You’re preaching to the choir, I’m sure you realize. We have to start by just asking, well, what kind of website is it? Is it a personal blog? Is it a self-promotion web-site viewed by 500 people a year? Is it a multi-galactic splash-page for Pepsi, viewed by 10 gazillions every 15 seconds? That’s the way print usage was priced – by how many eyeballs were looking at the page, a.k.a. “circulation” or “print run”. The web should be NO DIFFERENT, otherwise there is LITERALLY no future for professional stills photography, because the web is all there is. First thing we have to do is tell our stock agencies that they need to provide an “opt-out” option for RM images being sold for web usage unless pricing is based on the size of the target audience (which is what most of us think “rights-managed” is supposed to mean). I know, I know, maybe sounds naive – but I can tell you for certain: if every reputable, professional photographer who has images with the big agencies each sent their management a strongly-worded e-mail to that effect, they would definitely take it seriously. And SAA would have to endorse this, of course. Am I crazy?
The music industry is still alive after everything web has done. Magazines have been purchased for years even though you can stand in any book store/grocery store and read it for free. TV stations and websites make money through commercials and selling ad space for high costs…..internet is the only one medium for advertising world wide at a cheap rate……..it seems backwards…
magazines are well targeted and you cant avoid advertising in print….someone who has bought a magazine is going flip through every page….they are at least going to SEE perfume X’s ad…..where as internet the possibilities of missing someone’s ad is HUGE! ad blockers are now being installed…..wiping out website’s advertisement all together.. maybe advertisers dont want to risk spending $$ on something that has the risk of not being seen………..Television is limited to MAX 1000 channels or something isn’t it? and half of those are music….there are only so many magazines and newspapers in production…..the web has over 108 billion websites……what are the odds of coming across an advertisement of something you could care less about on the web? If I am watching ABC chances are VERY HIGH that I am going to see a commercial for something I dont care about and gain knowledge out it…
I dont know what will happened…..but I really like what Sony Pictures Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton said….
“I’m a guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet…(The Internet) created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It’s as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, ‘Give it to me now,’ and if you don’t give it to them for free, they’ll steal it.”
It will be interesting to see how the problem is solved!
You’re preaching to the choir, I’m sure you realize. We have to start by just asking, well, what kind of website is it? Is it a personal blog? Is it a self-promotion web-site viewed by 500 people a year? Is it a multi-galactic splash-page for Pepsi, viewed by 10 gazillions every 15 seconds? That’s the way print usage was priced – by how many eyeballs were looking at the page, a.k.a. “circulation” or “print run”. The web should be NO DIFFERENT, otherwise there is LITERALLY no future for professional stills photography, because the web is all there is. First thing we have to do is tell our stock agencies that they need to provide an “opt-out” option for RM images being sold for web usage unless pricing is based on the size of the target audience (which is what most of us think “rights-managed” is supposed to mean). I know, I know, maybe sounds naive – but I can tell you for certain: if every reputable, professional photographer who has images with the big agencies each sent their management a strongly-worded e-mail to that effect, they would definitely take it seriously. And SAA would have to endorse this, of course. Am I crazy?
The music industry is still alive after everything web has done. Magazines have been purchased for years even though you can stand in any book store/grocery store and read it for free. TV stations and websites make money through commercials and selling ad space for high costs…..internet is the only one medium for advertising world wide at a cheap rate……..it seems backwards…
magazines are well targeted and you cant avoid advertising in print….someone who has bought a magazine is going flip through every page….they are at least going to SEE perfume X’s ad…..where as internet the possibilities of missing someone’s ad is HUGE! ad blockers are now being installed…..wiping out website’s advertisement all together.. maybe advertisers dont want to risk spending $$ on something that has the risk of not being seen………..Television is limited to MAX 1000 channels or something isn’t it? and half of those are music….there are only so many magazines and newspapers in production…..the web has over 108 billion websites……what are the odds of coming across an advertisement of something you could care less about on the web? If I am watching ABC chances are VERY HIGH that I am going to see a commercial for something I dont care about and gain knowledge out it…
I dont know what will happened…..but I really like what Sony Pictures Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton said….
“I’m a guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet…(The Internet) created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It’s as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, ‘Give it to me now,’ and if you don’t give it to them for free, they’ll steal it.”
It will be interesting to see how the problem is solved!