Chris Crawford wrote:
> Garth,
>
> Istock is owned by Getty, one of the largest stock photo companies in the
> world.
Yes, I'm aware that Getty purchased Bruce Livingstone's interest in
iStockPhoto last year. Prior to that, it was (and still behaves like) a
home-grown venture in Calgary. I'm sure that'll change with sufficient
time.
> The last time I sold a stock photo I charged $200 for it. How many
> times does it have to sell on iStock for $1.00 to make that?
Gosh, I dunno, Chris. Wait, lemme take a wild stab at it -- at least
200? And how many times did you sell that same photo? And what kind of
access would you have to the world market if you'd lived in (say) Poland
instead of (say) New Mexico? And how do you take advantage of the
well-known economic principle of resource/skills concentration, which
iStockPhoto offers to tens of thousands of photographers worldwide for a
marginal cost that is shockingly close to zero?
iStockPhoto's a disruptive venture for people in the stock photography
business. I oughta know -- several friends of mine make their nut off
of that business. However, the original point of my post remains valid
-- it's good for lots of other people in the same business, but using a
different model. If it's not good for you, fine. But don't BUST MY
CHOPS ABOUT IT.
> No thanks. I
> went to school for photography, spent years after that honing my craft and
> building my portfolio and spent tens of thousands on equipment I needed to
> do it all. My work is worth too much to me to give away.
Good for you. Others have a different approach, and are doing well
through iStockPhoto. And it's a boon for the customers, too (ah, the
customers -- those people who we always forget in these discussions...).
They can do a one-stop shop at iStockPhoto, or (God forfend) they
could spend months faffing around on the Intarweb trying to find the
same thing off of thousands -- or hundreds of thousands -- of one-off
websites of individual fine art/stock photographers. As you say above,
"No thanks!"
I do 3D computer modeling as a hobby/sideline. I and thousands like me
have created low-cost, high-quality 3D models that have been purchased
or downloaded by hundreds of thousands of individuals and companies
worldwide. In the process, I and many others have completely *wrecked*
the market for those folks who used to sell a 3D model of (say) a
Scandinavian-inspired piece of furniture for hundreds or thousands of
dollars, offering instead essentially the same thing for a few tens of
dollars or less. I've made free models available to the 3D modeling
community, and had people e-mail me asking me to stop, 'cause they're
being ruined -- RUINED, I tell you! -- by my thoughtless provisioning of
the same thing they sell to hobbyists and others for nothing but my own
intrinsic satisfaction.
Disruptive business models always have winners and losers, not to
mention people who'd rather have someone else eat their lunch just on
bloody-minded principle. For the smart and motivated, iStockPhoto is
just one more arrow in their quiver -- not a threat to their business,
their ego or their craft.
Garth
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|