Stock Wars

Jake, Starbucks didn't close 600 stores because they were competing with themselves. It was competition from Micky D's, Tim Horton and others.

Oh, I thought I read that it was because they had so many stores close to each other they were competing against each other.
my mistake.
Jake

Cannibalization is a real problem in the restaurant business, especially when they are franchise stores. The franchisor really doesn't care because they get their royalty and make a profit on the food items they sell to the franchisee. In this case it was competition among themselves as well as other restaurants started to sell "high quality" coffee. Starbucks just like Crispy Creme Donuts is a niche restaurant that really had a limited life cycle due to lack of variety of products. They made their millions and the life cycle moved on.

Not too different from Alamy who sells stock photos. They now sell photos of as little as $1 when they have always been the higher priced agency where the normal price was several hundred. I've sold photos through them for up to $800. Now they are trying to compete with SS and others. The $1 price is limited to use as blogs, education and non-commercial. Buyers will soon realize that if a phot can be sold to some at a dollar they will no longer pay several hundred to use it commercial. Never lower prices, it's impossible to raise them back to a profit level. Instead improve quality, efficiency, customer relations to make it a better deal. When I see a company lower prices across the board in order to WOW customers it means that they are in a panic and ready to close the doors. Higher or at least a firm quality price will bring buyers due to stability and long term prospects of being in business.

Don

Don,
Alan Capal is the one to blame. Since introduced Noval use (50% to Photographer instead of 60%), they are no longer a good agency. Their growth is shrinking, may be ...

I'm amazed of how open and professional this forums are. I'm not that old, but kind of old school so for me was kind of a shock to see producers talking about percentages of other sites, what is better was not etc. I have seen that model in other places and it seems to be the way of the future.

Having said that, I'll answer ironstrike. Diversification is the answer. I could go into deep details but I'm not sure if it will acceptable so I will refrain. :)

Great forums!

Here's a bit of news:

SEATTLE, Feb 25, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Getty Images Inc. (NYSE:GYI), the world's leading creator and distributor of visual content and other digital media, announced today that it has entered into a definitive merger agreement to be acquired by affiliates of the private equity firm Hellman & Friedman LLC in a transaction valued at approximately $2.4 billion, including the assumption of existing debt. Under the terms of the agreement, Getty Images stockholders will receive $34.00 in cash for each outstanding share of common stock they own. This price represents a premium of approximately 55 percent over the closing price on January 18, 2008, the last trading day before the Company announced that it was exploring strategic alternatives.

Wow! Big numbers! no wonder many are jumping into the stock footage business. Many will be have with just a fraction of that. Istock was sold for less a (50 million) few years ago.

Which could be a subject for a new threat.........where do you think the stock footage market is heading?

Hey Charley,

I think it's only going up from here.
Internet use, television, motion picture. Corporate, etc....... The sky is the limit and we're at the beginning of it.

Jake

There are several IPTV startups in the works. We are starting to see more and more full productions that are available on the net... and sometimes only on the net and via the net. The convergence of PC and TV is here - just look at the new Sony Tv's/Puters... it's a real thing baby! Thank god for copyright laws. But people in the photag business need to get savvier about just that... a perfect example of what I mean was when I was talking to this "Pro Photographer" in Phoenix that does a lot of fashion shoots for various mags. We were talking about stuff on the net in general when she mentioned she got axed by YouTube (Google) for copyright infringement. She couldn't understand why? So I asked a little more as my curiosity peaked. She told me she created a vid as a commercial for her stuff, and she used someone's music. Someone that is/was obviously well known. But yet she couldn't figure it out. She thought since all the pics were hers, it should be ok. She never even thought about music being copyrighted.. Naive to say the least. I explained to her the sitch... she was actually angry and didn't get it.. so I simply asked her "If someone started using your photos on billboards in New York would you be pissed?" - Her response; "Not if they paid me." Case and point. Duh.

Well an update on Alamy sales for digital photos. Two sales for me so far this month for a total of nearly $400. Still shows there is higher value in our work than micro stocks can ever give. Same will hold true on video. If you price them cheap buyers will think they are cheap.

Don