Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Speedlink - Getty Edition

Sometimes, someone elses' blog nails it so hard to the wall that you just want to send your readers there. Often there's a nice list of speedlinks. Today it's a singular suggestion, instead of multiples, where greedy Getty isn't making good on their contractual obligations.

Getty Uses A Nefarious Tactic To Raise Rates
(over at APhotoEditor.com)

This is just one more of the nails in the coffin of Getty. I suggest those of you that are Getty staffers should make your list and check it twice because it wouldn't surprise me in the least that Papa Klein-Grinch would milk you dry of every last one of your bonuses, raises, and so on, before taking a nice billowingly-fat golden parachute out of the company, as you are all shipped off to the unemployment line.

(Comments, if any, 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.


Anonymous said...

Welcome, hard times more opportunity to squeeze photographer and employees...
Not a surprise... With the editorial world in big trouble it's gettin harder to sell pictures.
On line magazine are rising and new way of selling / earning from images has to be found.

Anonymous said...

IMHO, Getty obviously doing something that runs far deeper and darker than this "Typo" rate shift.

They are blantly repositioning itself in the market place by stealing someone elses business model.

No they aren't the first organization to cleverly and nefariously use photographers who's whole self identity and existence is tied directly to being the "Big Photographer" at the "Big Game".

Think of all those personal photo's of those "Big Guys" and their "Big Friends" eating at the "Big Restaurants" and all the "Big Food" that is consumed.

What about the "Big Wannabes"? You know, those guys whose followup comments behind the "Big Bashers" on the petty threads started by those "Big Losers" to help reinforce the "Big Putdown" initially stated.

What is that business model that Getty seems to be making a "Big Shift to? Thats right www.aipress.com

This is an organization that Getty should buy imho. First, they are a direct competitor and one that already has the rates set close to where Getty will ultimately be.

Personally, I feel Getty is missing out on big by not supplying event labor in the other areas in sports.

For example, did you know that the parking lot attendents average $100.00 each per game over a ten hour time frame.

You replace those guys with homeless people and your talking about reducing that to the cost of a six pack per person. Now your making upwards of 75.00 perperson X 24 people x TTL Events in the US. Now we're talking!

I think the fun will really begin once the newspapers are gone! Somebody needs to let homeland security know what's happening in this industry.

What about those "major photographers" with there "Better Deals" they will be reduced to getting only appearance fees by the camera manufactures and hosting luncheons before the "Big Game" to keep all the "Big Free Shooters" motivated imho. I hope you guys like chicken!

Me, I'm just going to sit home and reminisce.

Anonymous said...

"This is just one more of the nails in the coffin of Getty."

Isn't this just wishful thinking with no basis in fact?

I'm all for constructive criticism of Getty and the other players in the stock market industry, including a discussion of alternatives. But mindlessly bashing some big, bad corporation just because it's a big, bad corporation gets tiresome.

Anonymous said...

Hey Fabian, do you really think people are bashing a big bad corporation just because it is a big bad corporation?

This particular organization is putting a lot of photographers out of business. Do they give a hoot what you and I think? Do they care that you have to put food on the table? Do they care how much time, effort and money it cost a photographer to stay in business?

This is the walmart of the photography business and if you haven't noticed, things are not getting better.

If your tired of the bashing, tough.

My question to you is, If this corporation is so great, why don't you even find one person in all the threads in all the boards defending them. Not one.

If you even mentioned a supplier in this industry in a bad light you would be battered by it's supporters.

Anonymous said...

Originally posted (and removed) from aphotoeditor/comments:

Why would a person want to do business with a company that is untrustworthy?
A company that will aggressively work against your best interests to further their own.
Why would one want to do business on a regular basis in this type of environment?

Is ignorance enough reason to want to enter this den?
Want or need?
Is it financial need or emotional need (validation)?
What errs in reasoning would enable a person to enter into business with this company?

I don't use the term "agency" because Getty is not an agency. They removed the term from their contracts early in the decade (around 2000), because legally an agency has to represent the best interests of it's clients (now termed "content providers"). This allowed Getty Images to hire student photographers at a day rate (about $800) +10% of sales to create images art directed by their editors. The hired students competed with the pros but had a huge advantage as Getty has receiving the lion's share of licensing revenue. Image selection, priority, and placement often resulted in these Getty hires to be ahead of the rest of the rank and file "content providers" . (At this time microstock was nonexistent. The contention was between RM, RF, and commissioned work).

To truly understand Getty Images one has to look at the history of their business with photographers. Going back to the last decade when they owned Tony Stone Images and little more, their relations with photographers was outstanding. But then they got greedy, issued that infamous contract which 600 photographers disputed -hiring an IP attorney in NYC to fight (aprox $250K). (This is also when the monopoly buying between Getty & Corbis was happening).

This borne the SAA.. The problem was these 600 photographers caved. In fact one of the photographers which is created with starting SAA maintained a collection of RF images with Getty - which he never would address (or freely acknowledge). Had these 600 drawn a real line in the sand, it may have had some effect - but the character of Getty management was already clear.

fwiw - I did not sign that agreement. Let my existing agreement come to term and terminated my relationship with Getty Images (about 5 years ago). Numerous other interactions (on a regular basis) shed light on how Getty operated. I did not care to be involved with a company which had to be second guessed, and took more time than they were worth.

Newer Post Older Post