Pricing
Getty Images sent out the following notice to image suppliers yesterday. Be sure to also see
Getty Simplifying RM Exclusivity where I analyze the pros and cons of this plan for image creators. They said, "We will soon begin including a base level of Exclusivity into RM licenses called Market Freeze, which will allow customers exclusive use of an image for the combination of use, industry, geography, and duration of any commercial use license."
Will Getty’s move to simplifying RM Exclusivity be good for Image Creators? The following are several things RM contributors should think about. In particular, contributors who have co-exclusive agreements with Getty should question this new deal. See
Getty To Push Exclusive RM for the full release on this new program
Getty Images personnel are telling some stock agency image suppliers that in 3 to 5 years there will be no more Rights Managed licensing. Everything will be RF. Currently, only 21% of the images in Getty’s Creative collection are RM. That is down from
55% in 2007, the last time Getty supplied detailed figures on gross sales of the various collections. Getty is also putting pressure on individual photographers to switch their RM images to RF.
Back in 2007 I was called on to place a value on a collection of wildlife stock images that were involved in a legal action. At the time I based the per-image value on the “average annual return-per-image” of the
Getty Images collection. By dividing the gross 2006 RM revenue by the total RM images in the collection I determined that the average annual gross license fee for an
RM image was $335.
Yesterday, I received a call from a travel photographer who recently started contributing his work to Getty Images. He has about 200 images from various locations around the world in the collection. He just received a sales report for 3 Premium Access sales, each for
royalties of under $1.00. He wanted to know who he could contact at Getty about such ridiculously low royalties.
Image creators need better information about the kind of content that is selling. Are customers looking at higher priced content? Can creators earn more money if their images are in a collection like Offset where images are licensed for much higher prices? Should creators produce more stills? Should they buy new equipment and start shooting video that sells for higher prices? Shutterstock’s
quarterly reports to investors aren’t very helpful in this regard.
An agent who has operated a small, specialist agency specializing in RM licensing for years contacted me recently and asked the following question. “I’m reworking (or trying to figure out) image pricing in bundle form (similar to OFFSET STOCK PHOTOS). I’m wondering if you’ve talked to them about whether their program might/might not be working?" Here’s my response.
Shutterstock will report its fourth quarter 2018 numbers on February 26, 2019. If the last three years are any indication, it is unlikely that there will be much evidence of additional sales growth. I’ve put together a chart of quarter-by-quarter sales since the beginning of 2014. The chart offers some interesting insights, particularly in regard to what has been happening in the last three years since the beginning of 2016.
Last week I reported on Apple’s new
global photography contest. The 10 winning images will be used extensively in a massive advertising campaign including product packaging and billboards. The official contest rules say the winning entries will have “No cash value.”
Want to know how much the value of a great photo that is used in advertising has declined? In 2001 Microsoft paid $135,000 to use Chuck O'Rear's image of a green rolling hillside with a pale blue sky to launch a major advertising campaign for Windows XP software. How much do you think Apple is willing to pay for an iPhone photo that will be used heavily in iPhone advertising? Hint: If you're a photographer you won't be surprised, but you also won't be happy!
In response to the article I
published last week where I suggested that what is needed is a system that enables photographers to deal directly with customers Macintosh Smith commented “Isn’t this what
PhotographersDirect.com has tried to establish?" Photographers Direct is a good first step, but in my opinion it has some major flaws. Consequently, I suspect it is generating very little traffic.
In the last two years I have written a lot about stock photo pricing and its downward slide. If you have time over the holidays you may want to review some of these stories as you plan your strategy for engaging in the stock photo business in 2019.
Everyone knows that many images are being licensed for very low prices. Many feel that the people paying these low prices are small, start-up businesses that are so poor they can’t justify paying fees high enough to cover the costs of creating the image. It is hoped that if photographers help these businesses succeed in the initial stages, eventually when they are profitable they might be able to pay enough to enable image creators to actually profit from their efforts.
Recently I was told by a stock agency that my
Photographer Income Survey Results were not relevant to Specialist Agencies because the results are “rather negative and don’t offer a possible positive call to action.” In the following series of stories I will outline a “Positive Call to Action” for stock agencies.
The last thing this industry needs is lower prices. However, it often seems that whenever someone wants to start a new business, or grow an existing one, they conclude that the most important distinguishing characteristic compared to their competitor must be lower prices. The new
Onepixel offering clearly illustrates this point. A group of people with experience in the industry put together a new site. Based on their experience they are well aware of the type images in greatest demand by customers. They have previously built relationships with many of the creators of such images. They have a good idea for offering a small highly curated collection of images that will make it much easier for customers to quickly find what they need.
A few former Fotolia employees have joined forces to launch a new microstock site called
Onepixel.com. While at Fotolia these people were able to learn the type of pictures that customers are most interested in buying and build relationships with many of the photographers who have been most successful in producing such images.
Over the weekend on
Stockphoto@yahoogroups.com Rick Boden said, “I was getting serious about (putting my images with) Adobe Stock Images and then I realized they sell images via subscription. I have a very bad feeling about getting into an arrangement like that based on experience where my present agency (that) has a tie in with Getty where I am getting many royalties of less than a dollar because of subscription sales.”
Shutterstock has announced that they will be testing some new pricing and promotions for their
Offset.com brand in the next few months. Initially, they will only offer these prices to their Enterprise customers (customers who purchase through their Premier Platform). Their posted rates on the website of $249 and $499 will not change. Sources tell us that their tend to be more at the lower price than the higher.
Recently, in a discussion with a stock photo agent the subject came up as to what it would take for Getty Images to repair its relationships with the Creator Community. I raised the issue late last year in “
Why Creators Are Dissatisfied With Getty.”
Stock agencies do a very poor job of advising photographers what to shoot. Most successful businesses try to keep the people producing their products well informed about what is selling and what isn’t. They don’t want their workers wasting time (and costing them money) producing products no one wants to buy.
In an effort to drive more Marketplace sales
Storyblocks has lowered its commission to 50%. When the company (then known as Videoblocks) launched its Marketplace offering in 2015 the company offered still images and video clips at dramatically, discounted prices compared to its competitors. However, they paid creators 100% of the money received from the licensing of their work. As a result creators ended up earning more for each image licensed than they would if the image was licensed by one of the other stock agencies that paid royalties that were a small percentage of the total license fee.
It is amazing to me that no agency has created a two-tier stock photo marketing system similar to iStock’s, but for Licensed and Unlicensed images rather than Exclusive and Non-Exclusive. iStock has priced their Signature image collection 3 times higher than its Essemtial, Non-Exclusive collection. And they pay contributors a higher royalty rate for images licensed from the Signature collection.
Getty is contacting its RM photographers with non-exclusive or co-exclusive agreements and asking them to convert all their images in the Getty collection to exclusive so Getty will be the only organization that can license rights to use the images. This may be a particularly difficult decision for photographers with co-exclusive arrangements if they typically license a fair number of uses directly to clients annually. All those future sales will be lost.
I’ve examined the number of images in certain keyword categories at
Getty and
iStock. Today, I’ve done a count of the number of Shutterstock images with the same keywords as the other two agencies to see if it is possible to draw any comparisons. I'll take a look at the comparisons of collection size between Getty and Shutterstock. In addition there are some interesting things to be learned when comparing the number of photos with the number of illustrations on the Shutterstock site.
Tom Zimberoff has written a very long and detailed story on
Distrupting Stock Photography which makes some strong points about how the industry got to where it is today. Toward the end of his report he outlines a new business model which he calls “Business Made Easy For Photographers.”