AP Repeats Bizarre Logic Of NYT Getty Story

Getty has put out a statement confirming the gist of yesterday's news that the company is for sale.

Meanwhile, an Associated Press story on the Getty speculation repeats the goofy idea that Britney and Benazir have something to do with the company's circumstances. The AP reports:

"Beyond economic woes, an issue that may hinder financing is Getty's business model, which has come under increasing pressure lately from cheaper competitors and new technology that allows more people to photograph life events, such as Britney Spears' trips to the hospital or the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto."

Yesterday I took The New York Times to task for citing exactly the same two examples. Where are they getting this stuff?

First, news photos have never have been a big source of cash for Getty Images. News, sports, entertainment and archival images combined only make up 18 percent of Getty's revenues, and we can be pretty sure that the bulk of that comes from entertainment, given that Getty owns WireImage. Creative stock, on the other hand, accounts for 71 percent of revenues. (This is based on the most recent data available from Getty, released in November.)

Second, Britney Spears' trip to the hospital and Benazir Bhutto's assassination were both aggressively covered by professional photojournalists with professional cameras. Indeed, the Bhutto attack was a huge story for Getty, which had staff photographer John Moore on the scene. While there have been some amateur videos used in the Bhutto coverage, I have seen few if any amateur photos of Bhutto or Spears published in the mainstream press (where they would compete with Getty). The last big, breaking story to be covered largely by amateur still photographers was the highway bridge collapse in Minnesota, over six months ago.

What actually hurts Getty is amateur stock photos (including those available through its own iStockphoto division and that accidental stock library called Flickr), not amateur news photos. This detail matters to photographers, and it's frustrating when reporters get it wrong.

Comments

[SG]

"What actually hurts Getty is amateur stock photos..." That's as naive as the assertions contained within the NY Times article. Getty's declension is the result of years of driving down prices throughout an entire industry, consistently cannibalizing its own product, marginalizing its contributors, and functioning from a soulless and corporate creed rather than a creative or supportive desire to strengthen and renew their business. Who could possibly find this unexpected or surprising?

[BobF]

I think that Getty is suffering the same ill as the music industry is witnessing - essentially, newer technology has all but eliminated the stranglehold they have on the final product, be it images or songs.

"In the old days", stock images were used in print media, which necessitated very high quality imagery. Today, with so much more being shown on computer screens or iPods, there is not as much need to buy that "perfect image". Meanwhile, the tools to make images have become more ubiquitous and easier to use - where a decade or two ago one needed to have the gear and understanding of the craft to capture a great shot, today one can buy relatively cheap off-the-shelf gear and get acceptable results. This leads to more potential shooters out there, and less exclusivity for the "anointed few" who historically enjoyed a certain exclusivity, and hence higher rewards.

In other words, its the convergence of imaging technologies (both taking and displaying) that is leading to the demise of high priced stock photography.