Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Enter PhotoShelter - Game On!

This past weekend, PhotoShelter launched what I consider the final phase of their marketplace entry, launching the PhotoShelter Collection. Daryl Lang, over at PDN penned their first review PhotoShelter Launching Community-Based Stock Site (9/14/07). My thoughts on this new service are based having just been a speaker at PhotoShelter's Atlanta Town Hall, just prior to my presenting to the ASMP Atlanta chapter.

The most attractive feature (so far), is that you don't need to be a member of the current PhotoShelter service to have your images considered for inclusion, or to start generating revenue.

And, what does it cost?

(Continued after the Jump)

Before I get into cost, note above, I said "considered". Your work must be presented and reviewed by PhotoShelter's new team of editors, who's job it is to make sure that no crap gets into the archive. This has been a complaint by some of the pre-Collection content at PhotoShelter - specifically, that there's a lot of sports and personal photos that buyers don't want to weed through. Agreed, they don't. PhotoShelter gets that. Hence, not only do you have to submit images to the Collection for review and consideration, but a pair of photo-buying eyes have to approve your submission. How do they do that?

To start, there's two classes of accepted images - "Accepted", and "Editors Choice". If your image is good enough, it will be given the classification "Editors Choice", and be listed first in search results. In a previous post (I told you so? No, not really (Well, maybe, sort of)", 8/4/07), I noted how a search for "White House" on iStockphoto yielded better results first than Getty's more expensive offering - Getty Images.

As the service has just launched. in beta, and for photographer submissions only, I can't do as in depth a piece as I did for Digital Railroad's Marketplace, however, once both have gotten their feet wet, with a bit of time under their belt, I'll do a comparative piece, and, in the near future, I may compare the stated services - i.e. costs/fees, and so forth.

For now, the big question is - How much does it cost?

Free.

Sweet. What have you got to loose?

You don't need to be a current PS paying member. You don't pay anything monthly - not a dime. You don't need to pay a fee to submit. You don't need to pay for server space. PS is betting on their editors' eyes. If their editors think your image is worthwhile, they give you a free spot in their listings, expecting to make up the costs of the storage, maintenance, and promotion of your (and others) work through image licensing.

So, what's the deal with percentages? Well, first things first - standard agency deals are a 50/50 split. Some (including Getty) have evolved to a 60/40, or 70/30, and in some cases 80/20, favoring the agency.

PS is doing just the opposite - their take is 30%, with 70% to you. But, if you've got images now, ready to go (and I do), uploading before November 5th gives you 85% (for the first six months), with PS taking 15% on those images. So, in order to facilitate the initial growth of their library depth, getting in first not only gives you an extra 15%, but, you're the "fresh fish", getting the exposure first. I'll save the comparison to Digital Railroad's 20% take in a later piece.

PhotoShelter also does not require exclusivity, so you can have your images there as well as, say, iStockphoto. If you're an iStockphoto contributor, why earn $1 on your photos, when PhotoShelter will earn you much more? PS is targeting, in tandem with professionals - amateurs as well. At first blush, this would be a red flag for pro's not wanting their work alongside the non-pro's, but in the end, it's about the image. If the amateur has as good as, if not better than, a working pro, they get a fair shake.

How much more? PS uses the industry-leading pricing model espoused by fotoQuote, a tool I have relied on for almost a decade. fotoQuote allows you to modify your pricing, so, if you think your work is better than average, you can adjust your pricing to, say, 110% of all fotoQuote's midpoint pricing. You're in control of how much your work is worth.

How will your images be returned during search results? Of course, there's the metadata search of the caption and so forth, but what about keywords? I am in the process of taking a collection of just over 2,000 images that I have scanned, to make them ready for the online world. I talked with David Riecks, of the well-respected Controlled Vocabulary keywording solution (which I purchased a copy of, and which powers all of my keywords), about keywords, and specifically, the value of synonyms. Reicks talked about Getty's propriety ability to deliver synonyms for search results, and that I should seriously consider the added expense of synonyms. What's the extra cost using Jaincotech? $0.35 each. So, not having to do synonyms will save me $700 for 2,000 images. Further, as a part of PS's synonyms/plurals capability, is their artificial intelligence to return a search for "big apple" to with images keyworded "NYC".

It would be amazing if even a few of iStockphoto's major contributors/producers to submit a collection of images to PS, and have them realize just how much they've been selling themselves short as it regards the value of their work. What you submit doesn't have to be exclusive, so, there's little downside to trying it out.

How do you "get in"? Visit PhotoShelter Collection and sign up. You'll be asked to submit between 3 and 10 images so they can confirm you can make images, and then you'll be approved. Within the first three days, they had over six hundred photographers sign up. By the time you read this, it'll probably be closer to 700. I know that I did.

So, how will people even know that the Collection exists? With the service actually becoming available to buyers in November, starting in January they have set aside $1 million for advertising/marketing of the service. That's not chump change.

So, what about amateurs? Well, if your work can compete with the "big boys", this levels the playing field. You're judged on the quality of your submissions, and nothing more. By including the amateurs in the community, and helping them to realize the value of their work, these amateurs become a part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. Giving them data about their images, insights into appropriate pricing models, and feedback is going to make a huge difference in their growing role in the field of photography.

So, bring 'em on!

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.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

i just saw that they don't want images that are too stock-like - blue skies and posing models. i'm afraid that these are the files that get you the most money at istock. so while i thought about switching to photoshelter and have submitted my application there, i'm afraid it's not the solution you - and me, too - were hoping for.

Rowlock said...

@Christopher

I'm confident that they'll be accepting more traditional stock-like images -- they've got a category aimed directly at that market, which they call "Pro Stock". It looks as though they're reaching out beyond the traditional stock-fodder too though, with their Editorial and Contemporary categories.

From the looks of it, it seems to be a broadening rather than a narrowing of their image base compared to traditional stock fare. A win for all concerned, I'd say.

John Harrington said...

Christopher --

Can't hurt to submit the images - the worst they can do is decline the image(s)! In the beginning, I suspect they will be far more willing to accept images (since they don't have any) than in a few months.

Also, it's a oxymoron to say "...the most money at istock...", unless you're suggesting something relative.

John

Anonymous said...

Let's hope you're right. Cause if they wouldn't take all my bestsellers from istock, there's no way i'd be switching to them. there's enough risk in switching even without such a problem.

Anonymous said...

john: i meant that out of all my files at istock, those that photoshelter doesnt seem to like sell the most. sorry for any misunderstanding, i'm not a native english speaker.

Anonymous said...

I realize the service is in beta and the buying interface is not yet available, but has there been any word about whether images will be seen by search engines, or will the whole thing be a closed system?

Seems like most stock agencies are really missing the boat (or at least "a" boat) by ignoring the buyers that could come in via search engines.

John Harrington said...

Paul --

Yes, their search results are SEO optimized and crawlable. I am going to try to get you a few URL's as examples.

John

bryan_luckyoliver said...

"By including the amateurs in the community, and helping them to realize the value of their work, these amateurs become a part of the solution, rather than part of the problem."

Doesn't the customer decide the commercial value of the work? If the customer doesn't buy at a certain price are they part of the problem?

John Harrington said...

Bryan --

I understand your position as a purveyor of Midstock (your term), however, your business is based upon images valued at, say, $50 or so, rather than $1. Thus, you are setting a value higher than $1/istock prices, and thus, you have realized that the value of your content is greater than that of istockphoto. Surely, I could find almost any comparable/suitable image on your site also on istockphoto, yet you're getting business.

I submit that those that allow their work to be sold for $1, or $49, where clients previously were willing to pay much much more, is a problem - a problem created by those purveyors of cut-rate pricing (and yes, that does include Lucky Oliver).

I do hope that your best producers of content realize that they can get much more for their work than the content that have on your site (and, possibly istockphoto at the same time), and post their best selling images on PS. I think that after a few sales where they earn $150+, they'll be much more likely to move their current content on micro/mid-stock sites to PS, and further, will stop producing fresh content for micro/mid-stock, and put it where they will earn more revenue, and then, yes, become a part of the solution.

If the customer doesn't buy at a certain price, it's because they haven't been convinced of the value of the content at that price, not because they are a part of the problem.

bryan_luckyoliver said...

First off, I just want to say it's much easier to throw a comment into the mix than actually write a post :) You're certainly dedicated to the blog and I applaud your thorough writing. It's a fun read for me (even if I don't agree with all the opinions!).

A couple points I'd like to make:

1. Midstock is microstock and macrostock- it's not a middle pricing. We have images that sell at $1 and $250. It's an *average* middle pricing. We believe there is a legitimate, volume based business in selling low-cost images. We also believe photographers should be rewarded for great work at pricing they decide.

2. We let the customer decide if they want to pay more for a image. We're solving a retail problem. So, in fact, the customer decides if it's worth it to pay more for an image. We're a marketplace.

3. Once a photographer has qualified, they can set pricing at what ever price point they want. We don't control the pricing on sideshow images. Again, these have sold for $250.

4. By your argument then, the photographers should not be held accountable, but the companies that *allow* photos to be sold at a buck. That would be us, which is completely fine. I don't think you can say that your peers are the problem. There is a much larger value chain.

Selling photos is now a retailing problem (not a price problem).

We're leading this charge. Good, quality content will sell if the pricing meets the markets needs. We hope to help photographers understand this paradigm shift. You can no longer 'control' pricing.

Anonymous said...

Well, after having tried out photoshelter a bit more, i'm convinced it won't do anything to stop people from submitting to microstock agencies and help them to switch to a higher paying agency. they are targeting a different market, and they want different photos from the photographers.

sorry john, but this is not the solution you were hoping for.

Andy Frazer said...

I read your post about PhotoShelter. It sounded exactly like what I was looking for, especially the part about being free (with the exception of the commissions).

Not!

I signed up for the free Starter account, I resized and uploaded 20 of my photographs, I waited a few days to be informed that 17 of them had been accepted, I set all of the prices based on their recommendations, then checked back today to find out that my account had not yet been enabled for sales. Why? Because I haven't paid the one-time $50 sales activation fee.

It turns out that the account may be free, but in order sell your photographs you have to either 1) pay for monthly maintenance (starting at $9.99/month), or 2) pay the one-time $50 sales activation fee.

PhotoShelter might be a great service for photographers who expect to sell a lot of work. But their "free offer" is very misleading.

Andy Frazer
http://gorillasites.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Just stumbled across your forum. I am an Photoshelter archive subscriber and a submitter to the new Collection. Only time will tell about the collections sucess, but I did want to let Andy know.. you must have mistakenly signed up for the archive service. Submitting to the Collection truly is free. You do not need an archive account. Linda

Anonymous said...

asus silver w1000 battery
asus silver w1000g battery
asus a42-l4 battery

商標註冊/專利申請達人 said...

當舖
專利
專利
關鍵字
專利
當舖
存證信函
存證信函
關鍵字
存證信函
當舖
商標
商標設計
自創品牌
商標
關鍵字
商標
當舖

Newer Post Older Post