A thought for the week-end

” Remember that your aim is to achieve the highest dollar gross contribution margin, not make the highest volume sales. You would get 100% of the market if you gave the stuff away.” – Phillipe_M from WebmasterWorld

The economics of the photo industry are shifting rapidly and might seem, to some, out of control. But lets review the parameters for a little while, if you don’t mind.

In a perfect world, you would have 100% of market share and no competition. It’s not going to happen and even Getty Images knows that. If you are in the photo business, it is because others, before you, have found it a lucrative and interesting market to be in. Thus, you did not invent it, neither will you be the last to license images. You became a competitor to someone else. And if you are reading this, it is because somewhere, somehow you succeeded in creating a demand for your images.

The general feeling, I hear more and more, is that photography is becoming a commodity, that anyone, anywhere can take a great picture. If you really think that, you need to leave this business, now. Immediately. Because that means you do not even believe in what you sell.

If you believe , however, that there is that special magic, that “je ne sais quoi”, in every and all image that you have posted on your website than please read on….

There is a value to every single image that you have. You have images that someone would love to use. For different reasons: to add dimension to their product or services, to explain in visuals a news event, or to make their magazines something that people will fight to buy.

Here are the steps of photography : reality (the world around us) => A photograph (the perception of that reality by one individual) => The availability of that photograph ( the work of an agency) => the match between a need and a solution (the license).

You cannot affect reality unless if you decide to throw a bomb at a building in oder to create a newsworthy event. It is really, really not recommended. Don’t even think about it.

You can, however, with the photographer, really influence how reality is going to be captured. In the editorial space, for example, it makes all the difference. In commercial stock, it separates the every day shooters from the creative. If you want to be different, then you cannot be afraid to be different. The shooters will cover their (lower) back and shoot the same type of images over and over again because they have sold in the past. The creative will never shoot the same image twice. They take risks. They miss. But when they hit, they hit really, really hard. And an agency should support that.

Remenber Nonstock, Comstock, ImageDirect. Tony Stone, The Stock Market, Digital Stock, etc …. ?

An agency makes these images available. Adding keywords, creating relationships, listening to customers needs, storing, color correcting, understanding, cataloging…I could go on and on. Another added value from the plain reality we started from.

And finally, the match between an offering and a need . An image, like a wife or a car, only becomes perfect in the eyes of the beholder. Like a key in a lock. Photography opens doors, solves problems, supports and enhances a message, makes an article become true. The most extreme added value to reality.

The client, ultimately, decides the value of the image.

This is also why, ultimately , you started and why your are still in this business.

This industry lost its edge the day someone, somewhere decided there was truth in numbers. And with its edge, it has lost its value. Numbers, and the so called self-reassuring nature of it, has brought comfort to the meat eaters among us. AP, Reuters, Corbis, Getty work with numbers. That is their religion. The new members of this “we love numbers” club are microstocks. How many images they have, how many downloads, how many hits, how much contributors, how many .. and so on. They throw numbers everywhere.

But are any of these companies profitable ?

And the funniest part ? None of their contributors even think about numbers. They have no idea what an RPI is ( Return Per Image) . Nor do they care. But you do. This industry is not suffering from microstock shooters and their low prices. It is suffering because most photographers, helped by their agencies, have become accountants. Number crunchers. Bean counters. Expert in cost VS revenue analysts.

They are trying, in a word, to become what the Getty’s of this world has make them believe they should be : Surveyors.

A few of my favorite things…

Bush wants $50 billion more for Iraq _ MSNBC.com. I Guess he did not see Mediastorm new multimedia. Could someone please send it to him ?

A good mutltimedia with a couple of weak points: too much video and too little on the children.

Avatar and company :

I am sorry but I cannot help it. This is too funny. A company that has lost money for the last 14 years has spend its valuable resources to create an on-line Gallery in “Second Life”, the favorite destination of millions of people who do not have any. I guess this is the secret weapon Gary Shenk has to make Corbis profitable. Albeit, you cannot license any images from their virtual store, but I guess their next move will be to post a virtual profit. Oh yes, and open a ride at Disneyworld.

Getty lower prices:

Older RF images are being bargained at $49 or less. As always, the industry is up in arms. Seems more like Getty is trying to find a real second life for images that are not selling so well anymore. The midstock sector, where RF images are priced higher than microstock and lower than tradionnal RF, is still an unchartered territory . The real question is why at punchstock rather than Istock ? One would think that the value conscious customers would be found at the microstock site. The intent is probably to merge both so that one would have a global RF offering that would go from bottom to top.

In the mean time, friendly Getty is helping Corbis license images while they are busy building a powerful virtual empire.

The seeds of things to come

The Internet and technology has made it possible to find new ways to generate income from photography. Yet no one in the photo industry has really capitalized on it. Because of the success of photo community sites, a lot of heads are now thinking about how to capitalize on all this content.
Many times I have mention the rise of the “intelligent” image : images that contain much more than the just the metadata and that can generate its own income. Up comes Web 2.0 company Britepic. The idea is quite simple : make your image a little more interactive and sell some ad space on it. The more popular an image, the more clicks, the more views , the more money. This makes a lot of sense. Pricing of images on the internet, up to now, has been a poor copy of print publishing licensing
Length and size make up for the basis of the licensing equation. And that was and is a mistake. The pricing of an image on the web should be linked to traffic, thus increasing as traffic increases. After all, an image can be solely responsible for a huge spikes in visitors.Britepic allows you to give your images for free and yet still make money. Using the the force of viral multiplication, your photograph can now be used on various websites, including the MySpace of this world and generate income while you are sleeping. By embedding the image with all the tools to be shared, it is now possible to freely let your images roam the internet world in search of income.There is a spark of genius in Britepic and definitively something to pay very close attention to. It might just contain the seeds of a highly popular new licensing model that could change, yet again, how we make our living.

visit Britepic here

So confused

I don’t understand. I really do not understand the relation some people make between file sharing photo sites, like Fotolog or Photobucket and the professional photo industry. I do not even understand how professionals from the photo industry can declare that anyone can take a great picture. A great photo of a cow is worth $300, if not more. After all, doesn’t an Ansel Adam print of Yosemite park go for thousands of dollars, although anyone can (in theory) do the same ?
If they blame it on the equipment, it is nothing new. Cameras, even the high end ones, have always been available to non professionals and will always be. Does that mean that every one can paint ? or write ? after all brushes or word processors are also available to anyone. For cheap.

Those of us who license images for a living know the difference between an everyone photograph and a pro image. That is why some images will always be priced at $300 or more, if the market calls for it. Those who purchase images will never have any problem paying $300 for an image, especially if it exactly what they need.

Where and when did talent and the added value of the photographic eye was dropped ? Flickr has great images but a majority of very, very crappy images. Photobucket and its millions of images has so much crap, it would make a blind man cry. And let’s not mention the numerous copyright infringement waiting online for their real owner to sue.

Those who write about photography and the business of it should first have some experience with licensing images, either buying or selling. There is more to a great image than the fact that it looks great. much more. And that is what is recognized when a license price is agreed upon. Not just how easy or hard it was to take, but mostly the creative input. You could have send me 20 times to Ethopia during the great famine and never, ever would I have come back with images as powerful as Sebasto Salgado. Never.

It is time for the apprentices to buckle up their mouth and learn instead of preaching. Photo file sharing used to be a family affair done in private ( we all know why) . The horror of our age is that it has now become public and some people find that exciting and revolutionary. I say, some things should always remain private. I find it offensive and repulsive. I find no joy and happiness in myspace, photobuckets and any other sites that exult the self promotion of boring, pathetic, mindless lives. I did not care about these people before the rise of Web 2.0 and I still don’t.

And anyone who dares to compare or thinks that these photo file sharing sites deserved to be mentioned in the same breath as Magnum or Getty should be held accountable for flagrant ignorance of what photography is really. The photo industry has always been occupied by people who love photography and have a deep respect for quality, from the high end to microstock. Recently it has been plagued by useless commentators who believe that everything that shines brand new is automatically ground breaking.

There should be a law against photo file sharing site that prohibits people from sharing their shitty holiday vacation or “me and my friends drunk last night” pictures and mostly a law that forces those who are in awe and admiration in front of these garbage site to pretend they know anything about the photo industry.

Photo courtesy ABOSCH. ~DO NOT REPRODUCE OR COPY~

Before it tips

There are many things we seem to forget while we all go about our daily business of licensing images. Some are good, some are bad, some are in between. In order to clear up the horizon, I made a little list.

The Good ( or positive) :

- Microstock : Introduced millions to licensing images. Even if it is cannibalizing 8 to 20 % of the existing market, it still has brought 80% to 92 % new clients. Wether these new clients were previously stealing images or just not buying any at all, you have to give credit to the pioneers of this sub division of the stock licensing business for their impressive catch. In the process, it has educated a lot of amateurs about the versatilities of image licensing and copyright. Knowledge that will be spread out to the full benefit of the agency world

- Getty, Jupiter and others with deep pocket: made instant millionaires of photo people. never seen before in this industry. It used to be a long hours, no revenue type of business where the only way to leave was to die from a heart attack at your desk. We now have a handful of photo millionaires and hope in everyone else’s eyes.

- Technology: if used properly, can have a devastating effect on your bottom line and push profit margins really high.

- Multimedia: The renaissance of photo J and the new language of information. Adding sound to still is the true 3D effect of photography.

- Flickr : People taking and talking about photography on a scale never seen before. Who knew that what we do had such an interest ? They love us, they really do.

- Google: Put search on a pedestal forcing photo agencies worldwide to rethink how images are returned and how to keyword them.

- Community driven platform: Photoshelter and likes have leverage technology to allow some independent photographers to attempt to play the stock agency game without being part of a photo agency. Right now it seems only Alamy is achieving its goal but will they be successful ? At least they offer an alternative that did not exist a few years ago.

The Bad ( or negative):

- Microstock: Suddenly plunged part of the industry in dismayingly chaos. From people tearing their hair out to others screaming Armageddon, those bottom feeder agencies have triggered a rush for the most at lesser price in the hopes of asphyxiating their competition. Anything and everything goes. It’s a mix bag of clip art, graphic design, object photography and boring video with a complete disdain to raising quality. Crowdsourcing as overcrowding. Quantity over quality. While it is certainly not the end of photography as we know it, it is certainly not a pretty spectacle.

- Getty: The reigning mega powerhouse with seemingly endless tentacles. Extremely successful as it has done more damage to this industry than all the microstock photo agencies put together. Has shut down more businesses than anyone has ever done and are the leaders in the price cutting, high volume game. By creating the monthly subscription fee for editorial usage, it has seriously eroded everyone’s potential for growth and stabbed photojournalism in the back. Can they survive themselves?

- Technology : Like religion, if badly used, can be a killer . So many agencies spending more time treating digital files then they used to treat film. Websites that are like Lego assembled without reading the instructions and self proclaimed computer experts that have no clue what they are doing and cannot understand why people are not flocking to their magnificent creations. Off the shelves software that promise heaven and leaves everyone in hell. Overpriced solutions that create more problems for everyone. Photo editors worldwide wishing that they could just call and get slides delivered to them within an hour.

- Flickr: An open door to thieves. Creative Common has become synonym to Public Domain. High res available without a password is like leaving your front door after leaving your house with a sign saying ” please serve yourself”. Flickr’s selling price to Yahoo has also open the door to Twitter happy West Coast snappers to proclaimed themselves the messiah of photography with junk tools like Zooooooommmmrrr. San Fransisco was the leader in “useless, business plan empty lets spend all the VC money in parties” websites during the first internet bubble. Seems like they are happy to take the lead again during web 2.0.

- Community driven platform : Seems they are the recipient of the photo refuseniks. Those pro or semi pro photographers that were refused by photo agencies but do not consider themselves as microshooters. The result ? More offer of lesser or bad quality. And the few that are really good disappear under the deluge of useless images.

- The Photo prophets: Everyone is entitled to their opinions, granted But to a certain degree. Those announcing the end of photography because of microstock or because of video should remain quiet. Forever. If they are so scared, they should change industry. Now. If 4 or 5 microstock agencies are apparently thriving while new royalty free agencies are being created everyday is not a sign of the end of time. Not to me. Editorial has never been so healthy if you pay a little attention to the celebrity space. Sure, there are a lot of changes and some agencies are paying the prices for not seeing them coming but others are adapting quite well and making a little fortune. Photographers have never been so much in demand, as well as so numerous. Its a balance game.

You just have to be on the right side of the balance before it tips.

Time sellers

let’s be honest for a while. What we sell is Time. If we consider the passing of time as a continuous flow, than a photograph is nothing more than a very thin slice extracted and displayed outside of its natural place. A bit like a very thin glass of water taken from a stream.

It then proceeds in living outside of its time and becomes a object representing the time it was taken in. Nothing really new here. What becomes interesting is that we then proceed in renting that piece of time for a limited time. We are talking about RM here, obviously, not RF. Our clients, image buyers, will rent a piece of time for a limited time. The longer they want to display that time, the more expensive it becomes.

Quite obviously we need to ad space to the equation because since Einstein, we know we cannot separate them. And that time doesn’t just exist by itself, it has to be fixed in space. Both the image we take, is not only a fix time but also at a fix place. Licensing is the same, as we set prices based on time and the space that it takes.

Royalty Free has forever changed photography’s relation to time, at least on the licensing part, by offering a flat fee over large amounts of time and space. It broke the dualistic relationship that photography had with time both on the creation and licensing side. It is still a chunk of time when created but is no longer constrain to a specific time and space when it is licensed.

Part of that evolution is due to the medium on which we capture time. Since slides and print where physical objects, also clearly defined in space and time , it was always ask to be returned after a client usage.It reinforced the idea of time.
With digital, which refuses to be defined in space since it can be at infinite places at the same time, and has an infinite lifespan ( data does not die, hard drives do), the medium becomes timeless. And thus much easier to license as such.

It has also reduce our understanding of time and space. A news event that happened in the 1960’s in Israel for example was not seen for a day or two after it occurred. Today, we complain if we do not see images within a minute of it happening anywhere in the world.

Weekly or monthly magazines that were initially created to have the time to put all the information together have now switch to taking the time to cut through the vast amount of hourly information, including pictures, that bombard us every day.
As we all jumped into the digital pool with such enthusiasm, we never really took the time ( no puns intended) to analyze its consequence. Not that it would have change anything. We are now playing with a set of rules which have changed more than we think and has affected us far more deeply than we ever thought.

The next generation of picture professionals to succeed will be those who will master this concept and figure out how to manage it to their profit.

Nothing is important

Too much about nothing. Tired of microstock, of Getty’s quarterly report, of the nay sayers and doomsday scenario ? Tired of pictures of cows in a field or girls wearing a black suit smiling while wearing a headset? Well head on the the land of great photography as it is grown daily by the likes of visual geniuses like Ami Vitale. Not only a charming and gentle individual, she is one of those that speak little but show much. I fell on one of her multimedia today and couldn’t take my eyes off the depth of the images, extremely well supported by a gentle video feed that supports the still images.

Ami’s work make you feel like you are there, with her, in the present, and makes you want to pack your stuff and do something to change this cynical world. Not because you are angry and disgusted, but because you suddenly remembered you cared.

Ami Vitale’s work here

What happened ?

The year is 2050. The city, Metropolis. Image usage is gone. Everything is video at microstock prices supplied by wealthy conglomerates of videographers . In order to have more power over the owners of the portals and reduce their production costs, “microvidegraphers” have regrouped into syndicates. They own studios, model agencies and are starting to purchase landmarks in order to secure property release in high volumes and block their competition. There is no more still photographer as there are no more magazines, or newspapers. Everything is online and billboards only display videos. The TV and the internet have finally merged as one. No one watches a show anymore as much as they subscribe to video feeds. Clips, or footage, are selling in the lowers teens for Super HD high resolution, high quality RF. Due to the endless offering, no one really cares about RM as chances of using the same content as your competition are much lower than winning the lottery. Some websites will go as far as showing you who else downloaded the clip so you can avoid using the same. With decillions of clips available, its not like there is no choice.
Corbis has long gone, turned into a non for profit on line gallery of exquisite vintage photography. Bill Gates has retired and besides his charity work, is seldom ever seen. Getty has been sold, and re sold as it struggled to redefine its role and future in an ever changing chaotic environment. Luckily for them Mark Getty and Johnathan Klein, along with a few of their most faithful executive have cashed in on time and are happily enjoying a sunny retirement. As if he still had something to prove, Jonathan Klein is still struggling with a few starts up that seem on the verge of collapsing. Mark Getty, however, is never heard of again.

Alan Meckler has succeeded in getting rid of all his visual content offering them to third parties, mostly in Europe, and his company is enjoying a regain of popularity for his websites during the rise of “web 12.0″.

Still photography is just a faded memory and left for a few hobbyists and Sunday afternoon clubs composed mostly of aging middle class suburban housewives.

Anyone can submit videos to these 3 or 4 sites who license clip electronically. You can enter what you need, for how long, and it will credit your account accordingly. Should you desire to secure an exclusive for your industry for a limited time, no problem. The site will block anyone else from from the same industry as yours from even seeing the clip while your footage will simply vanish at the end of your license period. With their Upload TO Website from camera features, Sony and GE are the top makers of video cameras. This features allows for a high speed upload of clips to your microstock of your choice directly and while you are shooting. Works great for news websites too, by the way. The editing is made automatically by a simple algorithm that scans the video and readjust any lighting or focusing issue. It can recognize patterns, thus immediately creating tags on the fly in multi languages.
Because of an extremely aggressive competition and because the content is pretty much the same on all suppliers website, prices remain at rock bottom and no one really makes any money anymore, unless if they are part of the Syndicates. Some lawyers, representing the MAA (Microshooter Association of America) have lobbied the US Senate to try to pass a legislation to secure a law that would make contributing to microstock websites illegal for foreigners. Needles to say, it failed. For now.
However, a law is being introduced that would reduce the length of a copyright to only a couple of years  and  declare public domain any video that would look too much like another. The underlying thought is that, if the concept is identical, then it a common concept. Therefore no one should claim copyrights. If passed, that would be a blow to the industry as most of their content is extremely similar. Some video bloggers are up in arms, headed by  Jim Pickerell III.
Europe had passed legislation, in 2040, forcing any company with a website that had more than a million unique visitors to publish a print version in order to protect the dying industry. Since most videographer couldn’t care less for print, most still images taken from the online videos are free and hardly, if never credited.

And Me ? Well, If I am still alive, I will be playing with my grandkids and taking lots of pictures.

Celebrity photography in trouble ?

A recent article offers a glimpse of what might be lurking in the future for a lot of editorial agencies in the US. According to this post, “At issue was whether Corbis, the online stock photography company, violated the late singer James Brown’s right of publicity by offering to license the copyright in photos of him, even though he had not consented to the use by Corbis of his name or image.”

This would be quite appropriate if the image had been sold for commercial use but it seems, according to Corbis’s defense, that it was solely for editorial. However, the judge still dismissed Corbis claim and is proceeding with the case.

A similar attempt has been made, here in New York and now in California, to try to pass a law which would severely restrict the usage of celebrity images, mostly those who have passed away. This law, if passed, would also affect any images with people in it as the definition of celebrity or famous can be used broadly.

However , if this case goes through and if Corbis looses, which quite frankly I doubt, it would be a huge blow to all celebrity photo agencies who would then have to seek rights and pay fee to license images of celebrities for editorial usage. You can just imagine the chaos. However, it could play well in the hands of big corporations who could afford to work with such a process, leaving the small ones in the dust.

Control of celebrity images is a growing concern in the United States, as this is the worlwide celebrity factory, and more and more publicist and agents are pushing for stronger legislation. But it could trickle to news coverage where a model release might be needed. A bit like the current laws in France.

This is certainly something to keep an eye on.

Full article here

fetch and sell

One big difference between Editorial and Commercial photography, is that in the Editorial world you have to go find the images. and then you have to go out and sell it.

In the case of the terrorist attack on the Scottish airport, for example, agencies were on the phones locating anyone that was there and might have taken a photograph. In some cases, agencies will send people on the ground to secure the rights. If you sit there in the hopes that someone will send you exclusive images, you are making a big mistake. Someone else will have called them before to secure the distribution rights. Virginia Tech or the Minneapolis bridge were the same. And once the images are secured, the sales process starts. You have the inform the clients you have these images. They will not come by themselves. They are too busy trying to secure rights themselves and they are way too many sources of images these days.

Commercial is completely different. Either using creative research to create a batch of images, or relying on contributing photographers talent, commercial stock photo agencies have more of a “sit and wait” approach. They rely heavily on marketing to sell their overall style and service but can hardly go out and sell one image to a client. Some others will rely on carpet bombing, a la Microstock, having a little bit of everything. At least that is what they are aiming for.

With the rise of community based distribution platform who solely rely on content provided by their members, the fetching of images is thus impossible. Its like running a photo agency with your hands tied behind your back. News happen and all you can do is hope and pray that someone, somewhere will send you the right images. It is a bit like playing the lottery with the added  disadvantage that someone might steal your winning ticket. The selling becomes very problematic as you do not know what you have, if you will have anything and if more will be coming. Not something an editor on deadline likes to hear.

Volume does not replace quality. A website, as sophisticated as it can be, does not replace experience and savvy sales people. Automation of the fetch and sale process is so far off. We will be all dead and buried before it happens. Only the work flow can be automated.
Editorial photography is an extremely human experience. Photographers have such a love of life and people that I cannot see how they could ever interact with a machine. And whether they like it or not, photographers always interact with their subjects. In literature, paradoxically enough, it is called a “point of view”. It is a natural human being habit. This is passed on to other human beings who also use their human experience to judge and edit the images. It’s above all an emotional decision that separates the good images from the bad. Finally, there is a bond between an editor and sales executives at a photo agency. A relationship of trust and confidence. Very often it is a real friendship.

The quality of a search engine can never replace the relevance of content. A timely link has to be made between an image and the need for this image. A week before, no one will need the image. A week later, it will be obsolete.

All this to say that companies that invest too much in their technology in the hopes of replacing people are bound to fail.