SI Pictures Boards A Sinking Ship

So, you can add (as descibed here on the Time Life Archive page) to the "... iconic moments of the 20th century, where you will find Alfred Eisenstaedt's sailor kissing nurse in Times Square, Margaret Bourke-White's Chrysler Building gargoyle and Gjon Mili's picture of Pablo Picasso "painting" with light, to name a few...." all of Sports Illustrated's imagery. It too is now in the hands of Getty Images (NYSE: GYI), with an announcement imminent by SI Pictures, but the deal was signed last month. I'm guessing they didn't want to announce it too close to April Fool's Day, because they'd have egg on their face as people laughed and said "oh come on, it's not 4/1 yet!"

(Continued after the Jump)

It seems that SI's archive has been languishing a bit, so the geniuses that thought they could monetize the collection are now looking to Getty and their rapidly diminishing interest in editorial/creative (as reported here - Fool's Gold - Getty Images' Future, 4/1/08) to somehow save them. Let's see, Captain Smith, where would you like those deck chairs again? Just substitute deck chairs for server blades full of sports imagery, and you begin to get the point.

Truth be told, the deal, inked in early March, was held off because they wanted to spring the H&F purchase announcement first, without causing a ripple in the sale of GYI. Interestingly enough, this is more about protecting the imagery (supposedly) from others, BUT, Getty has some major sales goals they have to meet. Don't think though, that Getty won't intersperse the search results with their own wholey owned content, and maybe, just possibly, goose the results to "just meet" their sales objectives/requirements. I wouldn't put it past them, that's for sure.

Interestingly enough, Getty has in their deal with the sports leagues rights that allows them - with certain restrictions - to sell their sports imagery for commercial/advertising purposes. Why? Because the leagues get a cut. And, this was one of the things that Getty was holding over the SI folks' heads - that SI could only sell editorially, but through Getty, those images - at-least of major league sporting events (which GYI has contracts with) - could be sold in a commercial fashion, for big big dollars.

It's amazing that SI Pictures would take a premium brand and allow it to be dilluted by Getty's flacid pricing structure. Anyone who needs sports imagery of the caliber of SI's already knew where to get it.

Good Luck SI, you'll need it. Remember, when push comes to shove, and there's a shortage of lifeboats, it's women and children first.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

I Call Shenanigans! - Nice Try

It's a crazy world we live in these days that some people believe whatever is in a "press release". Today, the prankster's favorite day, a prank was attempted on the stock photography industry.

Norway and the US are among the countries that celebrate April Fools Day, and one Norwegian company has taken to spoofing those in the US with the "news" that Crestock has aquired Corbis for $625 million. In fact, they even list it in their "news room" section, here. Yet, a review of the Corbis news room, here, shows no news reported. Me suspects tom foolery all around!

Biggest give-away? At the bottom of the Crestock release is reads "Additional information concerning these and other risk factors is contained in Crestock's and Corbis's most recently filed Forms 10-K and 10-Q." Yet, neither company files these forms.

Other things like typos "The revenue for 2006 was $251 million." Who cites two-year old revenue? In fact, Corbis doesn't even cite it's own revenue! Further, "...not the least because of the growth..."; "...but a new head quarter will be established..."; and the biggest laugh of all- "it's simply 'non stocky stock photography'..." even I know that that's a stupid thing to say. (By the way, for all you who constantly critisize my typos, I recognize the irony in my pointing out the typos of others!)

UPDATE: While not to be believed, supposedly, Corbis was contacted by Crestock to say their site was hacked (yeah, right) and someone posted this "news" blurb, and they haven't been able to get rid of the blurb all day. Mmmm Hmmm. What idiot writes site code and then loses sysop access? I've been writing code since 1984, and that was a basic principle of every program I ever wrote - don't get locked out of your own code.

Methinks Corbis is enjoying this little trickery. Maybe I should have titled this post - "I call Shenkanigans!"

(Comments-if you have nothing else to do-after the Jump)

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Fool's Gold - Getty Images' Future

My colleague, Stan Rowin brought to our attention a Goldman Sachs slide about Getty Images (NYSE: GYI), sourced from GYI Management, which projects the future of Getty. Let's have a look-see at these thoughtful projections, and be sure to check out the article on the WashingtonPost.com website -
Getty Images: The Long Road To A Sale; Interest Waned As Process Went On.

Revenue
In 2008, Getty projects that 51% of their revenue will come from Creative Stills, and that, four years from now, that will plummet 43%, to 29%. So, if you're a Getty image producer in this department, this means that your income over the next four years will drop by 22%, even so as your cost of doing business increases over that same period.

In 2008, Getty projects that the editorial department will only see growth of just 4% over the next four years, for 20% in growth. Not so good when you look at the margins below. Consider that this is one of those departments likely to disappear.

In 2008, iStockphoto accounts for just 15% of Getty's revenue, which will grow about 50% over the next four years, to 22%.

Between 2008 and 2012, the music and footage/multimedia sees astronomical growth - relatively speaking. Music grows by 200%, Footage/Multimedia grows by 50%.

(Continued after the Jump)

Gross Margins
Worse yet, In 2008, the Gross Margin (that is, the gross difference between total income and net sales) will plummet from 53% to 31% by 2012 for Creative Stills as well, a comparable figure. In other words, don't look to efficiencies to apply to your business of creating images that go to Getty to offset your 22% revenue loss, you'll still be on the losing end of a losing proposition.

In 2008, for Editorial, the gross margin will only increase by 5%, comparable to that of it's revenue. In other words, there will not be a substantial leap from revenue to margin for this division. That's not likely to be sufficient for the new owners to keep it around.

On the other hand, there will be a 70% increase in margin for iStockphoto (moving from 13% to 22%), as more and more people contribute, and the costs associated with paying out $0.20 or so per image will decrease. This is remarkable, as Getty will also see that 57% growth in revenue (from 13% to 22%), meaning that iStockphoto will command more and more attention of those rearranging Getty's deck chairs.

Further, there will be a 200% margin growth in B2B Music, and a 50% margin increase in footage/multimedia between 2008 and 2012.

Take a hint from what happened with AOL and Time Warner. Back in the heady days of the dot-com 1.0 era, AOL was the one who bought Time Warner. Now, it's Time Warner who is looking to jettison AOL, or, at the least, the losing propositions/divisions of AOL's from days gone by. Beware the day that Hellman & Friedman trashes everything that does not meet it's margin standard, and sells off iStockphoto/Pump Audio/et al along with much of the wholly-owned Getty imagery as a nicely wrapped up deal under the iStockphoto brand.

Don't think so? 11 months after iStockphoto.com was registered as a domain name, iStockaudio.com was registered - check here. It was renewed January 9th of this year.

You see - PumpAudio becomes iStockaudio.com, iStockphoto.com gets an infusion of the best of Getty Images, and oh, their video footage gets wrapped up in iStockvideo.com, which was registered late back in 2003, but was renewed on the same day as iStockaudio.com was - January 9th of this year. Check the Network Solutions registration information here.

All if it, of course, wraps up nicely and neatly into the iStock.com URL, which will likely serve as the central clearing house for all three. Registered way back in 1995, it was renewed on, you guessed it, January 9th, 2008, as seen here.

Thus, this April Fool's Day the only true fools will be those that fall for the Getty Images line about how great things are, or will be in the future. I see the light at the end of the tunnel, but know enough to lay between the tracks to avoid the freight train that will crush anyone standing in it's way.

---

Related Stories:

• 3/19 - Getty Images - Moving Forward
  2/26 - Getty Images - A New Beginning?
• 2/11 - Getty Images - Down For The Count
• 2/22 - JDK - Getty Images' CEO and KKR's Track Record - History Repeats Itself?
• 1/21 - There's a sucker born every minute - Getty Images For Sale!

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

On Being a Professional

So many Idiots With Camera (IWC) go out, and make our lives more difficult. Whether acting up on TV, or being unprofessional in the execution of our photographic duties, the world sees us as less and less a professional, and more and more a nuisance.

Recently, I received information on two separate, and distinct demonstrations where professionalism was lacking, or simply devoid.

(Continued after the Jump)

The first was the fisticuffs that took place while paparazzi were covering the arrival of do-nothing heiress Paris Hilton in Turkey. Paris was busy trying to recover her image, as if she had one to begin with. Yet, the assembled photographers and videographers can be seen here throwing fists, and if you look carefully, you can see one TV cameraman using his $30,000 camera as a weapon, hammering down on an unseen victim.

The second is the situation where a wedding photographer was found to not deliver professional results - in fact, results not consistent with the portfolio they presented. (PhotoResearcher, by Joel Hecker, Esq) Further, the photographer did not deliver on the terms of the contract. Specifically, they did not bring an assistant they had said they would. Thus, they were found to be in breach of contract for this, and other reasons.

In an odd way, there are benefits to these incidents. Perhaps, people will become more discerning when they select a photographer. When I get a call from a 5-star hotel who wants to send me their "vendor agreement", which dictates how we may act, and comport ourselves while on site for the event (press conference, wedding, and so forth) and they require us to provide proof of insurance, I smile and send along the appropriate documentation, knowing that at-least 75% of my competition just got nixed from consideration, or, perhaps, when it's a last minute call for an event at those same venues, it's because other photographers (among that 75%) got nixed after the client had signed them because they could not meet the terms of that vendor agreement. It's surprising that I am among the minority of photographers who have liability insurance. One lost job is more than enough revenue to carry that insurance in the first place.

Over the years, I have covered countless movie premieres and events, and worked with many many A-level celebrities. It's easy to illustrate how we are different - ney professional - and clients fear the possibility of hiring an unprofessional photographer who does not know how to co-exist amongst the VIP's at their event. I recently received a call to travel to five countries this Summer over 12 days, for a premiere project. The client has indicated to me, when I asked "who have you used in the past..." responded about the trials and tribulations of working with an unprofessional photographer. This five-figure assignment was won not because I was the most talented with a camera, or because I had the best eye/vision, but because I have a track record with this client of being professional as I make my images.

Would I love to have all my assignments conveyed to me because of my unique vision? My creative capabilities? Absolutely! But, in the end, I am more than happy to that the assignments that come to be because I am 1) the only one available; 2) I was the only one who called back; or 3) I was the only one who had the right professional attitude to accomplish the assignment.

I see often clients who come to work with me, and then, for no apparent reason, stop calling. Then, they start calling back again. Over time, I've learned that these clients get lulled into a false sense of security thinking that the service level I deliver is comparable to that of others in my community who deliver at a price 30%-40% less than me. So, for a few hundred dollars, clients go elsewhere. Soon, they learn that there is a difference, and they return, with a new understanding and respect for a level of service that they expect on a continuing basis. These clients remain, over time, and are among my favorite long-term clients. Some of them have been calling on me for over 15 years.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

When A Shoot Goes Bad

All to often, I hear stories about shoots gone bad. Not bad as in, the photos were horrible, but bad as in "the model tripped", or the lightstand crashed into that antique table..." bad. These are the kinds of incidents that turn the shoot from profitable to you into an expensive debacle that you'd just as soon have stayed in bed for instead of shooting it.

Enter photographers working for the upstart Desi Life magazine, launched under a year ago by the Toronto Star in Canada, serving the niche South-Asian community in the area.

Many photographers who find themselves working for startups are conned into accepting "startup" pay scales. These are photographers who, in many cases, don't have their act together when it comes to having their bases covered when things like insurance and so forth. I don't know the photographer who shot the cover in question, he may well have his insurance in line, but many many others don't.

Insurance? Who needs insurance?

(Continued after the Jump)

You do, when you're on set and the lion that is your prop attacks (even playfully) the human subject for your cover! To see the video (via RobGalbraith.com) of the attack, click here. It seems that four broken ribs occured during the lion's throw-down if it's prey.

I previously wrote about liability insurance as it pertains to sports photographers (10/23/07, Speculative Photography - Risks and Liabilities for Leagues, Venues, and Teams) where I outlined the risks of taking to the field without the proper insurance. In fact, there is a huge risk to the players and the league when individuals without the proper insurance coverage are allowed to be near multi-million dollar players where they could injure them and then not be accountable.

So too, when you're working on an assignment in a museum near priceless paintings, or with a celebrity where a wayward light stand could strike them, you have to have insurance. You need only read this report (and see the accompanying photo!) about former supermodel Lauren Hutton's shiner which happened recently on a photo shoot to get the idea!

If you don't know what a COI is, call your insurance provider and ask about them. If you don't have insurance for your business, what are you doing in business? You could lose your house, your savings, and everything you've ever worked for if something goes awry!

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Chicago Magazine Report Retort - Come Again!?!

I recieved a retort from a Chicago area photographer a week or so ago about an APA/Apple Store presentation he'd seen by Brittney Blair, Photo Editor of Chicago Magazine from back on February 11th. APA's website reports the presentation as "...Brittney’s Pro Session discussion focused on the best ways to break into photography, how to catch a photo editors attention, and steps to landing your dream assignment." However, one glaring issue arose. Ms. Blair is reported to have said, either exactly, or very near exactly, "You know that nobody can make a living off of editorial magazine photography."

I'll share what the attending photographer was infuriated about. He noted in his missive to me:

(Continued after the Jump)

• Is she poisoning everyones expectations to keep their idea of how much they should charge lower?
• Secondly, don't magazine writers earn a living?
• Don't magazine editors and PHOTO EDITORS earn livings?
• Doesn't the publisher of a magazine earn a living?
• Don't the ad sales team earn livings?
• Doesn't the printer of a magazine earn a living?
• In fact they would EXPECT to.
• Why should editorial photographers have to believe they can't earn a living????
• Isn't a photo on the cover what sells a magazine to the casual shopper?
• Are not photos the "stoppers" that capture something like 1.7 seconds of a page flippin' reader's attention and get them to read the article?

The attending photographer goes on to object:

"She later went on to say that she know sometimes that with pre-production and expenses a photographer might only break even or lose money on a shoot but that the exposure in a regional publication is worth it. Would she accept breaking even or losing money on HER job to be worth the exposure?? Maybe for an intern, but not a professional. Are the guest "experts" we as photographer flock to for advice telling the truth or building the walls of a ghetto?"

Well said, well said.

I will note that I was a previous speaker at an APA/Apple Store Presentation in that same store in Chicago just over a year ago, and my message was exactly opposite this one. Further, Friday I completed a profitable editorial assignment, and today, Monday, I am completing both a profitable editorial assignment as well as an even more profitable corporate assignment.

I will say, APA nor Apple vetted these message points - they surely did not vet mine before I presented. I know that APA's thought process is 100% contrary to several of the points reported out above. Further, the good folks at Apple are truly committed to helping photographers succeed, hence not only this APA seminar series, but also, their ASMP seminar series, both of which have been extremely well received.

Even if this photo editor did not say this (and I believe this photographer's reporting that she did), it stands as a common mentality amongst many photo editors who believe we should all be blessed to have our work appear in their publications. Think again - its' our work that will enhance the otherwise blank or text-filled pages you are printing on those presses of yours.

You, dear photo editors, should be fighting to pay us assignment fees that you know will allow us to sustain ourselves. I know many that do, and I work for a substantial subset of that group. I appreciate the photo editors that I work for, and who look out for the creatives that supply art for their pages.

Further, the good folks over at Editorial Photographers, EP President Brian Smith among them, would also take issue with her suggestion of how the world turns for photographers. Or, perhaps, I am sounding a bit like the Bitter Photographer now?

To those of you who are content in your full time, self-sustaining jobs where you know the assignment fees you are paying photographers do not sustain your talent pool, I say, bollocks to you.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

© Infringements - Don't be a Hypocrite

I'm really getting tired of this. Colleagues, both highly respected and prosumer alike, who have no regard for copyrights. I recently watched an amazing presentation of work by a noted photographer, who's work was enhanced by the aural addition of music by Enya. I know just how next to impossible it is to get permission for uses like this, as I have tried, so I am almost certain that she was infringing on Enya's copyright. I also continue to watch as a other photographers continue to promote videos/presentations where music I know to be popular, but which are on YouTube with music that it is almost certain to be infringing uses. I wish they would just take a pause and realize what they are doing.

(Continued after the Jump)

The hypocrisy continues. Friends who "share" a Photoshop or PhotoMechanic serial #, yet complain when their own work is stolen.

Interestingly enough, were I to provide a photograph that was not my own to an organization for their presentation, or to a website/blog to grow traffic/hits, the infringing party would be the organization or website/blog. It is the "publication" of the material, by the "publisher" that is the infringement, in large part. For a public performance, it would be the corporation or organization that provided the forum/programming that would likely be held accountable.

Several years ago, I was working a product launch for a pharmaceutical company for the sales reps who visit doctors offices to give them samples, and promote the product. The music that started the event was the Red Hot Chili Pepper's song "Give It Away Now", perfectly appropriate in terms of theme, inappropriate in terms of the infringement of the band's intellectual property by a company with IP of it's own in the form of the medicine they sell.

I am not a lawyer, but here's a good rule:
Unless you're commenting on the music itself, as in "listen to the multiple downbeats", or "the refrain here is repetitive...", making a claim that your use is "fair use" is likely not to hold water. When you use music to accompany your images, you need to get permission, or don't use it. Period.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Getty Images - Moving Forward

Getty Images (NYSE: GYI) is a lot of things. Right now, they are on the chopping block, having just left the auction block, with, as the AP reports (Regulators OK Getty Images' $2.1B Buyout, 3/18/08), "Antitrust regulators have cleared private equity firm Hellman & Friedman LLC's $2.1 billion purchase of Getty Images Inc., a federal agency said Tuesday."

The company that has acquired them, Hellman & Friedman, is known for stripping down the company to increase margins on the profitable divisions, and killing off those that are not, and then dumping it - yes, for a profit. They don't do this for all their aquisitions, of course. But, they are not likely to remain in the photography business as a purveyor of images. So, what's going to go?

(Continued after the Jump)

1) The Getty wire service is the least profitable division, and I think that, without much of the re-sales that they get, that figure might even be worse. It takes a great deal of staffing and often a shot-in-the-dark mentality when assigning coverage. In DC for example, there are many many events, and it's very had to know just what to cover. I don't envy the editors who have to make that decision. Note though, this challenge is not unique to Getty. AP, Reuters, and AFP all face similar challenges. Bloomberg is, to a small degree, immune from this, only because they are a essentially a niche wire service, covering events from a financial aspect. They are not trying to be all things to all people. Yet, Getty's wire service will likely go first.

2) The Getty editorial department. I've spoken with a few folks smarter than me on this, and there seems to be some agreement here, that this department too will be trimmed to within an inch of it's life, and may just get cut altogether. The reason? The margins are just not where they should be.

What does this leave? Oh, of course, iStockphoto, and their commercial/corporate division. Getty actually does have the potential to generate huge sums from the commercial division with all the advertising sales, exclusivity up-charges, and so forth. In addition, most anytime you can get an assignment out of someone, that's going to be fairly profitable, especially with the unfair percentages they are paying out.

In addition, Getty's sports contracts for the leagues will continue to bring them money, but more as an arm of the leagues as a distribution channel. Same for entertainment clients, more in LA and NYC than anywhere else, where event promoters want a distribution channel there as well that have the eyeballs of the entertainment news media to get pickup from their events. But, wait, isn't that editorial? Nope. When a corporate client pays you $5k to cover and event that has a few celebrities in attendance, and then you put those photos up from the arrivals area with a step-and-repeat backdrop with the clients' logo, or you are the "inside exclusive photographer" getting great photos that will look good for the commercial client, and these happen to appear in editorial coverage, that's commercial/corporate, not editorial!

Did you catch that above, I said "distribution channel" twice, for two distinct divisions? That's right friends, Getty will become a distribution channel for corporate America more so now than ever before. These are, after all, extremely profitable. Sure, they have some great archive materials, from acquired collections, but that, along with good margins elsewhere will make Getty attractive as a private acquisition.

By who? Probably Corbis.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Speedlinks 03/18/07

I know I've been absent, but I'll have a post or two in the next few days, so, my apologies! In the meantime, Check out the following speedlinks:

• Photoshop Disasters - This site is awesome because is shows you all the mistakes retouchers make, and breaks them down for you!
• Carolyn Wright, over at PhotoAttorney reports: - "an Illinois District Court held that Daniel Schrock of Dan Schrock Photography had no right to register his photographs of toys because they were unauthorized derivative works of the copyrights in the toys. Schrock was hired by Learning Curve Intern, Inc. ("LCI"), to shoot the toys for marketing uses. Alleging that LCI and others had used the photos beyond the license terms, Schrock sued for copyright infringement. But the Court agreed with the defendants that "without approval from the owner of the underlying [copyrighted] work, approval that was totally absent here, Schrock could not obtain a copyright over his derivative works."
• A little off topic, but worth a read: LEAKS: Best Buy's Internal Customer Profiling Document - "Consumerist is now in possession of an internal training document that teaches Best Buy blue shirts how to stereotype..."
• Scott Regan Photo Blog - Scott has a few nice words to say about my book, and also, some interesting images and insights about his own work that is worth a look.

Now go! Check 'em out, and come back soon!

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

NSC - A brief note about the Photo Booth

While I will have more later on the highly successful NPPA Northern Short Course (NSC), if you had your photo taken in the photo booth, shoot me an e-mail and I will get you an invite to view and download the images that were made.

To prove you were there, you'll have to tell me what floor the booth was on. Please no hints in the comments!

(Continued after the Jump)

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]