Posted by Walter Rowe on October 24, 2006 at 11:56 AM
According to a Photo District News article, Getty Images is laying off 28 people in the USA and more overseas in an effort to appease investors. The article states that the last two quarterly earnings reports have been disappointing, and that the company is blaming a slow down in Royalty Free image sales.
Interesting article, particularly if you follow the links to Jupitermedia and their business model. Several things struck me, first that they seem to have a variety stock agencies under one roof. A search for images of my location through several of their sites revealed duplication of images.
That their royalty free images come via a subscription, which makes on wonder how much the photographer gets. Sales of individual images seem to be based on image size rather than publication use.
What quite surprised me in the search, I was looking to see who local might be submitting, was that the photographers were anonymous, no credits given.
Based solely on the search of local images, it seems that the work they offer is of a lower calibre. Not that they were bad images, rather that the time taken for the images was reflected in the work. It seems to reveal somebody was here for a week and shot what they could regardless of the light.
It would seem that quality is taking a bit of a beating to economics to the point where one has to wonder if it is worth the time to take excellent stock work if the money isn't any better than middle of the road work. Will it drive down photographers fees if stock prices are falling?
"Will it drive down photographers fees if stock prices are falling?"
Interesting question Dave. In our experience, the falling stock prices haven't affected our fees, and in fact the mediocrity in the more easily accessible (from the buyer's standpoint) RF images has resulted in MORE contract work. In our small market anyway, potential clients surf the RF sources first, then come to us when they can't find what they want or don't like what they find. As a result we are getting walk-ins who know what's available cheaply, but are prepared to pay more to get what they really need. It's a wonderful setup for us, because they are quick to react to the quality of our work and pay for it willingly.
I don't know how well that experience translates 100 feet beyond the shores of our isolated market, but we are getting a lot less grumping about our fees now.
Posted by Nelcha Cross on October 24, 2006 at 5:11 PM
Congratualtions Hank...and I hope that is happening across the country
for the above reason I have hesitated going into stock....
But you are giving me hope now....
So the question is ...how do I find a legit local one like you???
It's a building process Nelcha. We started getting serious just over 15 years ago and offered a full spectrum of photo services in addition to stock. It takes time, but eventually you become recognized as "the" local source for photos. Lots of good constructive relationships have to be built, and in fact you have to turn away some business to establish your credibility.
By that I mean it is important for you to only do what you can do well, meanwhile turning down the work you can't do well. Follow that up with sincerely helping find the right services for that person, and they will know they can trust you. If all the while you continue developing your skills and equipment, pretty soon you aren't turning down much business and can offer a full spectrum of services. We sell stock most often as a part of other services rather than simple stock sales. I.e., we may be contracted to do specific shots for a client, and it may be cheaper or more timely for them to fill out their additional photo needs from our stock selection.
Our stock sales fluctuate, but average about a 20% contribution to our gross income. The fluctuation seems to revolve around how "fresh" our stock images are. Styles change, communities evolve, and repeat clients always look for something new. Fall behind on additions to your stock library and sales will drop.
It is difficult to translate stock prices to my local environment. Day rates here seem to run in the $350.00 CDN range, though the favourite practice is to treat local photographers as stock agencies with e-mails arriving asking "Do you have...?". There is little incentive for me to spend the time doing it well, when they will buy from a local semi-pro or amateur, all rights, for $100.00. At those rates they seldom buy stock.
I've have had stock work sold overseas of local landscapes through the process of allied agencies. By the time everybody gets their percentage I can just afford to go to McDonalds!
As you mention, some photographers will benefit when clients can't find their need in stock. A concern is that a younger photographer won't be able to afford the equipment and the time to improve their skills to that point in their career.
It may be that my local conditions may appear in the larger market should it prove stock holds down the level and fees of photography.
Your points are very good Dave. Our circumstances may differ most in the level of development or "maturity" of the local market and subject matter. In our case, "Kodiak bear" photos are a dime a dozen and available almost anywhere. But till now almost no one has come here to photograph anything else. In that relative vacuum, we have been able to fill a mostly-local market for images not available, at least to our level of quality, from anywhere else. That all is likely to change as Kodiak becomes more of a destination and a more diverse spectrum of Kodiak photos spreads beyond our borders.
In contrast, your area may be more thoroughly covered photographically, and shots may be more readily available from diverse sources, rendering them more susceptible to pricing pressures and discounts.
Local market pricing structures are quite different too. Our base day rate is four times yours, and it goes up dramatically when we start adding lighting equipment, technicians and assistants. When providing a full range of onsight services, we have been paid almost ten times your rate, and even more when we have entered the realm of models, hair stylists, makeup artists, wardrobe, and yes, even a caterer on one occasion.
We also don't have a cadre of local "discount" shooters. So far our work has so outclassed theirs that we garner the "cream of the crop" jobs. It's very much a local perception that you get what you pay for. While there are people who will shoot a wedding for $200, my wife's base comes close to ten times that. And the clients still sign her up for assured quality rather than pay less.
I'm starting to realize what a little Eden we live in here, compared to so many other markets. And yes, the snake is in sight and there's an apple on the tree.
Posted by Robert Cable on October 25, 2006 at 10:01 AM
Dear Photographer,
Our industry, as you know, is in a state of flux. Customers work in new ways. Ad spend is shifting from traditional areas like print and TV, to online and mobile. Social networking sites change customers’ expectations of how they work with us and use imagery. Emerging license models such as subscription and microstock add to the mix.
Getty Images has always been at the forefront of change, and we are once again reinventing every part of our business to lead the industry in serving customers. Simply put, we are reallocating resources to spend significantly more on selling pictures and growing new markets, and proportionately less in areas where we can work more efficiently.
As part of this reorganization, we are changing our staffing levels in some areas, including the loss of some staff in the Creative department. We are telling you this today because we want you to hear directly from us. And although we can’t yet provide details about who is affected, due to differing personnel laws in the many countries where we operate, we can tell you that if your Editor or Art Director is affected, you will be supported by someone new and we’ll let you know who that will be, very soon.
In addition, changes are coming to the ways we create and source our imagery – more about this in the weeks and months to come – so we’re reviewing how we work with all photographers. We look forward to sharing a new vision for Getty Images with you soon. For now, I want you to know that our intention is to accept more images from more photographers in the future.
All changes – both company-wide and in the Creative department – are designed to meet customers’ evolving needs. Continual innovation is the only way to ensure that Getty Images remains the first place customers go for their visual content needs, and that we continue to be your first choice for marketing your content to the global marketplace, with the best returns in the business.
Finally, because of these changes, we believe that it’s essential for the Photographer and Filmmaker Relations department to be completely integrated with the Imagery department. To achieve this, that team will now report to me, so that our support for photographers and filmmakers is fully aligned with the creation of content.
As part of this reorganization, Anthony Harris, Vice President of Photographer & Filmmaker Relations, has left Getty Images. Anthony played a key role in the success of Getty Images over many years, building successful relationships with contributors. His passion, dedication and strong leadership will be greatly missed. I’m sure that he’ll remain in touch with many of us and we hope you will join us in wishing him success and the best of luck in the future.
Moving forward, Paul Banwell, Director of Photographer and Filmmaker Relations, will lead the Relations team, reporting to me.
If you have any questions, please contact your local Photographer & Filmmaker Relations Manager using the details below, and please know that we’ll share more information about the plan forward as soon as possible.
That's a well crafted letter. It reveals a healthy company in touch with a changing environment and willing to make major internal changes to keep pace. It will certainly mean changes in the way it works with photographers and the way photographers work for them, but it also should give some assurance that Getty will remain a major player.
If I shot for them, I'd carefully study their new rates and procedures, but also their photo needs. I suspect that the best opportunities and fees will come in emerging markets. While fees are likely to drop significantly in markets swamped in photos, the emerging ones will still pay well. It will be an equally momentous business decision for the photographer whether to continue adding to the swamp or develop new shooting styles and subjects.
Like I say, I don't shoot for Getty but I have to respect them.
Posted by David Prichard on October 25, 2006 at 11:46 AM
Robert,
This from the Wikipedia on microstock;
"The mindset of microstock is that quantity will prevail and the photographer will end up making as much from many small sales as they would from a few large sales on a traditional stock photography site. Many people disagree whether or not this is giving the photographer a just price for their image; many professional photographers believe microstock devalues the industry."
There is also a Yahoo microstock forum called micropayment.
How can quality prevail? This model doesn't seem to allow for one of the more important aspects of photography, time. Expenses for photographers are going up, like everybody else's, and the rates fall. It has to be at the expense of quality.
Stock has always been a difficult business and with lower payments why would a pro now commit a good deal of time to it? If the publishing industry were stronger the older model of putting assignment work as stock might prevail, but that seems to be a diminishing market.
As Hank noted, it may come to be that a lack of stock quality will translate into commissions for photographers.
As I mentioned earlier, rates here, in a small market, are very low. Several of the 'professional' photographers here derive the majority of their income in another manner happy to get a fee that will offset a tank of fuel oil or cord of wood. You can't make a living competing against that.
It is not that I want to appear negative or discouraging, particularly to the newer photographer. Rather it would appear that stock, in the foreseeable future, may becoming the domain of the talented semi-pro or amateur who can afford to spend the time as their income doesn't depend on the work. With the cost of digital gear, a paid hobby is quite alluring!
We feel fortunate not to have become dependent on stock agencies for our sales. We've always sold our own stock. If I wanted to do more of that and reach distant markets, I'd get busy and finally put up a web site, plus use everything I've learned to self-promote and direct market on a larger scale.
I've always been bothered by the huge share of income you donate to stock agencies for their "marketing and management" services. It's more time consuming, but I've always felt the income is much better doing your own stock work.
It all reminds me of the entrance of Walmart into small communities. The average small business which is unable or unwilling to adapt will surely perish. But there are always the businesses that persist. With the emergence of Photowalmarts, we've managed so far to persist. That could change tomorrow, whether due to additional changes in our market or a decision that we simply don't want to work that hard any more.
I'd probably maintain some sales to help pay for the hobby, but taking a break is alluring too!
Posted by Mark Windom on October 26, 2006 at 10:28 AM
I've been with one of the larger NY agencies for the past 15 years and, personally, have seen a tremendous drop in RM sales over the last several of those years. I'm sure there are several reasons for this but the two main ones are the advent of RF and my own stubborness in continuing to shoot exclusively nature subjects instead of the more "marketable" business and lifestyles imagery.
The belief early in the evolution of the RF market that photogs would more than make up for the loss of the large money sales with quantity of small(er) sales hasn't held true, at least not for me. Perhaps the CEO's of these large stock agencies are making money off of RF but I can't imagine too many photographers are.
Self stock is a great way to avoid the high percentage cuts that stock agencies take on every sale and if you have a strong foothold in your local market it can be a reliable source of income. My local market is so saturated with photographers that, in spite of all the inherent problems in dealing with agencies, I have found them to be a much more reliable source of imcome than self stock. Yes, the fees they deduct from sales are high but I don't have the reach into the international marketplace that they do and many, if not most, of my sales are overseas.
The key to making money in photography, IMO, is diversification. Consider stock agencies but also pursue other avenues such as self stock, print sales and other forms of self publication, etc. You also have to be diverse in the subject matter you shoot; nature alone doesn't cut it like it used to.
"The key to making money in photography, IMO, is diversification. Consider stock agencies but also pursue other avenues such as self stock, print sales and other forms of self publication, etc. You also have to be diverse in the subject matter you shoot; nature alone doesn't cut it like it used to."
That's certainly been our experience Mark. Each time we have considered adding agencies to our spectrum of income generators, we have been forced to weigh the time required against the potential income. If we could manage it while not taking away from effort in other arenas, it would certainly be a welcome additional income source. But when we weigh that time against how much we can generate in other arenas with the same time investment, the stock income can't keep up. That was true years ago when our lower volume of stock images would have been the limiter, but sadly it's true today due to the drop in stock prices.
Discussion
12 repliesInteresting article, particularly if you follow the links to Jupitermedia and their business model. Several things struck me, first that they seem to have a variety stock agencies under one roof. A search for images of my location through several of their sites revealed duplication of images.
That their royalty free images come via a subscription, which makes on wonder how much the photographer gets. Sales of individual images seem to be based on image size rather than publication use.
What quite surprised me in the search, I was looking to see who local might be submitting, was that the photographers were anonymous, no credits given.
Based solely on the search of local images, it seems that the work they offer is of a lower calibre. Not that they were bad images, rather that the time taken for the images was reflected in the work. It seems to reveal somebody was here for a week and shot what they could regardless of the light.
It would seem that quality is taking a bit of a beating to economics to the point where one has to wonder if it is worth the time to take excellent stock work if the money isn't any better than middle of the road work. Will it drive down photographers fees if stock prices are falling?
Dave
Interesting question Dave. In our experience, the falling stock prices haven't affected our fees, and in fact the mediocrity in the more easily accessible (from the buyer's standpoint) RF images has resulted in MORE contract work. In our small market anyway, potential clients surf the RF sources first, then come to us when they can't find what they want or don't like what they find. As a result we are getting walk-ins who know what's available cheaply, but are prepared to pay more to get what they really need. It's a wonderful setup for us, because they are quick to react to the quality of our work and pay for it willingly.
I don't know how well that experience translates 100 feet beyond the shores of our isolated market, but we are getting a lot less grumping about our fees now.
for the above reason I have hesitated going into stock....
But you are giving me hope now....
So the question is ...how do I find a legit local one like you???
By that I mean it is important for you to only do what you can do well, meanwhile turning down the work you can't do well. Follow that up with sincerely helping find the right services for that person, and they will know they can trust you. If all the while you continue developing your skills and equipment, pretty soon you aren't turning down much business and can offer a full spectrum of services. We sell stock most often as a part of other services rather than simple stock sales. I.e., we may be contracted to do specific shots for a client, and it may be cheaper or more timely for them to fill out their additional photo needs from our stock selection.
Our stock sales fluctuate, but average about a 20% contribution to our gross income. The fluctuation seems to revolve around how "fresh" our stock images are. Styles change, communities evolve, and repeat clients always look for something new. Fall behind on additions to your stock library and sales will drop.
It is difficult to translate stock prices to my local environment. Day rates here seem to run in the $350.00 CDN range, though the favourite practice is to treat local photographers as stock agencies with e-mails arriving asking "Do you have...?". There is little incentive for me to spend the time doing it well, when they will buy from a local semi-pro or amateur, all rights, for $100.00. At those rates they seldom buy stock.
I've have had stock work sold overseas of local landscapes through the process of allied agencies. By the time everybody gets their percentage I can just afford to go to McDonalds!
As you mention, some photographers will benefit when clients can't find their need in stock. A concern is that a younger photographer won't be able to afford the equipment and the time to improve their skills to that point in their career.
It may be that my local conditions may appear in the larger market should it prove stock holds down the level and fees of photography.
Dave
In contrast, your area may be more thoroughly covered photographically, and shots may be more readily available from diverse sources, rendering them more susceptible to pricing pressures and discounts.
Local market pricing structures are quite different too. Our base day rate is four times yours, and it goes up dramatically when we start adding lighting equipment, technicians and assistants. When providing a full range of onsight services, we have been paid almost ten times your rate, and even more when we have entered the realm of models, hair stylists, makeup artists, wardrobe, and yes, even a caterer on one occasion.
We also don't have a cadre of local "discount" shooters. So far our work has so outclassed theirs that we garner the "cream of the crop" jobs. It's very much a local perception that you get what you pay for. While there are people who will shoot a wedding for $200, my wife's base comes close to ten times that. And the clients still sign her up for assured quality rather than pay less.
I'm starting to realize what a little Eden we live in here, compared to so many other markets. And yes, the snake is in sight and there's an apple on the tree.
Our industry, as you know, is in a state of flux. Customers work in new ways. Ad spend is shifting from traditional areas like print and TV, to online and mobile. Social networking sites change customers’ expectations of how they work with us and use imagery. Emerging license models such as subscription and microstock add to the mix.
Getty Images has always been at the forefront of change, and we are once again reinventing every part of our business to lead the industry in serving customers. Simply put, we are reallocating resources to spend significantly more on selling pictures and growing new markets, and proportionately less in areas where we can work more efficiently.
As part of this reorganization, we are changing our staffing levels in some areas, including the loss of some staff in the Creative department. We are telling you this today because we want you to hear directly from us. And although we can’t yet provide details about who is affected, due to differing personnel laws in the many countries where we operate, we can tell you that if your Editor or Art Director is affected, you will be supported by someone new and we’ll let you know who that will be, very soon.
In addition, changes are coming to the ways we create and source our imagery – more about this in the weeks and months to come – so we’re reviewing how we work with all photographers. We look forward to sharing a new vision for Getty Images with you soon. For now, I want you to know that our intention is to accept more images from more photographers in the future.
All changes – both company-wide and in the Creative department – are designed to meet customers’ evolving needs. Continual innovation is the only way to ensure that Getty Images remains the first place customers go for their visual content needs, and that we continue to be your first choice for marketing your content to the global marketplace, with the best returns in the business.
Finally, because of these changes, we believe that it’s essential for the Photographer and Filmmaker Relations department to be completely integrated with the Imagery department. To achieve this, that team will now report to me, so that our support for photographers and filmmakers is fully aligned with the creation of content.
As part of this reorganization, Anthony Harris, Vice President of Photographer & Filmmaker Relations, has left Getty Images. Anthony played a key role in the success of Getty Images over many years, building successful relationships with contributors. His passion, dedication and strong leadership will be greatly missed. I’m sure that he’ll remain in touch with many of us and we hope you will join us in wishing him success and the best of luck in the future.
Moving forward, Paul Banwell, Director of Photographer and Filmmaker Relations, will lead the Relations team, reporting to me.
If you have any questions, please contact your local Photographer & Filmmaker Relations Manager using the details below, and please know that we’ll share more information about the plan forward as soon as possible.
Kind regards
Andy Saunders
VP, Creative Imagery
If I shot for them, I'd carefully study their new rates and procedures, but also their photo needs. I suspect that the best opportunities and fees will come in emerging markets. While fees are likely to drop significantly in markets swamped in photos, the emerging ones will still pay well. It will be an equally momentous business decision for the photographer whether to continue adding to the swamp or develop new shooting styles and subjects.
Like I say, I don't shoot for Getty but I have to respect them.
This from the Wikipedia on microstock;
"The mindset of microstock is that quantity will prevail and the photographer will end up making as much from many small sales as they would from a few large sales on a traditional stock photography site. Many people disagree whether or not this is giving the photographer a just price for their image; many professional photographers believe microstock devalues the industry."
There is also a Yahoo microstock forum called micropayment.
How can quality prevail? This model doesn't seem to allow for one of the more important aspects of photography, time. Expenses for photographers are going up, like everybody else's, and the rates fall. It has to be at the expense of quality.
Stock has always been a difficult business and with lower payments why would a pro now commit a good deal of time to it? If the publishing industry were stronger the older model of putting assignment work as stock might prevail, but that seems to be a diminishing market.
As Hank noted, it may come to be that a lack of stock quality will translate into commissions for photographers.
As I mentioned earlier, rates here, in a small market, are very low. Several of the 'professional' photographers here derive the majority of their income in another manner happy to get a fee that will offset a tank of fuel oil or cord of wood. You can't make a living competing against that.
It is not that I want to appear negative or discouraging, particularly to the newer photographer. Rather it would appear that stock, in the foreseeable future, may becoming the domain of the talented semi-pro or amateur who can afford to spend the time as their income doesn't depend on the work. With the cost of digital gear, a paid hobby is quite alluring!
Dave
I've always been bothered by the huge share of income you donate to stock agencies for their "marketing and management" services. It's more time consuming, but I've always felt the income is much better doing your own stock work.
It all reminds me of the entrance of Walmart into small communities. The average small business which is unable or unwilling to adapt will surely perish. But there are always the businesses that persist. With the emergence of Photowalmarts, we've managed so far to persist. That could change tomorrow, whether due to additional changes in our market or a decision that we simply don't want to work that hard any more.
I'd probably maintain some sales to help pay for the hobby, but taking a break is alluring too!
The belief early in the evolution of the RF market that photogs would more than make up for the loss of the large money sales with quantity of small(er) sales hasn't held true, at least not for me. Perhaps the CEO's of these large stock agencies are making money off of RF but I can't imagine too many photographers are.
Self stock is a great way to avoid the high percentage cuts that stock agencies take on every sale and if you have a strong foothold in your local market it can be a reliable source of income. My local market is so saturated with photographers that, in spite of all the inherent problems in dealing with agencies, I have found them to be a much more reliable source of imcome than self stock. Yes, the fees they deduct from sales are high but I don't have the reach into the international marketplace that they do and many, if not most, of my sales are overseas.
The key to making money in photography, IMO, is diversification. Consider stock agencies but also pursue other avenues such as self stock, print sales and other forms of self publication, etc. You also have to be diverse in the subject matter you shoot; nature alone doesn't cut it like it used to.
That's certainly been our experience Mark. Each time we have considered adding agencies to our spectrum of income generators, we have been forced to weigh the time required against the potential income. If we could manage it while not taking away from effort in other arenas, it would certainly be a welcome additional income source. But when we weigh that time against how much we can generate in other arenas with the same time investment, the stock income can't keep up. That was true years ago when our lower volume of stock images would have been the limiter, but sadly it's true today due to the drop in stock prices.