Thursday, February 24, 2011

Stock Loss: Stupid is, as Stupid Does

When Getty Images acquired iStockphoto, they said they did so to prevent iStockphoto from canibalizing their own business, at a time when the average price for a stock photograph was in the $900 range.

Here's a photo, on the iStockphoto website (here) of a nondescript fragrance bottle. Price? About $10.



Where can you buy this exact same photo, with the exact same resolution, for $340?
(Continued after the Jump)


Why, iStockphoto parent company, Getty Images, right here via their Getty Images Flickr site!



So, Getty is doing a pretty good job of self-immolation. This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last, that Getty Images makes mistakes that cost them their bottom line!

(via Shannon Fagan on Facebook)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
at

7 comments:

  1. UnknownFebruary 24, 2011 at 9:00 PM

    Hey John,

    I do notice one difference other than the price. The file size seems to be a lot larger on Getty (21.3 MB) than on iStock (about 2 MB). Though, both images do list the same dimensions (2728 x 2728 px).

    I can see a larger file size justifying a higher cost, but then the dimensions seem to me to say they are actually the same size. Can you explain? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  2. John HarringtonFebruary 24, 2011 at 10:26 PM

    Shawn -

    There's a bit of confusion on that. In the end, the dimensions (in pixels) are what (for the most part) defines the size of the file. If you look at the Getty one, it's 1.3GB, which just shows up as 2.0GB on the iStockphoto site. A 1.36GB file (and a 2.0GB file for that matter) is the size of the JPEG, and opens up to be a 21MB file, as it shows on the Getty site. They are the same pixel dimensions.

    - John

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jonathan LevinFebruary 25, 2011 at 11:43 AM

    Weird. Only thing I can think of is that they are assuming that someone might be tempted to "borrow" for another use, such as a web thing, and are taking that into account.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousFebruary 26, 2011 at 6:47 PM

    Do any "outsiders" know if privatized Getty owners are operating well into the black, whether they are under pressure to sell as whole or break up & sell? What their stock photo strategy changes are going forward?

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousFebruary 27, 2011 at 1:57 AM

    John -

    That's bit about resolution and file sizes is untrue.

    When you open an image in photoshop, The memory listed in the bottom left corner of the image is the amount of RAM being used for that image, NOT the actual size of the file. I'm not sure what you mean by 'uncompressed' JPEG

    File Size for images is determined by pixel dimensions (Length x Width) and resolution (DPI).

    What I'm guessing is going on here, is that iStockphoto is hosting the image at 72 DPI which is fine for web work, but not fine for print work. Getty has the same file available at 300 DPI, which would be fine for print work and thus justifies the higher cost.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousFebruary 27, 2011 at 2:14 PM

    I see it the other way around.

    The pricing is intentionally designed in this manner to obtain extra income from "stupid" people on the buying side.

    The market value of this image is $10. Istock sells it at that price and makes a fair, but small, profit on the transaction.

    Getty also sells it at $340. If a "stupid" and/or price insensitive buyer comes along then they get extra revenue. If not, they still have the image for sale on their sister site at it's fair value...$10.

    ReplyDelete
  7. John HarringtonMarch 1, 2011 at 12:34 AM

    Pardon the GB/MD error. I should have said:

    If you look at the Getty one, it's 1.3mb, which just shows up as 2.0mb on the iStockphoto site. A 1.36mb file (and a 2.0mb file for that matter) is the size of the JPEG, and opens up to be a 21MB file, as it shows on the Getty site.

    Regards - John

    ReplyDelete

COMMENT GUIDELINES

Every month, tens of thousands of visitors come to Photo Business News, and approximately 2,000 readers get PBN via RSS feeds. As we approach three years of blogging (in one form or another) PBN has matured, and has, as one might expect, attracted some less-than-mature readers, which, in turn, turns to commenters with their own agendas.

Following are our Terms of Service (TOS) for commenting on the blog posts:
-------------------
1. Comment Spam - we have had a ton of spam from countries like Russia, Japan, China, and so on. It interferes with the discourse, and is one of the prime reasons we are moving to moderation. All one need to is look back a few months to see the blog posts I haven't had time to clean up from this type of spam to see that moderation is needed for this reason alone. In addition, if your comment is not germane to the point being discussed, it too becomes spam. It will be deleted.

2. Over time, some pretty irrational challenges and attacks have been levied against me, and that's ok if you disagree with me, just don't make it personal on me, or anyone else. Doing so means your comment won't make it out of moderation, so don't waste your time. In addition, it would be a shame for you to make a really great point that everyone would benefit from reading, and include personal attacks on me, or other commenters, because we don't edit comments, they're either in, or they're out.

3. Over at the Photo Business News Flickr forum, (here) there are almost 2,000 members and a good opportunity to get your questions answered there. If you have a suggestion for a blog topic, there's a link to make that suggestion on every page of the blog.

4. It is the policy of Photo Business News that if there is a YouTube, Vimeo, Viddler, Hulu or any other video service online, we can post it here using the embedding players for those services (which often insert ads into the playback). We can't know if what might normally be considered a copyrighted work that you would think might not be allowed on, say, YouTube, in fact has been agreed to between the copyright holder and YouTube. So, if you have a question or concern, visit those sites, and flag the content you believe is problematic. In addition, we adhere to standards for quoting and citing other content, with attribution and where possible, a link to that content.

5. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS - For several years now, we've given free reign to anonymous commenters, and a small fraction of those were beneficial to the readership. It is our opinion that anonymous commenters would best be from someone who, for example, should their identity be revealed, could pose job security or economic problems for them. So to that end, unless your comment is significantly beneficial, anonymous comments won't get moderated in. If you wish to make an anonymous comment and you want to send me an e-mail identifying yourself (which I will not reveal), that would be helpful, and will increase your chances of getting your comments posted. Oh, and don't go creating a fake Blogger ID just to get in - blank Blogger ID's are just one step removed from plain anonymous postings. The more discourse where people know who each other are, the better. David Hobby, of Strobist fame summed it up best in his TOS: "Nothing looks more weenie and pathetic than sniping, critical, anonymous comments."