone jumps on board straight away.  I am pretty sure my tiny portfolio could be up there in a day.  Even the big guys (4000+) could ftp (or even send in a DVD) and have them online within a month.

What they need to do is either tap new markets or make it a good experience for the buyer, or else why will they change from istock??

People doing macrostock are still reporting sales. I also thought it would die but it hasn't quite happened yet.
 One of the reasons Corbis has not been profitable, besides the fact they have been buying a bunch of images, is because the premise of their business was based on a futuristic prediction that has so far failed to pan out. They wanted to be the main provider of home based digital images of many vintage and famous photographs. Basically digital screens that can project images and pretend to be artwork hanging on your wall. They could charge a subscription fee to a database of images and the customer could change the digital image on the wall when they got tired of looking at the previous one.

I think the problem with this idea is that generally people still prefer original or paper/canvas prints of artwork on their walls. Not everyone is a is a techno enthusiast like Bill Gates and Ray Kurzweil. Those two may think the idea of digital wall sized images is really cool, but I think it will be awhile before the general public catches on to this, and in the meantime it will be seen as kinda deClasse to have computer images on your wall instead of originals. Now if they could make animated digital images for your wall, like a running waterfall  for instance, that is something that a hard copy print cannot do and may have more mass appeal IMHO.

To support what Lee said, Getty thinks there is only a 15% cross over between micro and macro customers.