New Business Model - Issue 6

Posted on 9/21/2007 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version | Comments (1)

Issue 6 - The explosion of growth in content means the average return per image (RPI) will fall. However, it is no less expensive to produce images than it used to be.

In November 2003, I began tracking Getty Images return-per-image by dividing the total number of RM and RF images on the Creative section of their site into the total revenue generated in the previous four quarters. This has revealed some startling trends.

Since last fall, I have included the Rights Ready numbers in the RM category because Getty combines these two when it reports revenue. Currently, there are 905,922 RM images and 269,770 RR for a total of 1,174,692.

There are currently 844,227 images on the Getty Web site, but Getty has recently pulled 120,000 off its site and placed them into its Valueline brand the company will distribute through Punchstock at discount prices.

Getty's RM revenue for the last four quarters has totaled $317.6 million.  RF revenue totaled $321.07 million for a combined total of $638.67 million.

The total revenue growth for RM over the four-year period has been $49.3 million or about 18%, while the number of images on the site has grown 340%. In the RF category, the revenue has grown an impressive 160%  - but about 124% of that growth was due to price increases, not increased usage. The company also acquired two very large RF distributors - Digital Vision and Stockbyte - during the period. During this same period, the total number of RF images on the site grew 509%, causing the average return per  image to drop about 50%.

 Average RPI
YearRMRFCombined RM &RF

2003

$775.29

$652.58

$732.87

2004

$673.54

$634.63

$659.25

2005

$413.20

$558.02

$464.13

2006

$332.83

$319.73

$327.00

2007

$270.37

$332.98

$298.59

Number of Images
YearRMRFCombined RM & RF

2003

346,091

189,523

535,614

2004

434,346

252,161

686,507

2005

751,495

404,016

1,155,511

2006

973,933

787,281

1,767,214

2007

1,174,692

964,227

2,138,919

 

In the last four years, Getty's gross revenue from still-image licensing has grown about 50%, but not nearly as fast as the number of images added to the collection. As a result, image suppliers must produce more images each year just to stay even.

In order to determine the number of images in the file, I have searched the RM section for horizontal, vertical, panoramic and square each November, then totaled the four figures. I used the same procedure to find the number of RF images.

This technique results in a rough approximation of the average return-per-image rather than a precise figure, as images are being added throughout the year. There is no way to tie actual images available to revenue generated for a shorter period. Nevertheless, since the same procedure was used each year, I believe the trends are an accurate reflection of what has been happening.

Photographers should keep in mind that these averages reflect the gross return for Getty. Photographers or Image Partner agencies will receive a small portion of this based on their royalty percentage. It should also be recognized that these numbers are only averages.


Copyright © 2007 Jim Pickerell. The above article may not be copied, reproduced, excerpted or distributed in any manner without written permission from the author. All requests should be submitted to Selling Stock at 10319 Westlake Drive, Suite 162, Bethesda, MD 20817, phone 301-251-0720, e-mail: wvz@fpcubgbf.pbz

Jim Pickerell is founder of www.selling-stock.com, an online newsletter that publishes daily. He is also available for personal telephone consultations on pricing and other matters related to stock photography. He occasionally acts as an expert witness on matters related to stock photography. For his current curriculum vitae go to: http://www.jimpickerell.com/Curriculum-Vitae.aspx.  

Comments

  • Don Farrall Posted Sep 22, 2007
    While I think your analysis is basically valid I would suggest the following things to consider. Getty’s collection has grown in numbers of images and numbers of options for buyers. This growth has been substantial over the last few years, as you clearly document. This is one way that Getty has remained the top player in the stock photography industry. Getty grew this way for several reasons, to make more money, and to maintain their position in the industry. They did not seek to grow their collection to increase RPI. RPI is not of concern to Getty’s clients, buy variety and depth of choice are.

    Businesses don’t exist to serve their suppliers, they exist to serve clients and to make money. It is clearly a consequence of the increased number of images available that has driven down average RPI. The only way for RPI not to have gone down, would have been for Getty to have matched their increase in the number of new images with the increase in sales. This of course would be impossible, since the increase in sales that Getty experienced was a result of the availability of more content, which allowed Getty to become a better competitor.

    The presumption that because a seller has an increase in products available to sell, will result in an equally increased level of sales, is simplistic. Yet for RPI not to decrease this would have to be the case.

    I have been shooting stock for many years and I have been a supplier to Gettyimages for the last ten years. I have had many conversations with other stock photographers, many of whom are major players. I think the concept of RPI as most photographers, and as you have calculated it here, is flawed.

    There is no reason to think that an image should sell at the same level for many years in a row. Images become dated, concepts become over used, and some images reach market saturation as the majority of potential buyers for that specific image have already purchased the photo. ( this is more the case with RF images ). I don’t think too many people would disagree with this premise. For this reason calculating RPI by simply adding up all of the images in a collection and dividing the revenue by sales gives an unclear picture of what is going on.

    If older images are not thrown out of a collection then each successive year the collection has a larger percentage of irrelevant images. For example, a collection of images, ( either an individual photographer’s collection, or the collection of an agency) that is ten years old, is going to include more dated, irrelevant, and unsaleable images than a collection that is five years old.

    Getty’s growth in image numbers comes form a number of factors, and one of them is how long the collection has been growing and how long the collections that they acquired have been in existence. Getty could increase RPI and make all photographers happier if they threw out any image over three years old, Right? Well RPI by this calculation would go up, but total sales would go down by some degree and some photographers would be mad, because some older images do sell and no one wants to see the number of images working for them decreased. New suppliers would like this because they would be competing with fewer images, but for the most part Getty positions the photos in a search result by age with the oldest images buried the deepest in the results. Getty has no incentive to remove images, they are already keyworded and uploaded and they add to the overall “size and depth” of the collection.

    I personally have over 2000 images with Getty. The vast majority of my income comes form the most recent 25% of those images. Tossing out the bottom, oldest, (8-10 year old) images would have very little effect on my revenue; but tossing them out would increase my RPI, by this method.

    However, I don’t care about historic RPI. I hope I have made it clear here why I believe that this number is always going to be going down, and why I don’t find it useful. What I do care about is the potential for revenue from new images.

    To judge this I look at my sales from the last three years. I consider sales form images older than three years to be a bonus. Sure I have a few high earning images that are older than that, but they are the exception and they distort the reality if I try and include them. So I look back three years, and I track the sales per image, I average the three year images, by three, the two year images by two and the one year images by one. As in your calculation, this is only an approximation, because images become available through out the year on different months. I consider the resulting RPI to be a good indication of how any new image that I produce will do over the next three years. For this to be relevant the images should not represent a vast shift in style or subject matter.

    This is a far more relevant number to me. It tells me what I can expect to earn from new work that I produce. It tells me how much I have to work with for production, and it is what keeps me producing new material when many photographers are bailing out on stock. By this method my RPI has remained surprisingly steady. As I produce new material I am earning the next three years Accounts Receivables. How can I be sure I am correct? I can’t. Stock production is, and always has been, a speculative business.

    For the record most of my images are RF. I will also concede that what works for me may not be relevant to others who’s style and subject matter are quite different from mine. Still I can’t help but believe that this method is more valid than a straight historic full collection calculation. My work is commercial, not editorial, for the most part, and I can’t say with certainty how that distinction might effect this process.

    I do believe that overall stock sales are down, and since many more photographers are in the game splitting up the royalty revenue pie, that individual photographers are for the most part earning less. But while individual photographers may be seeing a 50% reduction in earnings (compared to the last 3-5 years) as has been reported, overall stock sales appear to be just flat, not off by anything like 50%. It is the pie splitting that is the biggest driver in what is seen as a decline in the stock photo industry.

    My revenue remains fairly consistent as long as I am continually producing new material.

    In my opinion, micro stock is having a pretty big negative effect on both the industry and individual photographers, a much bigger effect than anyone on the industry side is wiling to concede, but that is a subject for another analysis.

    Don Farrall
    www.lightworksdigital.com

Post Comment

You must log in to post comments.

Stay Connected

Sign up to receive our FREE weekly email listing new stories posted.

Follow Us

Free Stuff

Recent Stories – Summer 2016
If you’ve been shooting all summer and haven’t had time to keep up with your reading here are links to a few stories you might want to check out as we move into the fall. To begin, be sure to complet...
Read More
Corbis Acquisition by VCG/Getty Images
This story provides links to several stories that relate to the Visual China Group (VCG) acquisition of Corbis and the role Getty Images has been assigned in the transfer of Corbis assets to the Gett...
Read More
Finding The Right Image
Many think search will be solved with better Metadata. While metadata is important, there are limits to how far it can take the customer toward finding the right piece of content. This story provides...
Read More
Where Is The Stock Photo Industry Headed?
For new readers, or those who may have missed some of what I have written over the last few months, the following are a list of stories worth looking at to get a sense of where the industry is headed.
Read More
Photography As A Career
It’s that time of year when high school seniors are waiting for college acceptance letters and thinking about future careers. If you know someone who is thinking about photography as a career you mig...
Read More
2014 Stories You May Have Missed
For many the end of the year is a time to review past experiences and consider whether it makes sense to chart a new course in the year ahead. Stock photography has changed dramatically for professio...
Read More
More Stories In 2014 You May Have Missed
Every so often I put together a list of the most important stories we’ve published in the recent past. If you are engaged in the business of stock photography the links below are to stories that we’v...
Read More
Getty: A Three Month Review
In all the excitement about 35 million FREE images it is worth looking back at some of things that have been happening at Getty Images in the last three months. After watching revenue decline for the...
Read More
State Of Stock Photo Industry: 2013
If you’re looking for an overview of the state of the stock photo industry as of October 2013 the stories listed below are a good place to start. Regular readers of Selling-Stock will have seen all t...
Read More
Education Market Shifts To Digital
If supplying pictures for educational use is a significant part of your business plan you need to be aware of how the market is trending toward digital delivery and how that is likely to affect the p...
Read More

More from Free Stuff