MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: HughStoneIan on January 15, 2013, 23:27
-
A different angle in the ongoing Getty-Google giveaway scandal:
It's been speculated on this forum in the past that Getty's long-term goal is to put all microstock out of business. Those of you here at the time may remember when they bought Istock they dissolved the profitable Stockxpert agency very quickly, and discussion went around about their desire to hurt microstock as we know it. Perhaps their 5-10-year-plan includes the decimation if not total annihilation of the micro model. It may not make sense to those of us primarily involved in micro, but the giant Getty's lifeblood has always been macro. Note the secrecy of this move and how much of GI's wholly-owned content is involved in this giveaway (zero, I believe). If they perceive micro as eating away at their future, well....
Personally, I don't think they'll be able to do away with micro completely, but this sure appears to be a huge blow in that direction. Any short-term loss to their bottom line would be seen as collateral damage necessary on the way to ultimate victory. Not a conspiracy, just cutthroat business as practiced for centuries. And, after all, Getty Images is 100% a business and not a charity.
Thoughts?
-
I don't think that is their goal, but what their actual goal is (other than make money)... I can't really say.
-
I don't think they care enough to try to kill microstock in general, but I DO firmly believe they intend to run iStock into the ground... but just enough so they can say "Hey, look - this isn't working and we're just going to absorb iStock into Getty like we have with all these other collections over the years." That'll let them cut free tons of employees, not have to worry about keeping anyone happy or communicating with them and it'll allow them to just pay everyone 20%. Frankly, I'm shocked this hasn't happened already.
-
Nothing's impossible. But Getty shares change hands so frequently that I doubt that there can be any long-term strategic plan. Their only plan is to make money as quickly as possible no matter what their steps mean for the future of business.
-
Getty feels that it is just too big to fall, so they tend to make "innovative"=stupid things. I do not think that they are trying to kill microstock, they simply want to find new ways to make money out of it. They could not care less about artists or content the only thing that maters is money... I hope that they will eventually fall
-
Finally! after all these years. The penny has dropped. :)
-
I'm sure they're trying to kill istock. Why else would they be sending istock buyers to Thinkstock? Don't think they're capable of killing off microstock because we have other sites to sell our images. Perhaps they could of done it if they had bought SS, FT and DT.
Even if they gave away all the istock collection, buyers are still going to want new fresh images and all the stuff that istock doesn't have.
-
From the day i heard that getty bought istock, i was of the opinion that they were trying to buy the competition and get rid ofmicrostock altogether. Think of the attitudes of the traditional photogs...micro contributors have been the scum of the earth since day 1. From day 1 micro has been a boil on gettys butt and i still have no doubt that they will do whatever they need to so micro will disappear.
-
From the day i heard that getty bought istock, i was of the opinion that they were trying to buy the competition and get rid ofmicrostock altogether. Think of the attitudes of the traditional photogs...micro contributors have been the scum of the earth since day 1. From day 1 micro has been a boil on gettys butt and i still have no doubt that they will do whatever they need to so micro will disappear.
Yes and I told Lisa that back in 2008. Eventually I am sure they will succeed.
-
Nothing's impossible. But Getty shares change hands so frequently that I doubt that there can be any long-term strategic plan. Their only plan is to make money as quickly as possible no matter what their steps mean for the future of business.
Gave you a +1, but this deserves a comment too. I think this is EXACTLY what's going on. If you view all Getty's actions since being bought by Hellman and Friedman, through to the present, this is the most logical conclusion.
-
From the day i heard that getty bought istock, i was of the opinion that they were trying to buy the competition and get rid ofmicrostock altogether. Think of the attitudes of the traditional photogs...micro contributors have been the scum of the earth since day 1. From day 1 micro has been a boil on gettys butt and i still have no doubt that they will do whatever they need to so micro will disappear.
Yes and I told Lisa that back in 2008. Eventually I am sure they will succeed.
You did indeed. :)
Seems they are paying an awfully high price for it if this is just about getting rid of microstock. They are giving away premium Getty content in these deals. Seems like they are killing the host (entire RF industry) to get rid of what they consider a parasite (microstock). Rather shortsighted of them IMO.
I am not saying you guys are wrong, but if they were just trying to destroy micro, wouldn't they have confined their selection of images to indie TS images, since they are the content that populates all the other micros?
-
From the day i heard that getty bought istock, i was of the opinion that they were trying to buy the competition and get rid ofmicrostock altogether. Think of the attitudes of the traditional photogs...micro contributors have been the scum of the earth since day 1. From day 1 micro has been a boil on gettys butt and i still have no doubt that they will do whatever they need to so micro will disappear.
I think if you were in touch with forums that were largely trad photographers you would see they are asking the same question. Is Getty trying to kill traditional stock photography? It is Getty's objective to maximize their profits( insert big fat period here). That's it. Nothing else. If your idea were true then micro, of any form, would never have appeared on the traditional site.
-
And here is whatvi posted in another thread:
I suspect they are NOT shooting themselves in the foot in any way. They may have taken a hit financially short term, but in their long term plans they will a. (Try to) kill microstock and b. eliminate all the "riff-raff" (contributors not part of their elite group). Sounds like getty is right on target.
And when i say riff raff, i mean in their eyes. And when i say contributors, i mean exclusive to istock, non-exclusive to istock, whatever. I believe they want to narrow their pool of contributors and go back to charging big bucks for each image, as it was before. No one is privy to their strategy, so a lot of what they are doing, including the ms and google deals, look stupid to contributors. In the long run tho, i am totally convinced that the outcome will mean a lot of money for them, some good money for some, and nothing for the peons.
-
You may well be right Cathy... and if so, the decision for me is... do I want to be part of a meritocracy or an aristocracy.
Meritocracy wins every time in my book.
-
don't ask me from where but I remember iStock having 650k $ revenue per day, why ending that?
-
From the day i heard that getty bought istock, i was of the opinion that they were trying to buy the competition and get rid ofmicrostock altogether. Think of the attitudes of the traditional photogs...micro contributors have been the scum of the earth since day 1. From day 1 micro has been a boil on gettys butt and i still have no doubt that they will do whatever they need to so micro will disappear.
Yes and I told Lisa that back in 2008. Eventually I am sure they will succeed.
They may succeed in the sense that i even now i feel a foreboding for the future of this country. Big greedy companies have control of cable and satellite tv. A few big greedy companies have control of the phone network. It is most certainly possible that they will succeed if people are not willing to take a stand. I feel like i have been herded around long enough.
-
Getty feels that it is just too big to fall, so they tend to make "innovative"=stupid things. I do not think that they are trying to kill microstock, they simply want to find new ways to make money out of it. They could not care less about artists or content the only thing that maters is money... I hope that they will eventually fall
It just seems to me that if they've been trying to make IS profitable even for a quick dollar, they have done EVERYTHING wrong, everything to destroy their future. Future=buyers+contributors.
-
don't ask me from where but I remember iStock having 650k $ revenue per day, why ending that?
I doubt if their expectation is to make that nowadays, unless they also count in TS.
-
don't ask me from where but I remember iStock having 650k $ revenue per day, why ending that?
I doubt if their expectation is to make that nowadays, unless they also count in TS.
I believe this was back in 2010 perhaps
-
One organisation can't do it - they would have to take over the Internet. Sure they could buy up and ruin the competition but other sites would just arise to replace them.
-
These people cannot even get the istock site to work properly, they have basically crashed the extremly active istock community and made everyone run away and hide in closed facebook groups or other forums. The traffic to istock keeps going down, the independents are all cheering Shutterstock and somebody seriously believes they have some "secret master plan" to destroy anything?
You need to be smarter than the other people in the industry to be more successful than them.
I see a lot of money being pumped in from the getty family.
But I donīt see the brainpower to dominate anything.
Theyīll just crash istock and after that getty with it, then look for another investor to bail them out or the getty family puts up even more money.
And that is the real danger. They are not ready to do what the company needs to do - invest in optimising their own site, expand the company by growing organically instead of looking to buy other companies at much too high prices for something they could have easily done themselves.
Streamline communication and efficiency in their own business instead of having all the different departments work without being connected. Instill a business culture and a drive for excellence. Work on the week-end. No corporate double speak. No looking for the blame "ELSEWHERE" when it is obviously your own mess up.
Encourage people to take responsibility and get real life results, stop being "employee driven". Combining a line of buzzwords are not a form of work.
etc...
What I see is a management that is simply not ready to get their hands dirty with all the nerdy day to day details that need to be optimized. It is obviously a lot more fun to play around with impressive and cool sounding new software and dream of monetizing views, click, click, click for every eyeball. Become the next google adwords. In fact encourage google adwords to add little images like facebook and then get paid for every google click.
Instant money! Free Money! No work ever again!
Endless parties in the pink room...
No I am not worried about that. If they cannot get the community to work, cannot increase buyer traffic, their teams have no clue what is going on in the business, artists are deactivating content and leaving to other sites...no I donīt think anyone needs to be scared.
In the right hands this new technology might be really successful, maybe even a postive force for the industry. But I think you are all giving them too much credit if you fear them.
Whatever Masterplan they have - you can trust them to mess it up.
-
And here is whatvi posted in another thread:
I suspect they are NOT shooting themselves in the foot in any way. They may have taken a hit financially short term, but in their long term plans they will a. (Try to) kill microstock and b. eliminate all the "riff-raff" (contributors not part of their elite group). Sounds like getty is right on target.
And when i say riff raff, i mean in their eyes. And when i say contributors, i mean exclusive to istock, non-exclusive to istock, whatever. I believe they want to narrow their pool of contributors and go back to charging big bucks for each image, as it was before. No one is privy to their strategy, so a lot of what they are doing, including the ms and google deals, look stupid to contributors. In the long run tho, i am totally convinced that the outcome will mean a lot of money for them, some good money for some, and nothing for the peons.
Well spoken Cathy! although I would go a step further. I dont think, deep down they care too much for all these E+, exclusives to IS, etc. I am very sure they want to revert back to their trad-photographers, look after them and so on. They are so totally dominant in the RM/RF markets that the other trads are just getting the tail end of the left-overs.
Consider this with all the expertice of Getty, own or hired, how difficult would it really be to fix the IS site, search, etc? its more a matter of WANTING to fix it?
I recon they are well on course.
-
Their Macro side is dying on its arse as well, they're just running around with fire extinguishers wondering what to do next.
Getty remind me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, a mad shaved headed old veteran chopping everything up and spouting nonsense.
There is no plan.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU (http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU)
-
Their Macro side is dying on its arse as well, they're just running around with fire extinguishers wondering what to do next.
Getty remind me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, a mad shaved headed old veteran chopping everything up and spouting nonsense.
There is no plan.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU[/url])
Matt! that is such a naive and dangerous thinking, wishful thinking its truly unbelievable. I could show you my and some friends sales-reports from the RM collections and you would not believe your eyes and then ask if its dying.
-
I was going for a bit of levity, oh well :-)
-
I was going for a bit of levity, oh well :-)
I know! frankly I wasnt too keen on that film, Sheen was brillant, he always is. Brando btw for that lark got 10 million quid. :)
-
don't ask me from where but I remember iStock having 650k $ revenue per day, why ending that?
I doubt if their expectation is to make that nowadays, unless they also count in TS.
I believe this was back in 2010 perhaps
I remember Klein being interviewed by The Times in which he claimed that Istock had sold $850K-ish of images "just yesterday". I think the interview would have been 2009-10 but since then The Times is behind a pay-wall. The interview has been linked on MSG in the past but I doubt that it still works.
-
I do not think that they are trying to kill iStock. It is my considered opinion that they are only too stupid to run it.
Somebody wrote here that the annual turnover of Getty Images is or rather once was about $ 950 mln, including ca. 500 mln from iStock. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If these figures are correct and the macro business is really declining they cannot afford to destroy or weaken iStock. At least it would seem so.
An average dog has enough intelligence not to bite the hand that feeds.
I firmly believe that if they had replaced Getty's top management with a dog around 2009, they would be in a much better shape now and their turnover would be significantly higher than it is now. A dog could never have taken so many stupid decisions. As a matter of fact, a dog might not have taken too many decisions at all. I am convinced that if they had appointed a dachshund as CEO in 2009, iStock would still be the No. 1 microstock agency.
-
the numbers I found floating around and a bit of educated guesswork - getty had a revenue of 870 million last time they were listed on the stock market, then they got sold two times and last year with the sale it was published that their revenue was 950 million. Not much difference if you think what extremly amazing opportunities the internet offers, but they just donīt know how to harvest that.
for 2012 ss posted something around 160 million? expecting 200 million for 2013.
If you look at the traffic, which tells you how many customer projects are filled from that agency, ss has overtaken istock and any other site, they are the clear volume leader.
ss also posted, that the average sales price (including subscriptions) is around 2.2 dollars.
teh prices on istock are significantly higher, so I would indeed estimate for istock (maybe together with think stock/photos.com) should be around 500-600 million or definetly more than 50% of their revenue. the remaining 350 million should include their editorial business, so I really donīt see how there can be much left for the dying RM market. Obviously there is a little money left in it, but compared to the overall market of licensed imagery it must be tiny.
the online marketplace/community itself also has itīs own individual price, it could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars for an investor who knows what to do with it.
It is an unbelievably valuable asset and extremly modern way to run a business, but they are treating it like cow dung and have brought the marketplace crashing down with arrogance and negligence.
Just today another artist I know has quit exclusivity. the guy has great stuff, especially in video, but also in photography.
The pink roomers have no clue at all how istock and getty are seen in the real world. A companies reputation is usally valuable, and companies take great pains to create a reliable trustworthy image. trust is the most important commodity in business. No trust, no clients or suppliers.
-
For myself I've narrowed it down to three choices:
1) They hate microstock and are on the attack to get rid of at least Istock as the former micro leader and damage as many others as they can, because they want their high-priced macro to dominate the market.
2) They are exceedingly and unfathomably incompetent businesspeople totally out of touch with real life. So they'll throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.
3) This is just a fun interesting experiment and no one there really cares about anything or anyone else. They can survive quite comfortably on their inherited billions for the rest of their lives.
I'm really not sure which choice is closest to the truth.
-
Their Macro side is dying on its arse as well, they're just running around with fire extinguishers wondering what to do next.
Getty remind me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, a mad shaved headed old veteran chopping everything up and spouting nonsense.
There is no plan.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU[/url])
The Horror, the horror!
-
I firmly believe that if they had replaced Getty's top management with a dog around 2009, they would be in a much better shape now and their turnover would be significantly higher than it is now. A dog could never have taken so many stupid decisions. As a matter of fact, a dog might not have taken too many decisions at all. I am convinced that if they had appointed a dachshund as CEO in 2009, iStock would still be the No. 1 microstock agency.
ROFLMAO!! I'm laughing, but I actually think you're right! A dog also has the good sense not to p00p in it's own bed.
-
For myself I've narrowed it down to three choices:
1) They hate microstock and are on the attack to get rid of at least Istock as the former micro leader and damage as many others as they can, because they want their high-priced macro to dominate the market.
2) They are exceedingly and unfathomably incompetent businesspeople totally out of touch with real life. So they'll throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.
3) This is just a fun interesting experiment and no one there really cares about anything or anyone else. They can survive quite comfortably on their inherited billions for the rest of their lives.
I'm really not sure which choice is closest to the truth.
May I add another?
4) The Carlyle Group has discovered it has bought a company in deep financial trouble. They are selling off assets at fire sale prices just to make a quick buck and once they've gotten everything they can out of it, they will take the rest of the losses as a write-off and move on to destroy the next hapless company.
-
For myself I've narrowed it down to three choices:
1) They hate microstock and are on the attack to get rid of at least Istock as the former micro leader and damage as many others as they can, because they want their high-priced macro to dominate the market.
2) They are exceedingly and unfathomably incompetent businesspeople totally out of touch with real life. So they'll throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.
3) This is just a fun interesting experiment and no one there really cares about anything or anyone else. They can survive quite comfortably on their inherited billions for the rest of their lives.
I'm really not sure which choice is closest to the truth.
May I add another?
4) The Carlyle Group has discovered it has bought a company in deep financial trouble. They are selling off assets at fire sale prices just to make a quick buck and once they've gotten everything they can out of it, they will take the rest of the losses as a write-off and move on to destroy the next hapless company.
Why is it always people like CG, H&F, etc, buying these sort of companies, why is it always the Gordon Geccos, we get lumbered with. What possible interest could they have, exept the God of Mamon?
Why cant it for once be friendly people like you or me? Archbishop of Caterbury or the Pope? nah, I suppose its asking for too much aint it? we always get bogged down with the bad guys.
-
The American corporate business model is simple: find something that's working; buy it; hype it; make it bigger and more complicated, until it stops working; sell it; rinse and repeat.
-
Their Macro side is dying on its arse as well, they're just running around with fire extinguishers wondering what to do next.
Getty remind me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, a mad shaved headed old veteran chopping everything up and spouting nonsense.
There is no plan.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU[/url])
Matt! that is such a naive and dangerous thinking, wishful thinking its truly unbelievable. I could show you my and some friends sales-reports from the RM collections and you would not believe your eyes and then ask if its dying.
ClaridgeJ, I can show you my and some friends sales-reports from micros and you wouldn't believe your eyes:) RM is still bringing some income, but if you notice what's going on around you wouldn't be so sure about the future. I have seen major movie posters done with micro RF images, big advertising campaigns, let alone magazine and even book covers. There are so many images available people are just not concerned with securing the rights anymore.
-
ClaridgeJ - in the last 10 years - who made more money - the company selling apps for 150 or 1700 dollars - or the ones for 99 cent?
the 1700 dollar license app company can keep patting themselves on the back all they want for "asking real money for real work" but the millionaires will be the 99 centers.
It is the same with stock. The volume market can create many more millionaires or just plain good income than the tiny little RM market that is on itīs way into oblivion. I am sure there will be always be group that makes good money with it, just like in the art market where you will find painters who get paid 200 000 dollars for one painting.
But if you are in that club, good for you, may you enjoy all the millions you can make :) Donīt forget to take vacations as well...you need to have the fun too!
-
I think Getty bought iStock for the money "opportunity". They think "look at all those low prices that will make us rich if we raise them". "We have many buyers that will pay more on our other collections". Getty was built on buying agencies and making the worlds biggest stock supply house. So they are killing iStock, unintentionally, by trying to turn it into mid-stock and then top-stock. Squeeze out the dollars. Only, in the process, they are alienating their bulk buyers and not replaced them with the mid and high tier less volume buyers. So part of the plan worked, for a while - raise prices. But, without understanding the culture of the buyers, they may have gone past the supply/demand price point, and still haven't brought in the buyers to extend it.
Then again, maybe they think they are "on plan", knowing the higher prices translates into less buyers and lower site access activity. But they didn't count on an uproar from contributors as we have watched our income fall.
So they have leveraged their value to obtain money to expand value through these "partners". But that just adds to the squeeze when trying to pay back the required money, with interest, and a missed read on the buyer culture. Then a few bonehead moves, like the MS and Google problems, cut to the margins and tarnish the image very quickly. Then these issues start to erode the contributors. So much for the best management plans.
-
Getty wants to control the stock photo business. Shock? Virtually every corporation which sees an opportunity to control distribution to a large market wants has the same ambition. Why wouldn't they? Getty's ineptitude at running IS so far really doesn't matter. Its strategy can succeed whether IS is the best microstock site or not.
How can Getty/iStock get rid of microstock competitors? The strategy has been discussed in other threads since the Google-Drive controversy began. It is simply deep-pockets + 'dumping'. Getty lowers the price for micrsostock images to near zero (by means of deals like the Google one and in other ways), driving out of business those companies which do not have the financial resources to take losses for a long time (Getty does have the deep pockets to take those losses).
When SS, DT, FT, etc are out of the picture, Getty has a strangle hold on distribution. It jacks prices back up, and it kicks out the photographers and illustrators it doesn't like and promotes the work of its pets. That will be a good day for some of the IS exclusives who post here, but for independents it means: get very good at * up (see iStock forums for valuable examples of how to perfect this skill), or go looking for work in some other industry.
-
Getty wants to control the stock photo business. Shock? Virtually every corporation which sees an opportunity to control distribution to a large market wants has the same ambition. Why wouldn't they? Getty's ineptitude at running IS so far really doesn't matter. Its strategy can succeed whether IS is the best microstock site or not.
How can Getty/iStock get rid of microstock competitors? The strategy has been discussed in other threads since the Google-Drive controversy began. It is simply deep-pockets + 'dumping'. Getty lowers the price for micrsostock images to near zero (by means of deals like the Google one and in other ways), driving out of business those companies which do not have the financial resources to take losses for a long time (Getty does have the deep pockets to take those losses).
When SS, DT, FT, etc are out of the picture, Getty has a strangle hold on distribution. It jacks prices back up, and it kicks out the photographers and illustrators it doesn't like and promotes the work of its pets. That will be a good day for some of the IS exclusives who post here, but for independents it means: get very good at * up (see iStock forums for valuable examples of how to perfect this skill), or go looking for work in some other industry.
Of course they want to control stock business.... but somehow everyone (including them) forgets a simple facts that they don't own the rights to most images they sell. How can you control anything when you don't have a product? Seriously. They are just an agent, salespeople, and if they lower prices to near zero they won't have anything to sell. Ok maybe they can try selling Flickr images. Good luck to them. Can everyone pelase wake up and see that photographers control the industry. If we all decide this is not profitable anymore and go somewhere else there will be NO industry. And no, Getty doesn't have deep pockets. Not at this time.
-
From the day i heard that getty bought istock, i was of the opinion that they were trying to buy the competition and get rid ofmicrostock altogether. Think of the attitudes of the traditional photogs...micro contributors have been the scum of the earth since day 1. From day 1 micro has been a boil on gettys butt and i still have no doubt that they will do whatever they need to so micro will disappear.
Except they will disappear and micro will continue. All they have done is committed suicide.
-
ClaridgeJ - in the last 10 years - who made more money - the company selling apps for 150 or 1700 dollars - or the ones for 99 cent?
the 1700 dollar license app company can keep patting themselves on the back all they want for "asking real money for real work" but the millionaires will be the 99 centers.
It is the same with stock. The volume market can create many more millionaires or just plain good income than the tiny little RM market that is on itīs way into oblivion. I am sure there will be always be group that makes good money with it, just like in the art market where you will find painters who get paid 200 000 dollars for one painting.
But if you are in that club, good for you, may you enjoy all the millions you can make :) Donīt forget to take vacations as well...you need to have the fun too!
No, no, youre reading me completely wrong here and I am certainly NOT in that club. None of todays photographers are in that club exept maybe the worlds top 5 fashion photographers, type Demarchelier, Webber, Lindbergh, etc.
I was only trying to explain that RM photography is far from dead, as some here are making out. Rights-managed content will always have its place, simply because of its model, exclusive, world-rights, etc. The overwhelming majority of AD-agencies, industrial and corporate designers, will and often have to use RM material for their clients.
I mean come on you have to agree? in a world of 100 million pics on line, where of 75 million are copies. If you were to change your trademark and needed to incorporate a certain picture, would you buy from this pool?
With the right portfolio, nieched or highly specialized, RM can pay off very handsomely indeed.
Having said this, ofcourse its not like in the old days but neither is micro, neither is ANY photography. :)
-
My problem with RM is that simply at that price point it is usually a lot cheaper and more efficient to have a designer whip up something totally unique for you, something noone can rent from any library and that was created exclusively for you and whatever occasion you need it (trade show, important company brochure, yearly catalogue etc...
I do see a place for RM for some highly unusual images. A polar bear dancing in a pink dress, rare animals in the wild where only 3 are deemed to exist, heart transplant surgery, very specific industry shots like engineering shots on oil plattforms all model and property released ;) etc....
Authentic files like these, I think RM is the right place for them.
But they always have to be balanced with what a good designer can do with photoshop or illustration. He or her are the real enemies of RM, not just the masses of royalty free content.
Of course when you are doing a large advertising campaign any image renting costs are negligable. Even 50 000 to rent one image for three months is peanuts compared to what a large stand costs at a regular industry trade show.
So I do see a certain base level market that will always be there. But I would think that the only way to create a reliable income from it, would be to stay industry specific.
I used to work in the traffic engineering field, actually I grew up in it. I know all the major players, it is a very tightly knit network of companies with just very few, industry specific trade shows. the end client, cities and engineering offices, donīt go there, so the whole thing is one small club although they are serving a world market. Obviously they donīt all love each other either and waste their time and money in all kinds of aggressive ego boosting court cases.
If I wanted to, I could create great photos and videos for general use in this industry. I could use my old contacts to take images of the latest technology. I know what kind of imagery they need. I know all the magazines and websites and trade shows they advertise in, becuase I used to do it myself.
But here is the thing: to license it - I donīt need getty anymore. In the old catalogue days, i would have needed an agent to handle it for me. But for industry specific content where you need insider knowledge to take the pictures - you can handle all the licensing yourself through the internet. My family name is a lot better known in the industry than Getty or any library anyway.
And this holds true for every other niche subject, especially in technology. If you know how to shoot it, if you have the contacts, if you want to make money from "your" home industry, IMO you would be totally crazy to let an agency handle the licensing for you. After all the work of getting locations, people and shooting right, you already have everything you need to license.
So what kind of RM market is left where you as the specialized artist cannot license directly?
I believe this would be rare quality shots that however are more generic, i.e. they can be used in multiple industries. that is when an agncy like getty or any other agency might be useful.
So this is my take from a business managers perspective of the RM market.
-
My problem with RM is that simply at that price point it is usually a lot cheaper and more efficient to have a designer whip up something totally unique for you, something noone can rent from any library and that was created exclusively for you and whatever occasion you need it (trade show, important company brochure, yearly catalogue etc...
I do see a place for RM for some highly unusual images. A polar bear dancing in a pink dress, rare animals in the wild where only 3 are deemed to exist, heart transplant surgery, very specific industry shots like engineering shots on oil plattforms all model and property released ;) etc....
Authentic files like these, I think RM is the right place for them.
But they always have to be balanced with what a good designer can do with photoshop or illustration. He or her are the real enemies of RM, not just the masses of royalty free content.
Of course when you are doing a large advertising campaign any image renting costs are negligable. Even 50 000 to rent one image for three months is peanuts compared to what a large stand costs at a regular industry trade show.
So I do see a certain base level market that will always be there. But I would think that the only way to create a reliable income from it, would be to stay industry specific.
I used to work in the traffic engineering field, actually I grew up in it. I know all the major players, it is a very tightly knit network of companies with just very few, industry specific trade shows. the end client, cities and engineering offices, donīt go there, so the whole thing is one small club although they are serving a world market. Obviously they donīt all love each other either and waste their time and money in all kinds of aggressive ego boosting court cases.
If I wanted to, I could create great photos and videos for general use in this industry. I could use my old contacts to take images of the latest technology. I know what kind of imagery they need. I know all the magazines and websites and trade shows they advertise in, becuase I used to do it myself.
But here is the thing: to license it - I donīt need getty anymore. In the old catalogue days, i would have needed an agent to handle it for me. But for industry specific content where you need insider knowledge to take the pictures - you can handle all the licensing yourself through the internet. My family name is a lot better known in the industry than Getty or any library anyway.
And this holds true for every other niche subject, especially in technology. If you know how to shoot it, if you have the contacts, if you want to make money from "your" home industry, IMO you would be totally crazy to let an agency handle the licensing for you. After all the work of getting locations, people and shooting right, you already have everything you need to license.
So what kind of RM market is left where you as the specialized artist cannot license directly?
I believe this would be rare quality shots that however are more generic, i.e. they can be used in multiple industries. that is when an agncy like getty or any other agency might be useful.
So this is my take from a business managers perspective of the RM market.
Well in a sense youre right. Ofcourse you could market the pictures yourself and without any agency and if youre name is well known in the industry, I wouldnt sit and wait, just go for it.
I sell all my Nuclear power industry shots myself as with very specific oil industry shots. With sensitive material like this I am offline
but I sell them myself all the time. I have an exclusive agent who does lots of spade work and she gets 25%. In these two fields I am well known and hardly any competitors at all. If I were you I would go for it and the traffic-engineering field is GIGANTIC!
However in the RM agecny world theres little doubt, no matter what you think of them. Getty reigns supreme, all the others put together dont even come close, not even close.
The RM section have special editors with specialities in Technology, Medicine, surgery, engineering and industries. Most ppl dont know this, its a differant world.
one has to mentally put aside all this Getty/IS lark. Its got nothing to do with the trad Getty. One has to focus beyond the squibble and mayhem around Getty/IS. Getty came into micro via a banana peel, they bought IS and for whatever reason, we dont know, what we do know is, its gone sour and badly wrong. Might as well leave it at that and move on.
One also have to understand that the IS-admin had no choice in this matter, they were not asked but simply told to do the job, period.
Traffic engineering is a massive field, I have done a few commissions myself there, for the Goverment actually. Now the way this stock-industry is going? there you have it! thats your plan B. :)
best.
-
I would rather shine shoes than go back into that industry ;) I might do a little work on a lower level, especially with video. But to leave the industry and do something else was the best decision of my life.
There were some really nice people there also of course, especially the older generation. They have style.
But the younger and newer companies are incredible aggressive and very short sighted. The older companies created some very high quality technology, built to last for a long time. Now it is all cheap electronics and if more people die in traffic accidents because the tech keeps failing - who cares, the more it fails, the more you can sell.
No, my plan B and C are different.
But I donīt see the sky falling yet for stock. there is a huge demand for all media productions and this will only be increased in the coming years with larger TVīs, 3D technology and the new 3D printers. And of course a huge new market of buyers of professional imagery coming in from the rising middle classes and online businesses in china, india and south america. The more densely populated, the more need for technology. And of course wherever laws become more professional about IP copyright. But Iīd say if you want to look where the market is rising - follow the ipad and tablets sales reports. wherever they rise, there will be more online/website business that can afford our content.
It is just istock that will continue to see the traffic falling down, much faster than I thought. I had no idea how out of touch the top level getty managers really are from the RF industry and 21st century business in general.
There is a reason these very modern marketplaces and companies are called "community driven" companies, not management driven. Because the content producers hold the key, the internet has made all customers available with one click.
The flow of content from the media creators will go to the agency that offers the best service to them and to the customer. Which is why Shutterstock have truly worked their business model to perfection.
Since istock does not seem to be offering a lot of advantage to the exclusive media producers anymore, the flow of content will start to move elsewhere. The agility of communities is incredibly fast. Instagram lost half itīs users in just one month when they played their little games in December:
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/01/15/instagram-loses-nearly-half-its-daily-users-after-terms-of-use-controversy/ (http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/01/15/instagram-loses-nearly-half-its-daily-users-after-terms-of-use-controversy/)
Exclusive artists with large portfolios of 6000+, some over 10 000, they will need more time to prepare. Joe Gough predicted a large exodus of exclusives for April. I think his timing is right.
In the stock industry the media creators are often also the buyers of media. So where the content creators go, the customers walk with them. Automatically.
In the beginning all agencies will benefit from the redistribution of former exclusive content. Over the next 2-3 years some super agencies will emerge again.
But I think full artist exclusivity will be a rare breed. Image exclusivity, that might be the thing to do.
-
I would rather shine shoes than go back into that industry ;) I might do a little work on a lower level, especially with video. But to leave the industry and do something else was the best decision of my life.
There were some really nice people there also of course, especially the older generation. They have style.
But the younger and newer companies are incredible aggressive and very short sighted. The older companies created some very high quality technology, built to last for a long time. Now it is all cheap electronics and if more people die in traffic accidents because the tech keeps failing - who cares, the more it fails, the more you can sell.
No, my plan B and C are different.
But I donīt see the sky falling yet for stock. there is a huge demand for all media productions and this will only be increased in the coming years with larger TVīs, 3D technology and the new 3D printers. And of course a huge new market of buyers of professional imagery coming in from the rising middle classes and online businesses in china, india and south america. The more densely populated, the more need for technology. And of course wherever laws become more professional about IP copyright. But Iīd say if you want to look where the market is rising - follow the ipad and tablets sales reports. wherever they rise, there will be more online/website business that can afford our content.
It is just istock that will continue to see the traffic falling down, much faster than I thought. I had no idea how out of touch the top level getty managers really are from the RF industry and 21st century business in general.
There is a reason these very modern marketplaces and companies are called "community driven" companies, not management driven. Because the content producers hold the key, the internet has made all customers available with one click.
The flow of content from the media creators will go to the agency that offers the best service to them and to the customer. Which is why Shutterstock have truly worked their business model to perfection.
Since istock does not seem to be offering a lot of advantage to the exclusive media producers anymore, the flow of content will start to move elsewhere. The agility of communities is incredibly fast. Instagram lost half itīs users in just one month when they played their little games in December:
[url]http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/01/15/instagram-loses-nearly-half-its-daily-users-after-terms-of-use-controversy/[/url] ([url]http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/01/15/instagram-loses-nearly-half-its-daily-users-after-terms-of-use-controversy/[/url])
Exclusive artists with large portfolios of 6000+, some over 10 000, they will need more time to prepare. Joe Gough predicted a large exodus of exclusives for April. I think his timing is right.
In the stock industry the media creators are often also the buyers of media. So where the content creators go, the customers walk with them. Automatically.
In the beginning all agencies will benefit from the redistribution of former exclusive content. Over the next 2-3 years some super agencies will emerge again.
But I think full artist exclusivity will be a rare breed. Image exclusivity, that might be the thing to do.
Image exclusivity! is the name of the game. Problem is: its hard to police.
Listen I meant you to take pictures of traffic engineering! not to work there.
-
But I have to get in touch with everyone and if they are my personal customers also be nice and charming. I don't feel like doing that. With few exceptions...
The advantage of stock is that I can choose my own peer group and people I want to deal with by deciding what stock themes I want to work with.
-
But I have to get in touch with everyone and if they are my personal customers also be nice and charming. I don't feel like doing that. With few exceptions...
The advantage of stock is that I can choose my own peer group and people I want to deal with by deciding what stock themes I want to work with.
Heck! I would mind being nice to everybody for a few hundered grand and thats ME! ;D
-
But I have to get in touch with everyone and if they are my personal customers also be nice and charming. I don't feel like doing that. With few exceptions...
The advantage of stock is that I can choose my own peer group and people I want to deal with by deciding what stock themes I want to work with.
Heck! I would mind being nice to everybody for a few hundered grand and thats ME! ;D
Everyone's beating me to it.
I was about to reply to Jasmin that I'm sure she's naturally nice and charming, and if Old Grumpy and do it she certainly can.
-
Their Macro side is dying on its arse as well, they're just running around with fire extinguishers wondering what to do next.
Getty remind me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, a mad shaved headed old veteran chopping everything up and spouting nonsense.
There is no plan.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU[/url])
Matt! that is such a naive and dangerous thinking, wishful thinking its truly unbelievable. I could show you my and some friends sales-reports from the RM collections and you would not believe your eyes and then ask if its dying.
Megalomania - a psychopathological disorder characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. Its characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs'.
-
But I have to get in touch with everyone and if they are my personal customers also be nice and charming. I don't feel like doing that. With few exceptions...
The advantage of stock is that I can choose my own peer group and people I want to deal with by deciding what stock themes I want to work with.
Hey! get an exclusive sole agent! they will do all the spadework, talk, intro, etc, etc, all of it and in case of commissions or sales you pay em 25%.
In the old days sole agents used to cart around photographers portfolios up to ad-agencies, ADs. Sole agents are normally only for dayrate photographers. THERE IS THE MONEY! never mind stock.
Interested? well I can give you some names if you so wish. I know severall in UK and in the US.
-
Iīll keep it in mind thank you!
Iīm thinking of a new direction for my portfolio, especially now that video is coming into it.
But first I must survive the current disaster. I wasnīt planning to give up my photo exclusivity this year.
-
But I have to get in touch with everyone and if they are my personal customers also be nice and charming. I don't feel like doing that. With few exceptions...
The advantage of stock is that I can choose my own peer group and people I want to deal with by deciding what stock themes I want to work with.
Heck! I would mind being nice to everybody for a few hundered grand and thats ME! ;D
You'd never manage it.
I know I didn't.
That's why I'm in stock
:D ::)
-
But I have to get in touch with everyone and if they are my personal customers also be nice and charming. I don't feel like doing that. With few exceptions...
The advantage of stock is that I can choose my own peer group and people I want to deal with by deciding what stock themes I want to work with.
Heck! I would mind being nice to everybody for a few hundered grand and thats ME! ;D
You'd never manage it.
I know I didn't.
That's why I'm in stock
:D ::)
;D ;D. Good one Paul! anyway you have to agree I am almost as nice as gostwyck though, arent I? ;)
-
Carlyle group don't care of anything except money, Bush/Ben Laden and Sarkozy are part of us, we know they sell armament. How can "free" photographers like us can expect anything good from these devils?? They have nothing to do with art, nothing at all. They just want to grab all the money at the cost of killing everything. We are nothing.
The two solutions are making the most possible "buzz" against them and fleeing away from Istock and Getty.