Editorials
The three giants: stock photography consolidation
As the largest houses absorb the smaller ones, consider the effects on quality, cost and choice of images.
By Patricia Widyn, VP, Art Buying Manager at Wunderman
Getty Images, Corbis and Jupiterimages are the top three "giants" in the stock world. In 2005, the stock industry revenue was $2 billion: Getty's revenue was $735 million, Corbis's was $228 million and Jupiterimages's was $124 million. During the 1990s there were about 50 main stock houses, but now there are 10. What happened to all the other smaller stock houses? The big companies are absorbing the smaller companies. Sound familiar?
Some Recent Mergers
Getty is still "top dog." But Corbis and Jupiterimages are posing strong challenges. In the last several months, Getty has purchased Digital Vision and Photonica/Iconica. Corbis took over Zefa, and Jupiterimages bought Dynamic Graphics and PictureArts. The bottom line is that these large stock houses will continue to grow at the expense of the smaller ones.
Stock Considerations
There are many factors to think about when selecting a stock house to use: choice of imagery, a website that's easy to navigate, free image download for comp purposes and discounts. Important also is customer service. I, for one, appreciate a real person on the other line, especially if I have copyright questions. The top three giants offer some of these services, but not all of them.
A main concern from the agency point of view is that the consolidation of the stock houses has meant that the same images are increasingly being used over and over again. This consolidation can cause conflicts with our clients. Although everyone would prefer new and different imagery, unique work is harder to capture when so many are using the same stock houses. In some instances, marketing creatives must rely on nontraditional research tools to find fresh photography. But searching different websites can be time intensive and costly.
Weighing Cost, Quality and Talent
Now let's talk about the cost and quality of the available images. The three giants need to be competitive with pricing, high quality of work and service. They cannot operate on offering just low prices or discounts; they need to offer better images and contract high-quality photographers. However, today's photographers are feeling squeezed by the larger stock companies, restricted contracts, smaller commissions, fewer images marketed and fewer avenues to promote their work.
So what does the future hold? Are there going to be just three large companies and a few low-end companies? Or is there still room in the middle for some midlevel companies to take some of the market share? Some in the industry feel that if the midlevel companies move in, the large ones will just adapt and become even more competitive with options, such as more flexible pricing and better customer service.
Stock houses need to offer value to the industry. They need to concentrate on selecting high-quality photographers who can supply an exceptional library of images. At the same time, they must offer clients competitive prices.
Don't Forget Photo Shoots
Maybe this problem will open up the door for clients to seriously consider more photo shoots for their assignments. Clients embrace photo shoots when they want to create a library of images, or if they want a distinct look or style for a campaign. However, in many instances photography is cheaper, compared to purchasing rights-managed images, especially if the image needs to be used in an unrestricted manner and for a long period of time. Timing can also be a factor when deciding to shoot or to use stock because sometimes it can take several days or weeks to find the exact image. During this time, a photo shoot could have already taken place, so both options should be considered.
Experts are reluctant to predict the changes in the market, but they do suggest that the stock consolidations may level off by the end of this year. The question is, will the three giants continue purchasing the remaining stock collections at this great rate to keep or gain even more of the market share? Who will the survivors be? And how might stock photo consolidation influence your future decisions about your business?
Sources for this article: www.stockasylum.com, www.photosource.com and www.abouttheimage.com
-----
The editorial features on abouttheimage.com represent solely the opinions of the author/contributor. We’d like to hear from you, too. abouttheimage welcomes comments from readers with like-minded or (especially!) opposing view-points. Please click here to send us your thoughts. Please note, we reserve the right to deny publication of comments expressed in a defamatory or disrespectful manner as determined by our editors at their own discretion.
Posted in: Editorials, Stock Art Buyers
Comments(4)
post a comment »Dieter Gerlach, June 13, 2006 [#]
Question about your comment that ‘more flexible pricing’ could be an important differentiater for a mid-size stock house. Do you mean simply more discounting, or volume-based incentives or could you elaborate?
Pino Granata, June 14, 2006 [#]
Is the party over?
Reading the Patricia Widyn it may seem that with the consolidation of the three giants of the stock photography the game is over and we should say farewell to our world. Well after the long weekend in Biarritz I have the impression that there is still room for growth and that is not time to retire. I met the charming and beautiful Joanna Santander of Alamy and she looked very happy about what Alamy is doing. I also had the pleasure to have dinner in San Sebastian with my great friend Ellen Boughn now at Superstock and let me tell you that she is very serious about what she wants to do to make her new agency efficient and competitive. I also saw maybe fifty other people from all over the world and I’m pretty impressed about how all these people are eager to succeed. The Cepic meeting is the proof that the busines is very much alive and we will have great surprises in the next future .
Russell Glenister ex image100 owner & CEO, July 07, 2006 [#]
It’s always interesting to me that it seems to take a client, at one of the advertising giants, to try direct things in Stock Photography. No disrespect to Patricia Widyn, because some of her comments are valid, if a little misguided, but such information has been flowing from the keyboards of such industry insiders for many years. Not one of them has got it right yet. My advice is read with caution.
Kevin Horne, September 22, 2006 [#]
Not to nitpick, but to correct a factual error in the original article: Jupiterimages’ 2005 revenue was $81 million, not $124 million. The difference is revenue from other Jupiter (non-image) businesses.