Melcher on stock commentators

[Panthera tigris]

Interesting piece from Melcher on how the industry is still changing and how its losing its commentators, bloggers and forums...... whether they had insight or not. 

 

http://blog.melchersystem.com/this-is-not-a-press-release/

 

Are people/the crowd now becoming bored with what is left?

 

This paragraph, from a man who was at the helm of many stock companies,  really brought it home .....

 

 "Since the industry is no longer supporting independent photographers, the stakeholders have switched to a bunch of institutional investors, corporate climbers, and emotionless lawyers. None of which care about the industry beyond quarterly earnings reports. Photographers have gone made their living elsewhere, taking their passion with them."

Edited September 26, 2021 by Panthera tigris

[BobD]

This paragraph reminded me of here.

' Gone are the pearls of wisdom, except those sporadically emerging from unsuspected bulletin board postings. In-depth thoughtful analysis of industry trends has been replaced by individuals publicly scrutinizing their diminishing monthly sales reports. '🙂.

 

Thanks for posting.

[geogphotos]

Stock has become dull I suppose. There used to be those take-overs, collapses, scandals, big rows, exciting initiatives, etc

 

As with capitalism in general the industry has become concentrated and is now dominated by two really big suppliers.

 

There are a few specialist agencies but many if not most also sell through the mega agencies - they just can't secure enough market share on their own.

 

The other thing I notice is how many cultural institutions such as museums now have their own stock library.

 

Alamy is growing its profits by cutting commission and muscling in on secondary rights. Fees are tumbling forced down by the much more powerful competition.

 

I can't see any reason for optimism at the moment but there is always some hope that something positive will come along.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by geogphotos

[BobD]

I don't think fees can fall any further. It will be interesting to see in a year or two how SS for example will keep shareholders happy with increasing profits when they can't squeeze the suppliers anymore.

[geogphotos]

8 minutes ago, BobD said:

I don't think fees can fall any further. It will be interesting to see in a year or two how SS for example will keep shareholders happy with increasing profits when they can't squeeze the suppliers anymore.

 

The overhelming majority of suppliers don't care about being squeezed. They don't do it for money but for the thrill and sense of purpose.  They produce perfectly saleable content with no need to cover their costs.

Edited September 26, 2021 by geogphotos

[BobD]

2 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

The overhelming majority of suppliers don't care about being squeezed. They don't do it for money but for the thrill and sense of purpose. 

 

Yes there are those, but I disagree it is the ' overwhelming majority ', and that will be of no use to image buyers. You only have to look at the quality available on the free sites.

 

What really is needed is some form of co-op.

[geogphotos]

20 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

Yes there are those, but I disagree it is the ' overwhelming majority ', and that will be of no use to image buyers. You only have to look at the quality available on the free sites.

 

What really is needed is some form of co-op.

 

Like Fair Trade? Can't see that enough image buyers would care less about the plight of stock photographers. 

 

And having gone through that process at least part of the way once before it is much easier said than done. It ended up being called Picade and I think has now died. Must have been a final start when they put their pics on Alamy! 

 

First off, the problem of finding a platform which is affordable and where different photographers can pool image.

 

Then imagine all the potential for disagreement over RF/RM, fees, commission, 'quality'.

 

I think we need an industry 'guru' to spot a gap and see how to exploit it.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by geogphotos

[BobD]

10 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Like Fair Trade? Can't see that enough image buyers would care less about the plight of stock photographers. 

 

And having gone through that process at least part of the way once before it is much easier said than done. It ended up being called Picade and I think has now died. Must have been a final start when they put their pics on Alamy! 

 

First off, the problem of finding a platform which is affordable and where different photographers can pool image.

 

Then imagine all the potential for disagreement over RF/RM, fees, commission, 'quality'.

 

I think we need an industry 'guru' to spot a gap and see how to exploit it.

 

 

 

I agree that a co-op based on an agency model wouldn't succeed but maybe a platform that displayed images then directed the buyer to the photographers own website to complete the sale.

An initial 'committee' could oversee the quality issue by only allowing photographers with a good standard.

An agreed minimum price would be set, then it is up to the photographer to set their own price.

[John Morrison]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

I can't see any reason for optimism at the moment but there is always some hope that something positive will come along.

 

There is no obvious premium placed on photos which are difficult to take, which means, looking forward, that agencies like Alamy will keep amassing millions more pix which are easy - and cheap - to take.

 

Other subjects will be under-represented if they are difficult to shoot, or require research, preparation, travel, complex permissions, insurance cover, or, say, a team of assistants or technicians. The money spent upfront is unlikely to be recouped through pic sales.

 

With such a vast collection of images to curate and market, the bean-counters in an agency like Alamy may not notice the shortfall… for a while. But in a few years time the pix going through QC may feature nothing but country churches, road-signs and back-garden butterflies…

[Vincent Lowe]

1 hour ago, BobD said:

 

I agree that a co-op based on an agency model wouldn't succeed but maybe a platform that displayed images then directed the buyer to the photographers own website to complete the sale.

An initial 'committee' could oversee the quality issue by only allowing photographers with a good standard.

An agreed minimum price would be set, then it is up to the photographer to set their own price.

 

Isn't that what Photographers Direct basically did?  Another one now defunct.

[Dave R]

He talks a lot of sense. The only upside is for working professionals is that some type of commissions may come back into popularity as there will soon be big holes in stock collections as you cant make money on certain things anymore. Ironically meaning the end user will pay vastly more for the shots.

[geogphotos]

3 hours ago, John Morrison said:

 

There is no obvious premium placed on photos which are difficult to take, which means, looking forward, that agencies like Alamy will keep amassing millions more pix which are easy - and cheap - to take.

 

Other subjects will be under-represented if they are difficult to shoot, or require research, preparation, travel, complex permissions, insurance cover, or, say, a team of assistants or technicians. The money spent upfront is unlikely to be recouped through pic sales.

 

With such a vast collection of images to curate and market, the bean-counters in an agency like Alamy may not notice the shortfall… for a while. But in a few years time the pix going through QC may feature nothing but country churches, road-signs and back-garden butterflies…

 

 

Nothing wrong with country churches...the more obscure the better.

Edited September 26, 2021 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

3 hours ago, Vincent Lowe said:

 

Isn't that what Photographers Direct basically did?  Another one now defunct.

 

Mira/Creative Eye still appears to be in existence but with only a  tiny number of images on their Photoshelter based site.

 

Not sure how they managed that because when I asked Photoshelter I was told that I couldn't include other people's pics and the only option would be a hugely expensive system designed for big organisations. In any case it is virtually impossible to match the reach of a company such as Alamy let alone the top tier mega portals.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by geogphotos

[meanderingemu]

3 hours ago, John Morrison said:

But in a few years time the pix going through QC may feature nothing but country churches, road-signs and back-garden butterflies…

 

 

and all be labelled as  birds, europe , nature, background, landscape, pretty, lion

[Robert M Estall]

I remember when the now defunct ZEFA sent an editor over to go though my collection, she delighted in our pretty little country churches. She took back oodles of them to Dusseldorf, but never sold any. I still have quite a lot of them, but they hardly ever sell unless they are real chocolate box or have a special tale attached

[John Mitchell]

7 hours ago, Vincent Lowe said:

 

Isn't that what Photographers Direct basically did?  Another one now defunct.

 

PD worked well at the beginning. It actually ended up being run out of Vancouver. I made quite a few good sales through them. However, I don't think that "fair trade," "co-op" or whatever you want to call them models are viable any longer. There is really no reason for photo buyers to want to go back to licensing images from individual photographers. The big agencies with huge collections, bargain prices, and global reach will continue to rule the roost.

[FocusUno]

How about:

Google Stock Photo 24/7

one contributes from one's external hard drive

which must be Internet-connected 24/7/364 &

contain ready-to-use high res JPGs;

buyers make payments to Google,

then Google allows upload,

then Google passes 60%** on to contrib;

**because Google is $1T+ mega-cap company

& knows how to make healthy profit from 40%...

 

 ⁉️   ⁉️   ⁉️   ⁉️   ⁉️   ⁉️   ⁉️   ⁉️  

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by FocusUno

[FocusUno]

additionally, all keywording & QC done by contribs,

to their own AND to other's images; contribs earn

minute percentage points on other's images if

their own added keywords are the way an image

is found & licensed, e.g., owner of image has

"antique restored car automobile show"

& someone else adds "Packard" & later

a buyer searches & buys via

"antique Packard"

then 2nd contrib gets X% of that sale...

(this system has to block purposeful

poor keywording & QC by penalizing)

the point is, little or no busywork by

Google allows 60/40 or even 70/30...

[geogphotos]

I can't imagine Google coming to our rescue.

 

We were all encouraged to put our trust in a 'highly ethical' company called Alamy that promised to use our commission reductions to become a Tier Two agency and make everything good.

 

What happened was that the commission cuts made the Accounts look good and then the owners sold out.

[FocusUno]

all I'm sayin' about the biggest public companies worldwide...

Microsoft #2 @$2.25T tried & quit. Maybe they'll retry...

Adobe's #24 @$300+B does it but lousy split, IMO.

Whoever might try it should, IMO, set up system to

reward contribs for handling as much busywork as possible

including the novel idea of "group handling" each other's

images in exchange for piece of other's $$, & un-reward
for creating too many views without sales, etc.  Lack of
busywork for company = lower overhead = favorable split...

Alphabet aka Google expertise overlaps stock photo,

(searches, ranking, etc.)

Apple #1 @$2.48T too, (photo creating) but less than Google...?

All's left is Facebook #5 @$825B, IMO, but also less connected...?

None of the other seem reasonably connected to stock photos, IMO.

 

AAPL	Apple Inc	Computers, Phones & Household Electronic...	2.427 T
MSFT	Microsoft Corporation	Software & IT Services	2.251 T
AMZN	Amazon.com, Inc.	Diversified Retail	1.730 T
GOOGL	Alphabet Inc	Software & IT Services	850.360 B
FB	Facebook Inc	Software & IT Services	824.704 B
TSLA	Tesla Inc	Automobiles & Auto Parts	746.115 B
TSM	Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. Ltd. (ADR)	Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment...	589.864 B
NVDA	NVIDIA Corporation	Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment...	562.050 B
JPM	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	Banking Services	481.631 B
JNJ	Johnson & Johnson	Pharmaceuticals	433.991 B
WMT	Walmart Inc	Food & Drug Retailing	398.114 B
LVMUY	LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE(ADR)	Textiles & Apparel	386.821 B
V	Visa Inc	Software & IT Services	385.306 B
UNH	UnitedHealth Group Inc	Healthcare Providers & Services	384.738 B
BABA	Alibaba Group Holding Ltd - ADR	Software & IT Services	372.684 B
ASML	ASML Holding NV (ADR)	Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment...	363.639 B
HD	Home Depot Inc	Other Specialty Retailers	354.506 B
BAC	Bank of America Corp	Banking Services	350.817 B
PG	Procter & Gamble Co	Personal &Household Products & Services	350.010 B
MA	Mastercard Inc	Software & IT Services	346.574 B
PYPL	Paypal Holdings Inc	Software & IT Services	327.951 B
DIS	Walt Disney Co	Media & Publishing	320.269 B
YMM	Full Truck Alliance Co Ltd - ADR	Software & IT Services	313.115 B
ADBE	Adobe Inc	Software & IT Services	300.532 B
TM	Toyota Motor Corp (ADR)	Automobiles & Auto Parts	298.222 B
CRM	salesforce.com, inc.	Software & IT Services	272.025 B
NFLX	Netflix Inc	Software & IT Services	262.575 B
BRK.A	Berkshire Hathaway Inc.	Consumer Goods Conglomerates	260.657 B
CMCSA	Comcast Corporation	Media & Publishing	257.275 B
PFE	Pfizer Inc.	Pharmaceuticals	247.760 B
ORCL	Oracle Corporation	Software & IT Services	244.848 B
XOM	Exxon Mobil Corporation	Oil & Gas	241.652 B
TMO	Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.	Healthcare Equipment & Supplies	239.289 B
CSCO	Cisco Systems Inc	Communications & Networking	239.103 B
NVS	Novartis AG (ADR)	Pharmaceuticals	235.402 B
KO	Coca-Cola Co	Beverages	233.270 B
DHR	Danaher Corporation	Healthcare Equipment & Supplies	232.039 B
ACN	Accenture Plc	Software & IT Services	228.586 B
VZ	Verizon Communications Inc.	Telecommunications Services	225.305 B
ABT	Abbott Laboratories	Healthcare Equipment & Supplies	222.134 B
LLY	Eli Lilly And Co	Pharmaceuticals	222.099 B
INTC	Intel Corporation	Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment...	219.200 B
PEP	PepsiCo, Inc.	Beverages	213.025 B
AVGO	Broadcom Inc	Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment...	207.578 B
NKE	Nike Inc	Textiles & Apparel	203.750 B
COST	Costco Wholesale Corporation	Diversified Retail	200.160 B

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by FocusUno

[BobD]

I can't understand why you think Google would be any different from any other large corporation. They would look at the commission other companies take and do likewise.

Didn't they recently cut the producers share of advertising revenue on Youtube as well as increasing the amount of ads to make it nearly unwatchable. 

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, BobD said:

Didn't they recently cut the producers share of advertising revenue on Youtube as well as increasing the amount of ads to make it nearly unwatchable. 

A decent adblocker or Brave Browser seems to fix that, at least for now... I'm using Brave all the time now.

 

Mark

[BobD]

2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

A decent adblocker or Brave Browser seems to fix that, at least for now... I'm using Brave all the time now.

 

Mark

 

That works well, Thanks for that Mark

[BobD]

1 hour ago, kay said:

I just assumed google was a distributor, getting a decent cut on all the click throughs from google searches - does anyone know?

 

I would have thought that would be a little unethical unless they separate the search into 2 as they do with ads.

If they were getting a commission they would be more than tempted to skew the search results.

[John Mitchell]

Google Licensing seems promising. I'm surprised at how often some of my PhotoShelter images come up on the first page of searches, right alongside those of the big guys like Alamy. However, I've had no inquiries since Google launched the program. I can't see how Google could be collecting cuts from image licenses. Also, I think they would be too smart (in a business sense) to get directly involved in the stock photo business these days.