Corbis Entering Microstock

[eendicott]

I found this little blurb published today at StockAsylum....

http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/articles/a5wn022007-corbisfigs.htm

...so the question remains - based on what is being read, is Corbis going to buy a microstock or "launching a fresh microstock offering" bringing another competitor into the business.

More turbulent waters ahead 

[sharpshot]

They mention a fresh microstock site, so I presume it wont be a takeover.  Will be good to have another big microstock site.  Hope they will have lots of reviewers

[Clivia]

This could shake things up a bit! I hope Bill Gates has some fresh ideas for microstock.

[leaf]

would be exciting if they came out with something new.... if it was good.

and additionally makes the deal with Microsoft and istock a little more bizare.. perhaps that is how business men carry their eggs in more than one basket... i dunno.

I also think the article isn't 100% clear on if they are starting a new microstock site or buying up one of the existing ones.  They said they are going to 'offer a new microstock service', but if that means new for them or new for the world, i think it is vague.

[GeoPappas]

...makes the deal with Microsoft and istock a little more bizare...

Actually, I think that this is just standard MS business:

First, partner with an expert in the business to learn the ropes.

Second, create your own product that will put your partner out of business!

[Kiya]

I'll bet they will have better commissions??

[hatman12]

"Corbis, the world's second largest stock photography distributor, has reported annual revenue of $251 million for 2006, an increase of $23 million over the $228 million reported by the company in 2005. The increase was 11 percent on a currency-neutral basis, Corbis said.

At the same time, the company said it will announce a new offering in the micropayment stock photo segment during the second quarter of this year.

Though the Seattle-based company did not break out figures for the second half of last year, it would appear that second half revenues were down from the first half, when the company reported $127 million in total revenue. Simple math would put Corbis' second half revenue at $124 million.

Information from other stock distributors have indicated an industry-wide slowdown in the second half of 2006. Third quarter sales seem to have been hit hardest."


Interesting about the slow down in sales, just at the time that the Microstock market is seeing exponential growth.  In my opinion, this shows that the macro agencies are already starting to suffer from the aggressive pricing at the micros, and also implies that buyers are able to find the images and quality they need without paying Corbis style prices.  This trend will continue.  I see many photographers submitting XXL sizes to the micros, and very good composition and quality.  In a year's time, Canon will probably have a 22mp and Nikon a 16mp, meaning that anyone will be able to produce the best quality available with a little thought and technique.

[grp_photo]

As I'm already a contributor of corbis i must say i'm not amused 
It's only a several months away that their CEO stated in an interview that they have no interest in this market. Makes me sad

[Greg Boiarsky]

Don't count on it.  This is a big corporation with a history of actions that do not benefit the photographer.  Just as one example, keep in mind that they have stated publicly that they are trying to acquire sole rights to as many images as possible.  Corbis is the only major company I know of that is actively attempting to alter the relationship between agencies and photographers.  They seem to want to replace the partnership between us and our agencies with a "commodities relationship."  We produce, they purchase.  That doesn't work with intellectual property, in my book.

I'll bet they will have better commissions??

[epixx]

That was to be expected. The full price market is bound to shrink, so they had to do something. I believe that Corbis is owned by Bill Gates though, and not by MS as such, but I'm not 100% on that one. That may be important with regards to future policies.

If I should guess, they will probably start their own. They have the resources necessary, and making an existing, more or less successful agency very successful, probably takes at least as much resources as starting from scratch anyway, particularly if they want to establish a certain standard, and I'm sure they will, or at least they will try.

Although they will probably not break any barriers with regards to commissions, they will at least have to offer more than IS (shouldn't be too hard) to attract some of the best photographers, and maybe some that have been opposed to microstock until now. Exclusivity will quite obviously be a part of their package, but the question is if they can offer a package that is attractive enough for that. The exclusivity deal on IS reminds me more about religious faith than economic realities. You have to believe very hard to make it look profitable 

[eendicott]

Interesting about the slow down in sales, just at the time that the Microstock market is seeing exponential growth.  In my opinion, this shows that the macro agencies are already starting to suffer from the aggressive pricing at the micros, and also implies that buyers are able to find the images and quality they need without paying Corbis style prices.  This trend will continue.  I see many photographers submitting XXL sizes to the micros, and very good composition and quality.  In a year's time, Canon will probably have a 22mp and Nikon a 16mp, meaning that anyone will be able to produce the best quality available with a little thought and technique.

If you take a look at other articles by StockAsylum you'll see that they are basing that slow down on a study that was conducted through PACA.  iStock, Shutterstock, and Dreamstime (among others) are members of PACA.  It wasn't limited to macro stock.

I'm sure you'll also see a slow down in sales in the first quarter of 2007.  The Eastern United States is getting hit heavy with snow storms and the UK is getting hit heavy with bad weather as well.  If folks can't get to work, they can't buy our pictures 

[Peiling]

Thats interesting development....but i am not sure how successful it will be...look at 123RF....its suppose to have a big co backing it but i dont see it as successful as istock or Shutterstock....or anywhere near

[CJPhoto]

It will be interesting but as noted, both 123rf and StockXpert are backed by big cos and I dont see much growth happening there.

I also question if they can start one from scratch.  Fotolia did it but the others are struggling (LO,FP,CS, and even 123rf and StockXpert aren't getting the buyers).   Fotolias key was offering 20c per upload so hopefully they will give good incentives at the start (problem being do you get in at the start or wait for special offers - LO had some specials but by then, all my photos were already their).

Question - what will they be able to offer that other established places cant (for both sellers and buyers).  Unless they do a tie up with Microsoft, kick out IS, and actually have the purchase module as part of office (ie you browse from within powerpoint for a photo and have your paypal details preloaded so payment is sorted too).

[roman]

Corbis is not so great at the RM business either.  I ve read somewhere that only 5 percent of the photos in their database see a sale, whereas with Getty its something like 95 percent. 

[KiwiRob]

Maybe a lot of the crap on corbis that doesn't sell will get chucked into the MS bin.

[leaf]

I think quite a few macro stock photographers would be pretty upset if that happened.

They are upset enough that we are selling our images on the microstocks, i don't think they would be too pleased if it was their own images.

[epixx]

Corbis is not so great at the RM business either.  I ve read somewhere that only 5 percent of the photos in their database see a sale, whereas with Getty its something like 95 percent. 

There's also a rumour that they have never ever made a profit. It might just be a rumour, but it makes one wonder if they have the ability to pull this off, even with more or less unlimited resources. Buying IS may have been the smartest thing Getty has ever done. Other candidates don't look nearly as attractive.

[CJPhoto]

I think quite a few macro stock photographers would be pretty upset if that happened.

But if Corbis bought the photos outright, there isn't a lot they can do about it.

I dont think it will take them long to build up a big library if they start from scratch.  Just give a good incentive and the people from this forum alone could add at least 50,000 as fast as our broadband can upload it.

[hymowitzer]

RM and Macrostock are going the way of the dinosaur. They have to evolve in order to stay in business.
There is is too much competition  from the under priced micro stock sites that are virtually selling the same
images for many $$$ less. Micro stock has become the Walmart of of imagery!

Why would a designer pay $200 for a RM image when he can get the same image in some cases for 1/3 the price?

[leaf]

because the designer wants to control the uses of that photo.  If he wants to be the ONLY one FOR SURE using that image in canada/ europe/ or the world, RM is the only way to do it.

[CJPhoto]

Why would a designer pay $200 for a RM image when he can get the same image in some cases for 1/3 the price?

Imagine if Dell and IBM both used the same photo for an ad?

There are reports of this happen.

[leaf]

Why would a designer pay $200 for a RM image when he can get the same image in some cases for 1/3 the price?

Imagine if Dell and IBM both used the same photo for an ad?

There are reports of this happen.

Why would a designer pay $200 for a RM image when he can get the same image in some cases for 1/3 the price?

Imagine if Dell and IBM both used the same photo for an ad?

There are reports of this happen.

And I am sure the advertising manager wasn't too popular the day after it happened.

[hymowitzer]

I am sure the big advertisers have their own photographers, or use advertising agencies.
You will never see GM, microsoft, Best Buy, Sears, or any other big company using a stocksite.
Why? Because money is NOT an issue. If there is an issue with money, then they will use stock.
If they use stock, then their budget is low. If the budget is low, they want to save money.

Make sense?

[CJPhoto]

I am sure the big advertisers have their own photographers, or use advertising agencies.

it might be an urban legend but the ad i refer to above did happen.  One party was Dell but i cant remember the other. 

I love Google - this was the first hit:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=17477

Dell and gateway are big enough aren't they

other ones:

http://cafejoetogo.blogspot.com/2006/11/deja-vu-same-photo-different-ads-this.html

And this one is in the WSJ so must be true:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116467838729434053-j1YX6tWZ7hTQ_MqzLcRfX2utcSE_20071127.html?mod=rss_free

they may not spring for a custom shot in future but they might pay for aRM image mayble.

[hymowitzer]

Good research, thanks for your time and trouble.
I wonder how many actual consumers noticed?

I'll take bets....none!
Just goes to show you...if your THAT budget minded......your not a big as you think.