MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Sites that no longer exist => SnapVillage.com => Topic started by: eendicott on February 15, 2007, 14:53
-
I found this little blurb published today at StockAsylum....
http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/articles/a5wn022007-corbisfigs.htm (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 :-\
-
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 :)
-
This could shake things up a bit! I hope Bill Gates has some fresh ideas for microstock.
-
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.
-
...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!
-
I'll bet they will have better commissions??
-
"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.
-
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 :'(
-
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??
-
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 :D
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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).
-
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.
-
Maybe a lot of the crap on corbis that doesn't sell will get chucked into the MS bin.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I am sure if Corbis launches microstock site, it will be in top 5 within a year. On the other hand, I must say that RM images on Corbis' main site are not very spectacular--as a matter of fact I have seen much better works on IS. There is also an enormous amount of keyword spamming... if you type in florida, for example, you get images of pill boxes and bicycles by page 3. Not very promising. You must also consider that most of the uploads to the Corbis site (at least at the initial stage) will come from collections posted somewhere else-be it IS, SS, Fotolia, etc. So, I think they are aware of that. So there is a good chance that they are currently buying all rights for some of the RM images that are not selling or downgrading high-priced RF images to inject something different into their site.
-
It will be interesting.
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.
Whether they make a profit or not, revenue is increasing:
http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/articles/a5wn022007-corbisfigs.htm (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.
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?
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.
-
Just thought I would bump this back to the top.
Read an interview with a Corbis guy and he said they would have microstock in the next couple of months.
From the working it sounded like they would be starting from scratch.
I think the interview can be read on www.bjp-online.com
-
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.
-
I dont think a new site can give enough incentives to exclusives. NOt until you know they are saleable.
I agree to jump on board early.
-
Anyone heard any further news about Corbis?
-
Haven't seen anything yet.
-
http://news.com.com/Corbis+to+take+microstock+plunge/2100-1025_3-6187931.html
Looks like we'll have microcorbis in July.
-
will be interesting to see how it panes out, and interesting to see how many photog's get a chance to submit to corbis, and not just the micro site.
-
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.
-
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.
If that was true, I'm sure someone would have heard about it. I would think that it would be hard to keep something like that a secret. But what do I know???
-
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??
-
It was inevitable, it HAD to happen. Macro Stock is dying. Why?
.....Because Macro Stock can't compete with Microstock which has taken out a BIG chunk of it's profits.
Why should a budding new designer with limited resources (or anyone for that matter), pay
the exuberant prices Macro Stock demands for it's images when microstock offers comparable images
for less than 1/4 the price?
Think about Microstock as the new Walmart for Macrostock.
-
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.
-
Macrostock will never die because large companies are happy to pay higher prices to ensure the images they use are not seen elsewhere.
Microstock has created a new market with the people who previously wouldn't pay high prices for stock. This new market only partially overlaps the existing macrostock market, with those in the overlapped portion happy to sacrifice image exclusivity for a much lower price.
The remaining portion of the macrostock industry - predominantly organisations with valuable brands and big marketing budgets - will never defect. Yes, macrostock photographers have lost a portion of their market, but it's a portion that wasn't relevant for their services from the beginning.
-
To support what Lee said, Getty thinks there is only a 15% cross over between micro and macro customers.
-
Blip
Big will always stay big and always want piece of cake.
Bigger an inerten agencies come for crempie.