|
Written by Steve Smith
|
|
Tuesday, 20 June 2006 |
|
So
far my posts in this forum have not yielded much in the way of
discussion so I thought I might try to stimulate some by getting into
an area that is maybe a bit more controversial and is sure to spark
some opinions both ways.
As I
glance at the various stock photo related discussion boards every few
days, and occasionally dare to jump into a discussion here and there,
one thing is quite clear to me - the industry seems to be in a bit of
a state right now. At one end you've got the major distributors (I
won't call them agencies, cause they haven't been agencies in the
true sense of the word for some time now), such as Getty, Corbis and
Jupiter, who are looking to place a stranglehold on market share by
buying up and producing exclusive content like there's no tomorrow.
From what I can tell, this is done through a combination of
"insourcing" the most talented producers, cherry picking
portfolios and buying out what they deem to be the most marketable
images or by simply buying out smaller competitive producers and
agencies. The mega players typically fetch the best price per image
sold because of their reputation in the market place and their
perceived lock on the highest quality content.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 20 June 2006 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Steve Smith
|
|
Thursday, 06 April 2006 |
Just wanted to share some of these lighter moments of running a stock photo agency.
Because most of our sales are generated through online searches it does tend to result in a number of misunderstandings in terms of what we actually sell online. Some people tend to think that if they see a picture of something on your site, you must actually sell that item. Others assume that if you show a picture of something you must be the utmost expert at that particular item. Of course, maintaining professionalism at all costs is always the priority, however sometimes it's hard not to snicker at some of these requests. Where possible we attempt to help out the "customer", except where there is obviously a risk of revealing information which should not be revealed. Most times they are appreciative, not always. We've actually had people yell at us because we weren't able to help them with their somewhat bizarre requests.
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 06 April 2006 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Steve Smith
|
|
Monday, 13 March 2006 |
These days, as a professional or semi-pro photographer its almost a necessity to have a website in order to showcase your work. Even if you don't ever plan to sell your work or services through this website, it's a quick and convenient place to show prospective clients, agents or partners a little bit about yourself, your capabilities and your body of work. Sure, you can just point them to your portfolio on another site, such as one of your agencies, but that really doesn't show them what YOU are all about.
Myself, when I am looking to find out more about a prospective contributor, I always appreciate a well designed, intuitive website where I can get a good feel about whether a photographer will be a good fit. I like to see a selection of their best work, as well as a bio or something that gives me a feel as to their experience, their specific areas of expertise as well as something that tells me a bit about their personality. I am sure that many other agencies do the same thing. In fact, at least one I am aware of requires you to have a website before you will be accepted.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Steve Smith
|
|
Monday, 20 February 2006 |
How often has this happened? You go to a stock photo site to look for a particular image, let's say a shot of a couple dining in a nice outdoor restaurant with the Grand Canal of Venice behind. Into the search box you type 'Restaurant Venice couple' or something like that and you select the option (if not default) to show results with only ALL of the words. So you should see a series of pictures that match your search, right. That's what you expect to see, and in fact you may even see a few images like what you had in mind. In addition to that however, you see a close-up of two scrumptious looking pork chops smothered in some sort of brown sauce. You see two pigeons sitting on a railing in focus with a blurred city scene behind (is that Venice?). You see a typical North American strip mall with two restaurants, one of which happens to have a tacky neon sign with the words, "Venice by Night" in the window.
You get the point. The results you achieve are not what you expected. If you were a stock photo buyer, what would you do? If you are patient, you might try another search, a different way. You might not. You might just go to the next site in the list and try that one with the same search to see what you get. That's a lost opportunity.
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 20 February 2006 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Steve Smith
|
|
Tuesday, 14 February 2006 |
I hear rumor there is a new Indiana Jones movie in the works. Who can forget Indiana Jones? The ultimate global adventurer who always seemed to escape certain death by the slimmest margin. Whether it be giant rolling boulders, bad guys with Tommy guns or snake filled pits, we always knew Indy would escape battered but alive but it was fun to watch how close he actually came to his early demise. That always makes for a good action adventure movie...
If you are a stock photographer just now entering the wild world of agencies and online global commerce you are also about to become a global adventurer, just like Indiana. You are an Indy too, an independent photographer, and probably hope to stay that way. In this inaugural edition of "Adventures in Pixelland" I hope to highlight some areas of caution when entering into agency contracts as well as some common pitfalls to avoid.
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 16 February 2006 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
Adventures in Pixelland
