> I found this chart. I can't really tell much from it, seems like searches have
> gone done and getty has given up much of its business over to micros (a
> mistake??). But again, I am not sure if any conclusions can be drawn from this
> and if so what kind. Maybe someone else can say something about it (micromen are
> eerily quiet on this one now):
Peter:
The problem is that it makes lots of sense for Getty to stress micro and very little for either of
us to follow along. There is no need to explain or defend Getty, they do a fine job of that
themselves. Our job is to justify what we charge through the quality of our work.
There's one other issue here; when it comes to internet discussion, people tend to go where
they're warmly welcomed. Nobody is going to think "I''ve got important information that other
people really need, I'll share it with people who openly want me out of business." If you want to
have public conversations with the microstock community, you'll have to adopt a warmer tone.a
"Buck a shot crowd" and "micromen" will only attract potshots.
Remember, many early adopters of microstock did so because they were kept out of
traditional agencies and wanted to fight back - others might not remember that history, but
they feel the heat in groups like this one.
The only thing we know for sure is that commercial microstock is the core of the stock photo
industry today. For agencies, it's where the growth and revenue are. To them, the rest of us are
irrelavent, dinosaurs, or worse; editorial.
Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
http://www.brianyarvin.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment