Okay, here are some major conclusions I drew from a presentation by the CCT (CSAP Communications Team) at a hip-hop summit, which contained significant research on teen trends and put it into a generational perspective. This is a long one. If I'd known I'd have this long a list, I likely would have made this a 4 part series. Twenty-twenty hindsight. Anyway, these conclusions are couched from a design perspective. And they represent my personal observations and conclusions, and the presentation.
1) Teen trends define popular culture. It’s a given that the teens of today will be the leaders of tomorrow. From that perspective, we can evaluate past social trends which moved from the fringes to the mainstream: rock and roll in the 50’s, the peace movement and student activism of the 60’s, etc. Generations define themselves, by self-identifying themselves as a member of that generation, as opposed to another. The key “generations” identified by CCT were:
• Baby Boomers (1946-1960)
• Generation X (1960-1982)
• Generation Y (1982-2003).
Personally, what I note here is the generality of the groupings. The first is just 14-year block, the next a grouping of 22 years, and the last also 22 years. I think the first block (boomers) is more accurate, and in reality believe we are dealing with 2 demographics within each of the following GenX and GenY groupings. But that’s me.
The design application here is that different imagery, and even color palettes, appeal to these different age groupings (whether they would admit it or not). This is evidenced by aspects such as fashion preferences, colors of clothing and makeup marketed to different age groups within these demos, and a hundred other subtle shifts that marketers identify, but hope the rest of the public won’t. And that designers must.
2) Identifying teen trends provides an avenue to enhanced communication.
This is just common sense; if you can understand the values of an audience (in this context a specific generation), you can more effectively communicate with that audience (generation). In terms of design, this means the type of images you provide, the age ranges, and the looks of that audience.
This is one of the major problems with stock imagery—it’s pretty old in general, and the look of the least expensive imagery is often 10 years old. While this isn’t problematic for younger age groups (kids 7 and under look surprisingly the same in generation after generation, down t the color palette of their clothes), in older age groups and especially in teens, images taken a year ago can already look dated. By the same token, images that try to look too trendy can get outdated even faster. The key here is to go with a timeless feel, but within the context of popular culture. Go for modern hip-hop looks, but not too cutting edge within that look. Allow for the timelessness of Goth, Sk8r dude, and fashionable teens as well as straighter hip-hop looks. And mix and match, with authenticity.
Frankly the best place to tell if you’re hitting the mark in these elements are to tour a local Wal Mart or Target or Kmart, or any of the other stores that try to pull in and appeal to the same demographic. You don’t need to be cutting edge. But you do need to be real.
3) The key features of a generation are always value-based.
This was a key element of the CCT presentation, and I think a truism for any demographic. The key values of a specific demo, once identified and broken down, will always have design applications. Again, core values include:
— Self-reliance (Value independent thinking, do-it-yourself approach)
— Idealism(positive about future, see great future opportunities)
— Activism (support for social issues, see role in improving world)
— Morality/Spirituality (importance of faith, not necessarily linked to formal groups)
— Authenticity (want truths without distortion)
— Identity (tension of conformity and individualism)
4) Longevity of message is achieved by appeal to core values.
Just as formulating effective designed messages relies on identifying and understanding teen trends, effecting change relies on the messages ability to connect with core values.
5) Hip-Hop is a dominant teen trend.
Not necessarily the teen trend, but arguably one of the top five, if not top three. I think this will vary according to what part of the country you travel (or market, or design) to. This was the central assumption of the summit, and is supported by the CCT research package. While it is not the only teen trend, it is defined overwhelmingly as the dominant trend. And, even though it has been a trend for well over a decade, it shows no sign of diminishing or being replaced. From this perspective, it’s a mistake not to look to connecting with this demographic more specifically in any visual
communication.
6) Sincerity in communication is essential.
Insincerity is a killer. Anyone who has ever seen a teen’s reaction to an adult comic trying to rap has an idea of the discomforting squeamishness that’s provoked, much the same discomfort as experienced by any parent seeing a young girl croon a Britney Spears sex ballad. It’s something beyond the singers’ experience, and just plain wrong. Communication with a youth demographic should be painfully sincere, and checked for that sincerity at key points with aspects of the actual demographic, whenever possible.
This isn’t to say that it’s impossible to fake it within design. Some of the most convincing kids artwork I’ve seen was created by adults, mimicking the key aspects of kids art. But it has to be done with real kids art reference on hand, not from “feel.” It needs to be compared to that for authenticity. The same, for another example, with graffiti-style design. It needs to be compared to the realistic context in order to be sure it feels authentic and sincere. I’ve seen both these examples done well and effectively, as well as poorly and insincerely. The key is being able to know the demographic well enough to tell that difference.
Next week: Thoughts on Branding and Identity
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Designing for Generation Y (2 of 3): Four Ps in a blog
The diagram below is basic to marketing 101: The Four Ps of Social Marketing. Not much here in terms of design (except that it is a nicely designed diagram-for which I can’t take credit), but its core messages of identifying and using the Four Ps of Social Marketing are as essential for Design as they are for Marketing.
Product. You need to know the product to know why and how it appeals to your target, and design it to accentuate that appeal. In comics, I called it the “screaming baby factor.” All comics are arranged on a rack, like a line of screaming babies. You can’t get your baby to scream any louder in order to get picked up. It’s got to scream differently, better, somehow more personally to the target, to get him or her to pick that baby up.
Price. Not in the control of Design, unless we’re talking about how to accentuate the difference (savings) in price from comparable product, and how to position it so that this accentuation isn’t obvious. Like a website that doesn’t easily reveal its navigation system, a package that hides its pricing just annoys.
Promotion. The design element here is mainly in terms of persuasion, and again often in tandem with price.
Place. Design aspects here mainly lie in the contextual text—say how its arranged on a cover so that the key text is revealed on a rack, or how its arranged on a box so that it calls out in its best screaming baby voice amongst all the other products on the shelves.
Of course, using the Four Ps requires understanding the demographic you’re appealing to, and some experience in design language to know what is most appropriate to that segment. But the research is out there. The art is in the interpretation.
Next: Some conclusions
Product. You need to know the product to know why and how it appeals to your target, and design it to accentuate that appeal. In comics, I called it the “screaming baby factor.” All comics are arranged on a rack, like a line of screaming babies. You can’t get your baby to scream any louder in order to get picked up. It’s got to scream differently, better, somehow more personally to the target, to get him or her to pick that baby up.
Price. Not in the control of Design, unless we’re talking about how to accentuate the difference (savings) in price from comparable product, and how to position it so that this accentuation isn’t obvious. Like a website that doesn’t easily reveal its navigation system, a package that hides its pricing just annoys.
Promotion. The design element here is mainly in terms of persuasion, and again often in tandem with price.
Place. Design aspects here mainly lie in the contextual text—say how its arranged on a cover so that the key text is revealed on a rack, or how its arranged on a box so that it calls out in its best screaming baby voice amongst all the other products on the shelves.
Of course, using the Four Ps requires understanding the demographic you’re appealing to, and some experience in design language to know what is most appropriate to that segment. But the research is out there. The art is in the interpretation.
Next: Some conclusions
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Designing for Generation Y (1 of 3)
A couple of years ago I attended a Hip-Hop Conference in Washington DC, with the goal of learning about the specific Hip-Hop demographic, which is not exactly an age group or ethnic demographic. The goal was achieving cultural competence and developing communication strategies with the specific demographic, for me specifically in developing design, imagery and visual identity.
First, I don’t even want to get into the whole Generation Y debate. Generation Y was defined originally as the generation after Generation X, and Generation X as the one after the Baby boomers. If the interpretation of a generation is 10 years, and the baby boomers are retiring , then I should be one of generation Y. But in demographic lexicon, Generation Y has continued to move down as people grow older, and has somehow become synonymous with Teen and, in some cases, PreTeen audiences, in the demo info I’ve reviewed. If someone could explain that to me, I’d appreciate it. Otherwise, I’m just taking it as given.
There were several specific presentations around each element. One I found the most directly useful was presented by CSAP (Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention), specifically by the CSAP Communications Team. The presentation was called Communicating and Working with Generation Y: a Cultural Perspective. I’ve pulled freely from notes on that presentation for this.
It was a trip. The key to the analysis was that it broke down the grouping into shared values, and then analyzed those values. From a reverse-engineering standpoint then, you could approach any message from the values perspective, and communicate your particular message using the value as a conduit for connection. The values were:
Activism, Morality/Spirituality, Authenticity and Identity.
Taken each in turn, I found this the most useful part of the presentation, though it went into much more than just this. These values were identified through manifestations, or observable behaviors, and those behaviors represented the clearest paths to communication—the hook that allowed targeted messaging. And they each had a direct corollary to design, and well as editorial applications. Of course, I was mainly concerned with the design issues. How these apply specifically to design directed at a Teen and PreTeen audience is, of course, a matter of interpretation—and the following is mine. But the fact is that a sensitivity to youth values in design can make the difference in whether the product appeals to the intended target, or whether they feel it applies to their parent, or their younger sibling. The “this is for me” factor is key.
For example, the value of authenticity is extremely important to the teen demo. Translated into design, it’s about the images feeling real, the colors feeling relevant and the organization moving around with a kinetic energy that says “Amusement Park” not “Saturday Evening Post.” And this can mean reflecting looks and attitudes that are real, though not always desirable. Piercing isn’t something that is necessarily desirable to encourage, but showing a model with a piercing gives authenticity. Showing Teens having fun can be a great image, as long as it feels like an authentic good time, not a “posed for the camera” good time. Such difficult to define elements of authenticity vary from group to group, based on life experiences, geographic location, and economic status. But the bottom line in terms of imagery is that the truth may be difficult to identify clearly, but a lie stands out.
Another key value is identity. Identity, which I will go into in a future blog, as it affects branding, is essential to get right for a teen demo, as it is inextricably linked to authenticity. You can’t be real in the message if you don’t know the identity of the recipient of the message. But a level above that is that in Pre-Teen audiences especially, identity is still being formed. Therefore this is a key age for assumptions about identity to be compelling in presentation of identity; to present an aspirational identity of who one wants to be, not necessarily who one is. This may seem contradictory to the value of authenticity, but it’s not. We all want to be more than we are, and one of the key elements in the design communication therefore needs to acknowledge not only where the target is, but where, and who, they want to be.
Next: Social Marketing
First, I don’t even want to get into the whole Generation Y debate. Generation Y was defined originally as the generation after Generation X, and Generation X as the one after the Baby boomers. If the interpretation of a generation is 10 years, and the baby boomers are retiring , then I should be one of generation Y. But in demographic lexicon, Generation Y has continued to move down as people grow older, and has somehow become synonymous with Teen and, in some cases, PreTeen audiences, in the demo info I’ve reviewed. If someone could explain that to me, I’d appreciate it. Otherwise, I’m just taking it as given.
There were several specific presentations around each element. One I found the most directly useful was presented by CSAP (Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention), specifically by the CSAP Communications Team. The presentation was called Communicating and Working with Generation Y: a Cultural Perspective. I’ve pulled freely from notes on that presentation for this.
It was a trip. The key to the analysis was that it broke down the grouping into shared values, and then analyzed those values. From a reverse-engineering standpoint then, you could approach any message from the values perspective, and communicate your particular message using the value as a conduit for connection. The values were:
Activism, Morality/Spirituality, Authenticity and Identity.
Taken each in turn, I found this the most useful part of the presentation, though it went into much more than just this. These values were identified through manifestations, or observable behaviors, and those behaviors represented the clearest paths to communication—the hook that allowed targeted messaging. And they each had a direct corollary to design, and well as editorial applications. Of course, I was mainly concerned with the design issues. How these apply specifically to design directed at a Teen and PreTeen audience is, of course, a matter of interpretation—and the following is mine. But the fact is that a sensitivity to youth values in design can make the difference in whether the product appeals to the intended target, or whether they feel it applies to their parent, or their younger sibling. The “this is for me” factor is key.
For example, the value of authenticity is extremely important to the teen demo. Translated into design, it’s about the images feeling real, the colors feeling relevant and the organization moving around with a kinetic energy that says “Amusement Park” not “Saturday Evening Post.” And this can mean reflecting looks and attitudes that are real, though not always desirable. Piercing isn’t something that is necessarily desirable to encourage, but showing a model with a piercing gives authenticity. Showing Teens having fun can be a great image, as long as it feels like an authentic good time, not a “posed for the camera” good time. Such difficult to define elements of authenticity vary from group to group, based on life experiences, geographic location, and economic status. But the bottom line in terms of imagery is that the truth may be difficult to identify clearly, but a lie stands out.
Another key value is identity. Identity, which I will go into in a future blog, as it affects branding, is essential to get right for a teen demo, as it is inextricably linked to authenticity. You can’t be real in the message if you don’t know the identity of the recipient of the message. But a level above that is that in Pre-Teen audiences especially, identity is still being formed. Therefore this is a key age for assumptions about identity to be compelling in presentation of identity; to present an aspirational identity of who one wants to be, not necessarily who one is. This may seem contradictory to the value of authenticity, but it’s not. We all want to be more than we are, and one of the key elements in the design communication therefore needs to acknowledge not only where the target is, but where, and who, they want to be.
Next: Social Marketing
Thursday, June 7, 2007
A State of Stock (3 of 3) - Jumping to Conclusions
The way that this used to work in my former position was that, at the end of a bulleted list outlining the issues I’d just gone through in the previous two posts, I’d outline a list of conclusions and action elements specific to the company and departmental goals. Here, rather than make specific conclusions, I’m going to outline more general conclusions, and observations that I’d suggest for publishers and agencies, and more specifically individual designers, in regard to the RF stock industry, keeping the options as open as possible and keeping cost effective measures in mind.
The talent that manipulates the image is your best resource in stock imagery. This is a major issue with many publishers, in my experience. Often the product is seen as the key resource, and not the personnel developing the product. But often that designer will make the difference between a mediocre design and something truly excellent. The committee can’t design it. The AD can do little more than inspire and direct. The designer needs to have the freedom of inspiration, and feel he or she has the confidence of the AD and Marketing to run with an idea.Bottom line; they used to say the image is only as good as your photographer. Now, in this digital age, I'd amend that to say the image is only as good as the photograpehr AND the designer who manipulates it for the end product. One can make up for the shortcomings of the other, but you need one to have a high level of skill. And most often it's the designer who you have the most ability to train, to bring the image to the level you need. Treasure that.
Create micro-payment accounts for key personnel, and let them purchase the images from that account. Between Us, this is an alien concept at most publishers, which prefer to let the money flow through one set of hands, and always want the left hand checking what the right hand is doing. But for crying out loud, no real damage can come from allowing staff members to manage a specific account for images using company credits. Make each individual responsible for acquiring, and documenting their imagery (and usage rights for that imagery) then just let them go.
Create a special service account with a RF stock house (with a contact person or account manager), or specifically limit the use of that house. It’s a pretty simple concept-get your best deal, play hardball, or move on to the next guy. This can work with a corporation or a one-person agency. Getty currently has one of the best and most robust search engines and image identification tools out there. But that does not mean they have the market cornered on the best images. Not yet. Get a contract with them to get the best deal and discount, or pull the plug and don’t use that agency for a year. Get them to give you something, or cut them off. Poor customer service should be rewarded with less or preferably no, business. Move on to the next guy, the likely hungrier guy, and cut a better deal.
Ensure you are on their e-mail list, and check the site often. The best deals are often available through the site. This includes free images, and special discounts (though it’s hard to beat free). Checking the sites regularly can amass a very large collection of free, especially useful for budget-conscious smaller agencies. Stockbyte (before they were swallowed) used to offer three large format images per week. iStockPhoto still has a free image (and free video) of the week. Corbis has a disc-of-the-month, offered at significant savings. But both of these can be hard to find unless you are on their direct e-mail list.
There are more recommendations, of course, more specific to specific situations, but these are the start and should give casual readers an idea of how to frame the coming changes in the RF stock image industry, to take advantage of those changes cost-effectively and with intelligence.
Next: A perspective on Designing for Generation Y
The talent that manipulates the image is your best resource in stock imagery. This is a major issue with many publishers, in my experience. Often the product is seen as the key resource, and not the personnel developing the product. But often that designer will make the difference between a mediocre design and something truly excellent. The committee can’t design it. The AD can do little more than inspire and direct. The designer needs to have the freedom of inspiration, and feel he or she has the confidence of the AD and Marketing to run with an idea.Bottom line; they used to say the image is only as good as your photographer. Now, in this digital age, I'd amend that to say the image is only as good as the photograpehr AND the designer who manipulates it for the end product. One can make up for the shortcomings of the other, but you need one to have a high level of skill. And most often it's the designer who you have the most ability to train, to bring the image to the level you need. Treasure that.
Create micro-payment accounts for key personnel, and let them purchase the images from that account. Between Us, this is an alien concept at most publishers, which prefer to let the money flow through one set of hands, and always want the left hand checking what the right hand is doing. But for crying out loud, no real damage can come from allowing staff members to manage a specific account for images using company credits. Make each individual responsible for acquiring, and documenting their imagery (and usage rights for that imagery) then just let them go.
Create a special service account with a RF stock house (with a contact person or account manager), or specifically limit the use of that house. It’s a pretty simple concept-get your best deal, play hardball, or move on to the next guy. This can work with a corporation or a one-person agency. Getty currently has one of the best and most robust search engines and image identification tools out there. But that does not mean they have the market cornered on the best images. Not yet. Get a contract with them to get the best deal and discount, or pull the plug and don’t use that agency for a year. Get them to give you something, or cut them off. Poor customer service should be rewarded with less or preferably no, business. Move on to the next guy, the likely hungrier guy, and cut a better deal.
Ensure you are on their e-mail list, and check the site often. The best deals are often available through the site. This includes free images, and special discounts (though it’s hard to beat free). Checking the sites regularly can amass a very large collection of free, especially useful for budget-conscious smaller agencies. Stockbyte (before they were swallowed) used to offer three large format images per week. iStockPhoto still has a free image (and free video) of the week. Corbis has a disc-of-the-month, offered at significant savings. But both of these can be hard to find unless you are on their direct e-mail list.
There are more recommendations, of course, more specific to specific situations, but these are the start and should give casual readers an idea of how to frame the coming changes in the RF stock image industry, to take advantage of those changes cost-effectively and with intelligence.
Next: A perspective on Designing for Generation Y
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
A State of Stock (2 of 3)—The Rise of the Micros
I believe iStockphoto was the first. If not the first, it was the first in my experience of the micro-payment agencies whose business model was (and hopefully is still) creating such a challenge to the strength of the growing monopoly in Royalty-Free Stock photography that is Getty Images.
The business model is simple-individual sellers can create an account, and through that account make images available. Then other individuals can purchase credits, through which they can buy the images. The cost in credits to purchase an image is affected by image size, and intended usage. For each credit used to purchase your image, the seller gets half—gold hard cash, or the digital equivalent thereof—in a micro-payment. Hence, these types of sites are known as micro-payment agencies.
And purchasers get discounts for buying more credits at one time. First, you can get up to 10 credits, depending on the deal and the code you find, just for opening an account. From that point, you get more “free” credits the more credit blocks you buy. The catch, and of course there is one, is that credits expire a year from purchase. So you run the risk of losing your “free” credits if you buy too large a block, that is, too many credits to use up in a year.
And it’s not just images. iStockphoto offers original vector illustrations, video, and Flash files, all available for purchase, all Royalty free. It’s a truly unique marketplace, and, thus far, a growing competitor to the strength of RF conglomerates like Getty. The image quality is lower, of course, and in general the images suffer from an apples to apples comparison to top RF professional photography. But there are gems there, rough diamonds that, with a little digital polish in the right hands, can become the stuff of Wonder.
The big issue at Company B was unlimited usage of images. Publishers that rely on keeping products in print seldom keep track of actual print runs, as a whole. They keep an inventory in stock for customers to order, and base profit on copies sold, not copies printed. This gives them flexibility to go to press as needed—print on demand of a sort—and that business model isn’t flexible enough to determine exact print runs, which is how the basic micro-payment agency, or rights-managed agencies for that matter, gauge their prices. As a solution for this, the micro-payment agencies allow you to purchase additional rights—say for unlimited press runs—for additional credits. Again, there is the quality trade off. You need the talent on the back-end to make it a worthwhile exchange.
But the disturbing part is that Getty Images purchased iStockphoto, this year. Thus far, the purchase has not adversely affected the business model, at least from this users perspective. But it’s still disturbing to see an idea, which was changing the very paradigm of RF stock imagery swallowed up by the biggest fish in that industry. In the interim, there have been other purveyors of this business model to come up since I first noticed iStockphoto. StockXpert.com, for example (which is now owned by Jupiter Images, which narrowly avoided getting swallowed up by Getty), and there are more coming up every day. Shutterstock.com. Fotalia.com. Dreamstime.com. Imagecatalog.com You can find a dozen more, of varying sizes and quality, in a simple search.
But, as has ever been the business model for the internet, the first and best run usually ends up being the dominant force. And, again, the dominant force has been swallowed in turn by the more dominant force.
That said, with so many alternatives out there, it seems likely that, as Napster changed the way a reluctant music industry looked at music downloads, these RF image community websites, creating a conduit from photographer directly to designers, are changing the shape of RF stock today. How to best take advantage of this paradigm shift is what I’ll consider next.
Next: Some conclusions.
The business model is simple-individual sellers can create an account, and through that account make images available. Then other individuals can purchase credits, through which they can buy the images. The cost in credits to purchase an image is affected by image size, and intended usage. For each credit used to purchase your image, the seller gets half—gold hard cash, or the digital equivalent thereof—in a micro-payment. Hence, these types of sites are known as micro-payment agencies.
And purchasers get discounts for buying more credits at one time. First, you can get up to 10 credits, depending on the deal and the code you find, just for opening an account. From that point, you get more “free” credits the more credit blocks you buy. The catch, and of course there is one, is that credits expire a year from purchase. So you run the risk of losing your “free” credits if you buy too large a block, that is, too many credits to use up in a year.
And it’s not just images. iStockphoto offers original vector illustrations, video, and Flash files, all available for purchase, all Royalty free. It’s a truly unique marketplace, and, thus far, a growing competitor to the strength of RF conglomerates like Getty. The image quality is lower, of course, and in general the images suffer from an apples to apples comparison to top RF professional photography. But there are gems there, rough diamonds that, with a little digital polish in the right hands, can become the stuff of Wonder.
The big issue at Company B was unlimited usage of images. Publishers that rely on keeping products in print seldom keep track of actual print runs, as a whole. They keep an inventory in stock for customers to order, and base profit on copies sold, not copies printed. This gives them flexibility to go to press as needed—print on demand of a sort—and that business model isn’t flexible enough to determine exact print runs, which is how the basic micro-payment agency, or rights-managed agencies for that matter, gauge their prices. As a solution for this, the micro-payment agencies allow you to purchase additional rights—say for unlimited press runs—for additional credits. Again, there is the quality trade off. You need the talent on the back-end to make it a worthwhile exchange.
But the disturbing part is that Getty Images purchased iStockphoto, this year. Thus far, the purchase has not adversely affected the business model, at least from this users perspective. But it’s still disturbing to see an idea, which was changing the very paradigm of RF stock imagery swallowed up by the biggest fish in that industry. In the interim, there have been other purveyors of this business model to come up since I first noticed iStockphoto. StockXpert.com, for example (which is now owned by Jupiter Images, which narrowly avoided getting swallowed up by Getty), and there are more coming up every day. Shutterstock.com. Fotalia.com. Dreamstime.com. Imagecatalog.com You can find a dozen more, of varying sizes and quality, in a simple search.
But, as has ever been the business model for the internet, the first and best run usually ends up being the dominant force. And, again, the dominant force has been swallowed in turn by the more dominant force.
That said, with so many alternatives out there, it seems likely that, as Napster changed the way a reluctant music industry looked at music downloads, these RF image community websites, creating a conduit from photographer directly to designers, are changing the shape of RF stock today. How to best take advantage of this paradigm shift is what I’ll consider next.
Next: Some conclusions.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
A State of Stock (1 of 3)
I’d been doing research recently on the state of the Royalty-Free Stock image industry, as it’s a field that directly effects the bottom line of most publishers, be they print or online. My next three entries in this new blog will outline that research and some conclusions. This blog is written from the perspective of a back-end user, as opposed to the wide variety of photographers blogs out there which discuss the perspective of the front-end photographer/seller. Their viewpoint, for the most part, seems a lot more bleak, and I invite you to explore some of their perspectives.
History according to Marcus
Five years ago, the major players in the realm of royalty free stock were numerous; Corbis, Digital Vision, Digital Stock, Rubberball, Thinkstock, Stockbyte, Punchstock (to name but a few), and the grand-daddy of them all, some might say the evil step-grand-daddy, Getty Images. But in the ensuing years, there’s been major consolidation in these names, bringing most of the stock houses under a single roof.
In some ways this has been good. Consolidation of the multiple houses has helped clarify licensing expectations, no longer having one house say one thing in its Royalty Free license, while another offers something completely different. Such inconsistencies make it difficult for companies that take licensing, copyright and intellectual property issues seriously, to keep it all straight. One company means one take on the agreement, one consistency.
But it also means monopoly. Previously there was considerably wider variation in pricing within the stock industry. Royalty-free stock CDs contained about 200 images, at a price-tag of about $300, just two short years ago—at an average cost of approximately $1.50/image. Today, sample CDs in Getty Images Royalty Free library contain about 50 images for about $500-$600—a new average of $10/image. That’s a huge jump. And that jump is driven mainly by Getty Images, which establishes the standard prices the rest of the industry follows, and uses that industry leadership to buy up other smaller houses to further enforce its price structures.
The pond gets smaller, the fish get bigger.
In 2002, Getty bought the number three stock photo agency, Digital Vision for $165 million. In 2005, Getty purchased Photonica and Iconica, for about $50 million, In 2006 it purchased WireImage and iStockPhoto for another $50 million. And in February, Getty was in talks to acquire Jupiter Images, which had previously acquired Thinkstock, Stock Image/Pixland, Goodshot and Bananastock, and had launched it’s own micro-payment agencies, called Stocxpert.com and stock.xchng. A bit before, most disturbingly, Getty had purchased iStockphoto. iStockphoto was the precursor of a new micro-payment stock photo trend in the industry, rather like the Napster of digital photography. through this major outlet, individual, non-affiliated amateur and pro photographers alike can make their digital images available for purchase. And other individuals, agencies, companies, designers and corporations alike can purchase the royalty-free images. I’ll go into this development in a bit more detail in the next part. It's changing everything, and in a real sense, is the answer to a lot of the issues I'll outline here, while raising a host of other issues as well.
While all this gobbling was taken in stride by the industry as a whole, there were personal repercussions. I had been a major purchaser from both companies, coordinating a collection comprised of dozens of Digital Vision CDs, second only to the Getty CDs. As such, I had relationships with account managers (AMs) at each of the companies. Getty’s Account Managers were less responsive, and in some cases almost belligerent in my requests to clarify elements of their licenses. In contrast, Digital Vision and Stockbyte’s AMs seemed to bend over backward to give good deals, and great service. Smaller fish were much more eager to please, and I came to be on a first-name basis with those AMs. Getty, on the other hand, shifted me off to no less than 4 AMs in six months, moving their offices from one coast to the next, and my calls were not readily returned. But they had the CDs that the designers I managed were requesting, and so I had to continue to deal with them. And in the years that followed, both Digital Vision and Stockbyte, and the relationships I had built with their AMs, were swallowed.
Now, just a month ago at the start of May, Getty has purchased Punchstock. Punchstock was one of the largest remaining stock houses, offering all the other houses, plus some unique offerings of their own. As with all the others, the acquisition was met with an immediate stream of CD titles being retired, and the remaining titles being raised in price. Somebody’s got to pay for all those acquisitions. And it’s not going to be the Getty stockholders.
Next: The rise of the micros.
History according to Marcus
Five years ago, the major players in the realm of royalty free stock were numerous; Corbis, Digital Vision, Digital Stock, Rubberball, Thinkstock, Stockbyte, Punchstock (to name but a few), and the grand-daddy of them all, some might say the evil step-grand-daddy, Getty Images. But in the ensuing years, there’s been major consolidation in these names, bringing most of the stock houses under a single roof.
In some ways this has been good. Consolidation of the multiple houses has helped clarify licensing expectations, no longer having one house say one thing in its Royalty Free license, while another offers something completely different. Such inconsistencies make it difficult for companies that take licensing, copyright and intellectual property issues seriously, to keep it all straight. One company means one take on the agreement, one consistency.
But it also means monopoly. Previously there was considerably wider variation in pricing within the stock industry. Royalty-free stock CDs contained about 200 images, at a price-tag of about $300, just two short years ago—at an average cost of approximately $1.50/image. Today, sample CDs in Getty Images Royalty Free library contain about 50 images for about $500-$600—a new average of $10/image. That’s a huge jump. And that jump is driven mainly by Getty Images, which establishes the standard prices the rest of the industry follows, and uses that industry leadership to buy up other smaller houses to further enforce its price structures.
The pond gets smaller, the fish get bigger.
In 2002, Getty bought the number three stock photo agency, Digital Vision for $165 million. In 2005, Getty purchased Photonica and Iconica, for about $50 million, In 2006 it purchased WireImage and iStockPhoto for another $50 million. And in February, Getty was in talks to acquire Jupiter Images, which had previously acquired Thinkstock, Stock Image/Pixland, Goodshot and Bananastock, and had launched it’s own micro-payment agencies, called Stocxpert.com and stock.xchng. A bit before, most disturbingly, Getty had purchased iStockphoto. iStockphoto was the precursor of a new micro-payment stock photo trend in the industry, rather like the Napster of digital photography. through this major outlet, individual, non-affiliated amateur and pro photographers alike can make their digital images available for purchase. And other individuals, agencies, companies, designers and corporations alike can purchase the royalty-free images. I’ll go into this development in a bit more detail in the next part. It's changing everything, and in a real sense, is the answer to a lot of the issues I'll outline here, while raising a host of other issues as well.
While all this gobbling was taken in stride by the industry as a whole, there were personal repercussions. I had been a major purchaser from both companies, coordinating a collection comprised of dozens of Digital Vision CDs, second only to the Getty CDs. As such, I had relationships with account managers (AMs) at each of the companies. Getty’s Account Managers were less responsive, and in some cases almost belligerent in my requests to clarify elements of their licenses. In contrast, Digital Vision and Stockbyte’s AMs seemed to bend over backward to give good deals, and great service. Smaller fish were much more eager to please, and I came to be on a first-name basis with those AMs. Getty, on the other hand, shifted me off to no less than 4 AMs in six months, moving their offices from one coast to the next, and my calls were not readily returned. But they had the CDs that the designers I managed were requesting, and so I had to continue to deal with them. And in the years that followed, both Digital Vision and Stockbyte, and the relationships I had built with their AMs, were swallowed.
Now, just a month ago at the start of May, Getty has purchased Punchstock. Punchstock was one of the largest remaining stock houses, offering all the other houses, plus some unique offerings of their own. As with all the others, the acquisition was met with an immediate stream of CD titles being retired, and the remaining titles being raised in price. Somebody’s got to pay for all those acquisitions. And it’s not going to be the Getty stockholders.
Next: The rise of the micros.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
