I find this whole setup strange and have to wonder, who will really benefit from it?
Let’s have a look at each party in this new relationship and see if we can figure out what’s going on.
Flickr Users
Does Flickr content fit in Getty’s model? I thought Getty was only for select pro’s… So if Getty is going to ask certain Flickr users to submit their photos to Getty… then why can’t the photo buyer find the photo on Flickr themselves? While some Flickr users are excited about the opportunity to sell photos to Getty, they will actually only earn about 20% of the sale, versus today where buyers could contact them directly to buy the photos and they make 100% of the transaction. As a marketing and distribution engine, Flickr’s model has come to challenge Getty’s in a lot of ways, with photo buyers using it more and more frequently to find free photos licensed via Creative Commons.
I think that Getty has realized that more and more photo buyers are making offers directly to Flickr users, and they want to lock up these quality photographers so they can take a cut of profits. Think about this - every quality photographer they lock up off of Flickr is one less reason for photo buyers to want to search through Flickr’s enormous number of photos. Not to mention that there are plenty of articles written on how to sell your photos on Flickr and many users report having sold their photos (albeit after numerous email exchanges to determine the fair price). At Photrade, we believe that photographers work hard to capture great photos, and they should keep most (a full 80%) of the profits. Our idea is to make it so people can share (like on Flickr) and sell (like on Getty) and keep most of the money. After all, it’s all about the photography, these websites should be vehicles to help the photographer. My problem is that right now Getty/Flickr are exploiting the photographers who take wonderful photos around the world. So someone has to stand up for photographers. I might not be a great photographer myself, but I love it and am always looking to get better.
Getty Photographers?
I can only imagine how it would make me feel if I was selling through Getty and getting 20% of the profit to find out that Getty is now going to accept users off “a photo sharing site”. Don’t get me wrong - I love Flickr - it has a great community and some great photographers. That being said, I know plenty of pro’s who wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole. Whether because of the legal issues, creative commons issues or because Flickr doesn’t monitor usage of their API keys… which sometimes results in things like what happened with Mixr.
So if I was a pro, it certainly wouldn’t make me feel special or privileged that Getty is taking 80% of my profits and now is adding Flickr users.
Getty Buyers?
Getty announces that they’re going to start asking Flickr users if they can sell their photos as part of the Getty collection. Isn’t the whole value of Getty that they have these uber photographers who are the elite few chosen by Getty?
As a stock image buyer, the big thing for me about Getty is quality and ease of finding what I need. I wonder how this makes Getty’s other photo buyers feel? Maybe it makes us all wonder why I am paying Getty $250 - $400 per photo so that Getty can take 80% and pay photographers 20% of the revenue generated from the sale of each photo. Why wouldn’t I go directly to the photographer?
Getty ’s Value-Add (or What is Getty doing that’s worth paying for?)
In a new world, with limitless distribution on the internet, the value-add from Getty is hard to find (other than being the defacto dominant player from yesterday’s era).
Last year, 15% of all search on the internet last year was image search… so clearly a lot of people who want images aren’t looking on Getty. Getty choosing to get photos from Flickr shows that the old paradigm of hand selecting the few images that match a cookie-cutter “stock” look just doesn’t work any more.
The Reality? Stock Sites Rip Off Photographers
The reality is that charging an 70% - 80% commission used to make sense, back when Getty had to look at hard copy images (and file, sort and screen them through the mail), create proof books, mail them out, and then take orders over the phone. With digital photography and the internet, these types of commissions really aren’t necessary for a profitable business model and are gouging photographers. The costs to view, select and submit the images are down significantly.
In 2007 Getty’s cost of sales (including what was paid to photographers) $230 million on $860 million in sales - a whopping 27% of the revenue. Here is something to shock your socks off - CNET reported that in 2007 istockphoto made $71.9 million dollars and paid out $20.9 to the users. WOW. The photographers who created the photos made a whole 30%.
What is next?
I believe that photographers should and will get more of the revenue created from their photos. Many photographers are struggling to get by (the average professional photographer earns under $30K a year) while stock agencies take 70% - 80% commissions. The internet is empowering individuals like never before - eBay allows people to operate their own storefront, Etsy is helping people sell their crafts and we are empowering photographers.
I think that the future of photography is giving the photographer a bigger share of their revenue and allowing them to set the value of their work (vs. getty priced images or microstock). I also think that image buyers are looking for more selection than what they can get on stock sites, which is why they are going beyond traditional stock houses.
I see Photrade playing a positive role in empowering photographers and helping them earn a livelihood. I would also like to see photo buyers have best in class search and browse capabilities to help them find and purchase the growing collection of beautiful photos on Photrade.
-Andrew
