| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
WTF?!!!--Getty Images for $5
Alex Menendez, Photographer
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 9:51 PM on 08.10.09 |
->> "Small is powerful
Our Web & Mobile images open the door to a world of creative solutions - in smaller sizes, with smaller prices to match..."
I guess size does matter.
Wow. |
|
Preston Mack, Photographer
 |
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 10:15 PM on 08.10.09 |
| ->> And, to think, people flagged me as inappropriate when I wrote that Getty was going to ruin our industry... |
|
Kevin Leas, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 10:31 PM on 08.10.09 |
->> My older brother went to college for music industry, and then realized that the entire business was going downhill.
I went to college for photography, and then I realized that...uh...
Oh, crap. |
|
Christopher Szagola, Photographer
|
Richboro | PA | United States | Posted: 11:03 PM on 08.10.09 |
| ->> Actually it is $8.24... |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 11:27 PM on 08.10.09 |
->> Preston..."was"????
what do you think of a 31 page statement where the total is $11? |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
|
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 11:59 PM on 08.10.09 |
->> "What do you think of a 31 page statement where the total is $11?"
According to my friends who have shot for Presswire, they call that hitting the lottery. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:58 AM on 08.11.09 |
| ->> So what's the commission on that to the photog; two bucks? |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 5:41 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> Well, welcome to the real world. The total price range is actually a step up to what some folks are willing to pay on the top end. When I was with Icon for a while, ESPN used a Vijay SIngh photo for six months on the front of their fantasy page and you know what I got - $5. Think about that.
I wonder what some of the Getty stringers are thinking when they see this and then do a search for Rachel Alexandra (sorry, I know horse racing best) and see Bill Frakes name there. Frakes, via SI, for Getty. I am so confused. And AFP and EPA and MCT for Corbis. I get lost.
As for the photogs commission, well, Getty doesn't care. They have their lines of revenue established, anything over the baseline is just gravy for them. |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Marcos | CA | United States | Posted: 7:38 PM on 08.11.09 |
| ->> You can't really blame Getty. The fault lies with the photographers who continually stab the rest of the industry in the heart. As long as there are photographers who shoot from the fringe of the industry and don't understand the economy of a photo it will get worse. Remember it was the Lilaputians who brought down the giant Gulliver! If we Laputians could ever come together en mass we could fall the giant. Until then we can cry bitch and moan all day and for what? |
|
Mike Zarrilli, Photographer
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 10:50 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> From what I gather from this article, these sizes and prices are only available for images in the Creative Stills collection images and not applicable for the Editorial/Sports images or any of their exclusive collections. I could be wrong, but that was the way I read this.
If that's the case, this new model does not surprise me in the least. I think we all know that the stock photography industry and its pricing power have been significantly and adversely affected this decade due to a number of factors, including the advent of digital, citizen journalism and the marked increase in the number of available images of an infinite amount of subjects created by professionals, semi-pro photographers, amateurs, grandmothers, etc. The simple economic fact of the matter remains that if there is no exclusivity to an image collection, the value of that collection decreases as more similar pictures are created. It's just supply and demand. I can assure you that if any stock agency thought they could charge and receive $1,000,000/image for every image in their collection, they would do so. I wouldn't think that they are in the business of driving their EBITDA into the ground. However, in this business and economic climate, these agencies are trying to be creative in their customer service approach, exploit new platforms (particularly Mobile) and keep afloat given the stiff competition from all sides. If these prices were occurring on some of their exclusive deals like Olympics or commercial MLB content, then by all means we'd all have a beef against Getty.
As said many times before on this site, this announcement should just simply remind all of us of our need to be more creative in our photographic approach than the next guy and also find innovative ways to both service customers and maximize revenue opportunities.
Finally, before I get skewered with any conflict of interest posts, I'll proactively say that I do shoot occasionally for Getty on the sport side but do not contribute to any stock collections. Just another guy with a camera that attempts to stay up on the business side of this fast-moving industry... |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|