Increased Still Image Use???

0

January 10, 2006

Given the way the stock photo industry is currently structured will there be increased image use? Jonathan Klein (and lots of others) say Yes. I don't think so. Here's why.

First, we need to recognize when we talk about "increased image use" that we're really only interested in a subset of all possible images. We're concerned with professionally produced images that can be licensed as stock photography and will help professional photographers make a living. We're not interested in all the images produced by advanced amateurs or others who are willing for various reasons to give away their images even though a lot of these images will be used by professional buyers for commercial purposes.

We're also not talking about images produced on assignment when the specific images the customer needs are not available as stock. Assignment work is a separate segment of the photo industry. Many would say, "Why worry about such distinctions? With all the digital images out there everything a customer could possibly want must be available as stock."

I don't think that's the case. Many of the images customers need are not currently available in the major stock image databases. If we're talking about very generic, high demand subjects, there may be more than enough currently available in the files. But, when you begin focusing on specifics within broad general categories there are huge gaps in what is available.

I've chosen a few subjects related to flowers, food, Caribbean travel and automobiles to illustrate my point, but I believe you can pick almost any field of endeavor, search for specifics within each general category and get similar results. Let's examine the surprising results from just a few simple searches.

For obvious reasons I've chosen to look at the three biggest image suppliers - Getty, Corbis and JIunlimited. I also checked Photos.com (a Jupiter product whose images are for the most part included in JIunlimited) to get an idea of the number of non Photos.com images that might be in JIunlimited. Alamy offers some interesting comparisons. I think their much broader offering in specialist areas results from the fact that individual photographers and specialists agencies tend to supply a depth of coverage in their subject specialty. For the most part we do not find such an in-depth offering at the three major agencies because their focus is on generic images that are most likely to generate a high volume of sales. And then we have Google Images. (You do a search on Google, click on Images instead of Web and you get just thumbnail image files similar to what you would get on any of the photo search sites.)

One of the first things we notice on Alamy and Google is that there are a lot of similars (often five to ten slight variations in a sequence). Taking this into account the discrepancies in the numbers may not be quite as large as they first appear. But, a brief examination of the images on Alamy in these specialist categories shows that in most cases there is a lot more variety in the offering than is the case with the three majors. Google has even more variety, but it is harder to dig through the clutter to find the good images unless the search can be further refined with additional keywords. In addition when we get to specifics about an image Alamy's keywording may be more accurate than those of some of the other agencies because the people doing the keywording usually have an intimate knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. This also tends to be true with Google because the people supplying the metadata tend to be closely involved with their subject matter.

A frequent complaint professional users have with Google is that despite the greater choice it is often very difficult to figure out whether it is legal to use the image (and get a suitable file size), or whether it is necessary to negotiate some type of compensation in exchange for its use.

When considering Corbis it is important to note that whenever they have more than 1,000 images in a category they give the notation of 1000+. We have no ideas how many total images are in these categories, but my guess would be that in most cases it is a slightly larger number than Getty, but nowhere near the number that Alamy has.

Also worth noting is that of the 18 returns to the search for folk art on Getty only 3 could be truly classified as "folk art". The others are of more traditional art or architecture. The two images you get on Getty when you do a search for "square rig ship" are actually oil rigs, not ships. Despite Getty's reputation for having an excellent keywording system, when the search is for narrow specifics the system tends to pull up a lot of inappropriate images. With all the agencies when you search for "sailing ship" you do get some "square rig ships" which have not had that additional keyword attached to the image. When you look at "palm nuts" only 2 of the 7 images available on Getty are actually palm nuts. The rest are mis-keyworded.

When we get to the Caribbean islands Getty and Corbis have a fair number of images, but the vast majority are very generic and could be anywhere. There is also a great concentration on generic beach scenes and very little of the character of the towns, local people, local attractions, shopping or transportation - the kinds of images that companies doing travel brochures want and need. There is a reason for this, of course. Most of the images that give a local flavor of a travel location are not released and the big image distributors are paranoid about releases - as maybe they should be.

But from the customer's point of view where are they going to get the images they need? Are they going to settle for generic beach scenes to illustrate the brochures or the web sites of every specific Caribbean location they are marketing? Or will they go somewhere else to find images that provide more of a flavor of the location they are trying to promote?

When we look at flowers we find that Getty has over 45,000 of them and anyone would think that must be enough. But, if you're in the industry doing promotions, or if you're a book publisher producing a book on flowers, you're probably not going to want just any pretty picture of a flower. You will want specifics and when you begin to look for specifics you've got a problem except maybe on Alamy. And if you really want choice and knowledgeable specialist resources the best resource may be Google.

And then we get to automobiles. Getty has over 24,000 images of cars, and no images of a Ford Mustang. That doesn't seem possible until you understand how Getty keywords. Getty refuses to use brand names as keywords for fear of a trademark violation. If you know the distinguishing characteristics of a Mustang you can probably find some by searching through those 24,000 images, but who wants to do that, and it won't be easy. At Corbis you have brand names, but if you want brands and specific model years the place to go is either Alamy or Google.

What Difference Does It Make?

Don't most customers want the kind of generic images that the three majors are offering?
Doesn't the 80/20 rule apply?

Sure it does, but we're talking about growth. The market for the kind of images the majors have to offers is saturated and they've already captured all those potential customers. Where the growth will occur, if it occurs at all, will be in the market for specialist images that the big guys are not offering.

OK, so maybe Alamy and Google offer a lot more variety of choice than Getty, Corbis and Jupiter, but isn't it the quality of the images that counts? Don't the majors have the best photographers?

If you really examine the images you'll find that there is a range of quality on all the sites. You'll find some great images on Alamy and some not-so great ones on Getty.

And after all, many of the photographers producing images for Getty are also putting images on Alamy and Jupiter. If we are talking about overall quality of the offering I might concede that Getty's is somewhat better than the competition, but customers are looking for specific images to solve specific needs. They could care less about the overall quality of the site. What really interests them is the quality and the availability of the specific image they want to buy.

Isn't it enough that the major suppliers have a few great pictures on most of these subjects?

Not if the specific subject they want is not among those few great images.

Don't customers get discouraged from using sites with too many images?

The important fact here is that with both Alamy and Google it is possible for the customer to drill down in the search with other qualifying words. That enables her to get much more specific in what she needs and get a much more manageable group of pictures to review. For many customers this will be preferable to search results that are very generic with a high percentage of images not even close to the ones they need.

Who wants pictures of cassava (a tuber eaten like a potato in many parts of the world) anyway?

There certainly won't be anywhere near as much demand for the specific specialist images as there are for generic lifestyle images of beautiful people. But if we consider the millions of specific subjects that various buyers may need a photo of from time to time the overall demand for variety is probably significant.

Is this growth potential significant?

It may not be significant for a company the size of Getty, but then growth in usage for them is not likely to come from any other source either. It could be significant for Alamy. And its possible that a significant number of Google images are being used, but there is no way to measure that number.

More important, I believe that if there is any growth of image use it will be in the area of specialist images that illustrate very narrow specific points rather than in the use of generic images.

What Are Some Reasons For This Lack Of Generic Image Growth?