Came across this article:

From the ASMP regarding Getty�

"For the majority of our members, the new Getty contract changes are not advantageous and should be viewed as an opportune time to re-evaluate options."

http://asmp.org/articles/getty-images.html

You're welcome.

It's refreshing to see an organization acknowledge that the market is the one responsible for microstock, NOT microstock photographers whose sole purpose was to undercut RM photographers.

"This race has in large part been under the supervision and control of the buyers of images. It is the marketplace that has sustained Royalty Free and the Subscription models and now Micro."

You're welcome.

It's refreshing to see an organization acknowledge that the market is the one responsible for microstock, NOT microstock photographers whose sole purpose was to undercut RM photographers.

"This race has in large part been under the supervision and control of the buyers of images. It is the marketplace that has sustained Royalty Free and the Subscription models and now Micro."

  I got the ASMP email last week, and it made me laugh. It is good to see the ASMP come to this conclusion, although i think it's way overdue. The RM community has been a "deer in the headlights" for a long time, and it's too late for them to push back now. The costs involved in a typical RM shoot would never be covered by the microstock model, yet the buyers increasingly want the microstock price point. My latest statement from a RM company that will go unnamed ( to protect the guilty) included sales that netted me 14 cents and 18 cents- and this is with a 45% share. So now RM is undercutting microstock. The ASMP ( which stands for " society to prevent cruelty to photographers" ) has watched this downward spiral for years, and are no closer to an answer for it than anyone else, aside from "just say no" which will only increase the share of images bought from microstock.

So if it gets to a point where profitability and/or sustainable income isn't realistic for just about anybody shooting stock, macro or micro, what's the solution?

Not sure, but the possibilities are interesting. If stock is unsustainable for even talented artists, the quality bar is set a bit lower over time. Buyers will notice, they'll still want top-quality images but will struggle to find them in stock. Will they go back to doing more work-for-hire contracts with photogs? Buy direct from those disillusioned pros who leave the major stock agencies? Will some other company step in and take Getty's place?

The graphic designers will combine several stock pictures with their amazing photoshop skills and create whatever the client wants. Which is what is already happening now.

The creative part has been moved into their ballpark, they also usually make the decisions which images to buy to fit into their design.

Work for hire contracts will always be needed when the customer wants to shoot his own products/location/service but for anything else the graphic designer can whip up something unique and exciting from even the most bland stock images.

   I used to joke with my clients that one day they would invent something that you could put on your head, think of a photo, and it would appear. I don't joke about that any more   I was shooting a calendar cover for an investment company a few years back, and the designer kept taking the captures and putting them in photoshop to move the lighting around. I told her that I could do it on the set that was 3 feet from her, but she preferred to make an image that was not what she wanted become what she wanted in photoshop.

Quote from: jbarber873 on May 03, 2011, 08:11

The costs involved in a typical RM shoot would never be covered by the microstock model, yet the buyers increasingly want the microstock price point.

Just curious what the "costs involved in a typical RM shoot" would be, and what the typical RM shoot would cover.

Talking to RM photographers about their issues is a bit like talking to a Vietnam war vet. You can never understand what they mean "... because you weren't there Man".

Quote from: jbarber873 on May 03, 2011, 08:11

The costs involved in a typical RM shoot would never be covered by the microstock model, yet the buyers increasingly want the microstock price point.

Just curious what the "costs involved in a typical RM shoot" would be, and what the typical RM shoot would cover.

 
Well i know a few guys who shoot for Getty. I'm thinking in particular of a shoot that my daughter was modeling for- two sisters who had just finished shopping and were looking at their clothes. Shopping bags all around, you know the drill.The usual costs are renting a studio- in NY you can do that for maybe 500 dollars now. Props are usually buy and return, but you need a stylist- a good one will get $1200, but plenty around to do it for half that. An assistant- $250. Models could come hair and makeup ready, so no cost for that, maybe. Equipment rental, if needed. And any incidental out of pocket. Seamless, transportation, like that. In the past, you could make that back the next month on RM, but there's just too many people in microstock that will just shoot the girl down the street on a seamless in the garage with hardware store lights.
This is just my observation from many years in a building that had a lot of rental studios. I don't shoot people, so maybe they've already changed the working methods, i don't know. But i think the only way to compete is to lower costs, because the quality of microstock is in many cases just as good as RM, and the clients know it. A lot of the props I shoot come from jobs I do for clients. To fund a shoot from earnings doesn't make sense any more- there has to be a profit, or why bother?

Thanks for posting the link. I do see that the price pressures on RM from RF and in particular microstock RF have changed things significantly for those who were part of the closed shop stock world pre-microstock.

However, what's been giong on in the microstock world of late has nothing to do with buyers pressuring agencies for better prices. Once microstock became successful it became a target for greedy agencies to squeeze contributors (if one reads reports from contributors to the agencies that Getty acquired earlier in its career, it was just repeating what it had done before).

I honestly don't see anything unsustainable in having RM with high price, high control, low volume at one end of the stock market and microstock RF with moderate to low prices, low control and high volume at the other. Custom shoots for those who need to have complete control and exclusivity.

The only thing that completely sustainable model doesn't allow for is H&F leeching out profits on top of contributor profits and agency profits.

I shoot wildlife animals (in the wild); I used to sell on RM but now sell RF; my costs have not changed (except for inflation).  The world is evolving; what worked in the old days is gone and buyers are now looking for a different model than RM.  For many, RF fits their needs.

Quote from: cobalt on May 03, 2011, 09:33

The graphic designers will combine several stock pictures with their amazing photoshop skills and create whatever the client wants. Which is what is already happening now.

The creative part has been moved into their ballpark, they also usually make the decisions which images to buy to fit into their design.

Except it seems like more and more most of our clients think they can do the work themselves. Pretty soon we'll all be out of a job. :/

I know what you mean.

On the other hand...this is not related to photography, but web design. In the past couple of weeks, I have had 3 clients tell me that they tried to build a site on their own, because they thought it would be easy. Turns out, it's actually not! Even with templates and content management.

Graphic designers are not always the best people to build websites today. I think that pretty much everyone agrees that to a lesser or greater extent these days. They are often great as part of a team building a website but that would be a different issue.

Graphic designers are not always the best people to build websites today. I think that pretty much everyone agrees that to a lesser or greater extent these days. They are often great as part of a team building a website but that would be a different issue.

Interesting. In my world, and the companies I have been talking to, the people that are getting hired are the ones that have multiple capabilites, such as being able to do graphic design for print and do web design and web building. It used to be a company would hire a graphic designer, a web designer and a web developer, as three different people. More and more they are looking for multi-talented people.

Quote from: bunhill on May 03, 2011, 14:53

Graphic designers are not always the best people to build websites today. I think that pretty much everyone agrees that to a lesser or greater extent these days. They are often great as part of a team building a website but that would be a different issue.

Interesting. In my world, and the companies I have been talking to, the people that are getting hired are the ones that have multiple capabilites, such as being able to do graphic design for print and do web design and web building. It used to be a company would hire a graphic designer, a web designer and a web developer, as three different people. More and more they are looking for multi-talented people.

Asking a graphic designer to build a website would be like asking an engineer to paint a portrait. Or asking a painter to program a computer. The point is that a good website is some percent good code and some percent good graphic design

Modern sites need to be built by people with very good coding and code optimization skills. And they need to know about methodological approaches to database and code design etc. Graphic designers are people who are there to talk about the look and feel, branding, themes, typography etc.

It's teams who build good websites today. Almost everyone else is better off with a customization of a content management system. eg Squarespace etc. IMO (and especially with respect to the long term maintenance and evolution of the code, backend, site security etc).

ETA: that sounds kind of almost controversial, reading it back. It is not supposed to be. I love and admire great graphic design - I grew up loving the work of Neville Brody and Peter Saville etc - and all the things I found out about including certain photography because of what they were about.  The point is that people who love code should be coding and people who love design graphics should be doing that. For the most part.

Asking a graphic designer to build a website would be like asking an engineer to paint a portrait. Or asking a painter to program a computer. The point is that a good website is some percent good code and some percent good graphic design

Modern sites need to be built by people with very good coding and code optimization skills. And they need to know about methodological approaches to database and code design etc. Graphic designers are people who are there to talk about the look and feel, branding, themes, typography etc.

It's teams who build good websites today. Almost everyone else is better off with a customization of a content management system. eg Squarespace etc. IMO (and especially with respect to the long term maintenance and evolution of the code, backend, site security etc).

ETA: that sounds kind of almost controversial, reading it back. It is not supposed to be. I love and admire great graphic design - I grew up loving the work of Neville Brody and Peter Saville etc - and all the things I found out about including certain photography because of what they were about.  The point is that people who love code should be coding and people who love design graphics should be doing that. For the most part.

I totally agree. Back when sites were just HTML and the coding was pretty basic, graphic designers could get away with doing both. I can get away with coding sites when they have been simple and finally learned how to do table-less sites a couple years ago, but I know I don't have the in-depth knowledge to know the ins and outs of truly optimized CSS. It all changes so fast and I honestly hate the browser compatibility issues. So, I can do it, sort of, but I'm moving towards a time when I can pay someone to at least create the initial HTML/CSS so it's properly done and I can save myself the extra hours of tearing my hair out. And anything that has dynamic content - forget it. I'll happily pay someone to do that or customize WordPress for people.

I do think it is ironic that a lot of companies are looking for people who do it all. It's rare to find designers who are great coders and vice-versa. Different parts of the brain. I wish I was a genius like that...but I'm not. Guess I better stay freelance.