Tagged: corbis

Oh, What A Difference (Or Not?) 5 Years Makes

Stock image consultancy firm Visual Steam recently published a summary of their 2014 survey of US art buyers in stock image licensing. It outlines some of the major trend lines from the previous year (continued pricing pressure, use migrating to online and away from print), and provides insight into buyer habits across sourcing, pricing models used most, and “top of mind” destinations for sourcing images (it’s still Getty’s game, but Shutterstock continues to nip away).

Comparing trends between this year and last might reveal glacial-type movements among art buyers, who largely have not changed their habits over 12 months. What about 5 years? The publication Graphic Design USA, for many years, has been publishing its own stock visual survey (itself sponsored by a commercial stock licensor). Have 5 years of buyer habits changed all that much, and what do their habits reveal about trend lines and the stock industry’s response? Similarities between GD USA’s 2009 survey and Visual Steam’s 2014 are close enough for comparison.

Motion

The use of motion has increased greatly over 5 years, according to those polled. In 2009 the amount of buyers licensing motion was 35% — today it is 73%. The amount of producers and licensors of motion have not commensurately increased within the stock industry, so where is increased demand met? Is inventory finally being exploited across Getty, Pond5 and others, or has the increase in use been met through assignment?

General Use

41% of buyers polled in 2009 said they use stock more than in the previous year. 60% of buyers polled in 2014 said they expected to increase their use in the coming year. While this comparison is reality vs. forecast, it does not at a general volume increase year over year, which should be aligned with ad growth. However, sales volumes do not equal revenue volumes. To further illustrate the eclipse of digital over print, almost all of those surveyed in 2009 used stock for print campaigns, and today it’s roughly half.

Spending

To which pricing and licensing models does the money go? RF licensing still sees the lions share, which is little surprise. RF saw over half (54%) of what was spent in 2009, while 2014 increased to 59% over RM. What was not tracked in 2009, but relevant today, is Free use – 13% accounted for total licenses acquired in Visual Steam’s survey, making the rise of direct to photographer sourcing by buyers a powerful theme. Certainly, Flickr, Creative Commons, Google Images, and outside distribution and sharing has accelerated this trend. Spending little, if anything, is still a major driver in content sourcing: only 23% said that quality trumps price every time.

Sourcing

Perhaps a trivial difference, while most all sourced their imagery online in 2009 quite a few were reliant upon print catalogs and CDs. While GD USA’s poll doesn’t give us buyer preferences around where they source, Visual Steam’s does, and Getty is still top of mind among stock licensors. Getty and iStock accounted for well over half of those who were asked of an immediate “go-to”, with Shutterstock not far behind. Corbis and Veer are very much considered tier 3. These findings certainly reflect market share capture. A distant, yet powerful, source was Google Images, but what remains opaque is whether this a front door to industry licensors who benefit from tagging and ads or a method for sourcing outside of stock licensing (and what is the differential?).

Buyers seem to have grown accustomed to subscription and trolling micro sites for cheap RF in the past 5 years, since questions in 2009 (“have you used a micropayment site?” and “have you used a subscription service?”) seem as antiquated as print catalogs and CDs. No doubt, with the move by iStock to go up market with its Vetta collection (and with Shutterstock mimicking the same in its recent Offset), buyers are challenged to break old prejudices even if in practice it was a shell game of content by the licensors.

Will we see the same prejudices – this time with user-generated content – be defeated in 5 years time? UGC was raised as a question in 2009, and over 1/3 of respondents said they’d used UGC at some point in a campaign. Oddly, Visual Steam’s survey did not cover UGC. On the tip of the tongue in 2009, today it remains as fragmented and immature a market as ever, with many startups and incumbents seeking traction and market acceptance as iStock did. What most photo tech companies who venture into monetizing UGC for the stock buying community consistently fail to grasp is that quality still is paramount (quality implying provenance – or assurance of rights), and that a simple exercise in aggregation does not account for the convoluted landscape built on the preferences and practices of a fickle market. Is 5 years really that long a time to solve the problem?

4 Indicators That Outline the Decline of Image Licensing as We Know It

The annual conference CEPIC recently took place in Berlin, where international photo libraries congregate primarily to seek distribution for their images and/or image collections to represent for their clients. The industry they serve is commercial and editorial image licensing, and their clients are advertisers and publishers of all stripes and colors; the fact that publishing has been in contraction for quite some time has displaced many image licensors, but to add insult to injury the advertisers are showing attrition as well.

Typically, CEPIC has been viewed as the single-most important conference for the dissemination of news on mergers and acquisitions, launching of new ventures and products, and the type of intel gathering that can significantly inform one’s business strategy. What was once a critical gathering full of insight is now devoid of such news and intel, but even a room full of people (the most telling no-show: local photo startup EyeEm) going through familiar motions without any real buzz isn’t proof of an industry in decline. We can look to more conclusive evidence of a decline than what didn’t happen at CEPIC.

1. Diversification from the Big Incumbents

Getty, Shutterstock and Corbis are arguably the largest image licensors and oldest stories within the industry. What have they been up to lately? Moving away from transactional licensing models and diversifying their product portfolios and revenue streams. Getty’s core commercial licensing business has it’s challenges, but their infringement recoupment business has seen significant growth, and they’re seeking other monetization models that are built around the use of imagery online (embedding for data culling, sharing image data to Pinterest users, etc.). Shutterstock has taken significant market share away from anyone engaged in commercial image licensing, and while they’ve almost invented the subscription category through its continued improvement in experience to the end user, it’s still a fixed market. Aside from product diversification (Music, Video, How-To Videos), a key acquisition made in WebDAM allows them to move into the CMS area and – overtime – less reliant upon image licensing revenues. Corbis has all but given up on their commercial offering, instead throwing their chips into the new Branded Entertainment Network. Pivoting toward the entertainment industry carries a larger future promise for Corbis, and leverages their equity in rights and clearances.

2. DIY Campaigns

The skills required to execute a powerful image have migrated from a core group of experts (photographers) to virtually anyone, thanks first to digitization from analog processing, then online distribution. Being able to take your own photo for a campaign, product or reliant upon UGC participation to help market brands and products has significantly displaced traditional markets for image licensing from being the sole source (outside of assignment photography) to a last resort. It’s free (relatively) and you don’t have to sweat rights.

3. Distribution of Photography

The core image licensing industry controls around 250 million images (in abstract), many of which are redundantly available across multiple sites and shared and distributed out across the web. This is a tiny amount compared to the 1.8 billion photos uploaded and shared out on social networks per day. Not including Pinterest, which is all about photo distribution, and Google, which is the defacto site for image search, 1.8 billion is still a staggering number that relegates the image industry to outsiders looking in. Most image licensors expect clients to engage with images on their own storefronts, on their terms, but those potential clients have far fewer impediments to acquiring an image elsewhere…and do.

4. Investments Have Migrated

The investment community has put money back into photo businesses, but it’s all banking on models that are monetization of UGC and closer alignment to customers – the vendor role is an obsolete one. Companies that are getting funded and are getting traction have focused on providing request platforms (reinventing and bringing value around the photographer/buyer relationships), photo communities (aggregating first, then engaging the buy side), or analytics and services that are tied to retail and branding. All of them have a fundamental product identity that is not search/license/download, and for most photography is a means and not an end.

 

These trends are not the customary topics of conversation among incumbents, and at CEPIC the conversation revolved around shrinking distribution channels, lower prices, lower volumes, and Google’s latest battles with the EU. This is well-worn fodder, but missing the larger picture. The state of transactional image licensing is one of continued irrelevance — there’s a reason why Shutterstock has gained marketshare, and why new offerings crop up that look nothing like their predecessors. A whole new generation has been educated on what image acquisition means, and its expectations on everything from price, use, and point of access are far afield from the realities of years past. This generation, as well, is defining a reality that is broader in scope than image licensors can envision. The good news for those incumbents that solely engage in transactional licensing is that they’ll have more and more avenues available to them than ever before, and their advantages (niche aggregation, robust data, clearances) can position them to take advantage of the new marketplace, but it won’t be easy.

Image Licensing Confusion

Google’s new Usage Rights filter is an attempt to help bridge online use of imagery, but they’re missing the most important part of the licensing puzzle: education.

A large portion of online image searches are conducted through Bing and Google’s search engines, by a wide swath of content-seekers from consumers to professional image buyers for major corporations to corporate marketers themselves. Given the broad indexing by the search engines, the expectation on the search side is complete exposure to the world’s imagery (not true) and the startling diversity and breadth of results based on search query (true).

For years, Google came to define the experience of image search, often being the point of entry for even professional image licensors such as Corbis and Getty. Within the search experience, Google did little to prevent anyone from stealing an image, by shunning its role as gate-keeper in exchange for accessibility and expediency of delivery. Meticulous UX design informed users of what they were looking at, and by whom, but did not educate around how to interact with the image – users soon started to conflate the ease and accessibility with the notion of public domain, and deeper misunderstanding of what Fair Use means.

With global photographic and professional trade associations vocalizing their concerns over Google’s role as a conduit for infringing use and generating orphaned works of their property, and with Google recognizing a way to legitimately circumnavigate the image licensing industry, Google implemented the means to filter image search results by rights access. Bing soon followed suit.

Both leaned on leveraging the largest image rights attribution engine available to them: Creative Commons – a copyright straw man for digital media; but the categories of use as defined by Creative Commons, and leveraged by Bing and Google, obfuscate the rights of the user and rights holder more than educate. The categories of use assume an aggregate consumer knowledge of rights and use, which are also wide open to interpretation. Bing uses “share”, “use”, “commercially” with no definition, while Google, extending a stiff arm by prefacing each category with “Labeled”, translates to their own user base. Further, accuracy of labeling/categorizing is highly suspect, as there’s no central authority for warranting ownership with Creative Commons – anyone can assert rights over an image in the digital age.

The implications of Bing and Google as licensing intermediaries does little to promote the ethical use of imagery online. It is a Tower of Babel, with little value and assurances to an end user of an image, disconnecting a rights holder from a user through a language that needs clear comprehension.