PhotoDeck software

[BJNY]

http://www.photodeck.com/

Videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/jfmphoto

[Graham Mitchell]

Why would an art director take the time to scan 100 different PhotoDeck sites when he can scan just one large database like Gettys?

[BJNY]

If your photographic style is recognizable,
or if your subject matter is unique,

why not set your own [higher] prices,
and not have to share a healthy percentage of the license fee?

[Camdavidson]

http://www.photodeck.com/

Videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/jfmphoto

PhotoDeck is written by the brilliant Jef Maion, a French photographer and IT guru.  It is set-up to be your stock site.  As an example:  Let say an art director went to your site and wanted to see your stock collection of images that you did not place or were not accepted into the Getty or Corbis collections. They can easily do that by clicking on the area of your site that you have set-up as stock.  It is completely seamless.

Set up a page on your site called archive or stock or whatever you choose to call it.  When you set up your photodeck page - you can make it look exactly like your web site.  You use CNAME to have the address as archive.graham-mitchell.com.  Your client never leaves your site and you are not sending them off to Getty or another agency.  Take a look at the video and the site.  This is a killer approach written by someone who knows what they are doing.  

Basically you are creating your own fully ecommerce stock site with delivery of your images directly from your site.  It is clean, simple, easier to use than the other options and it works.  You keep your client on your site and offer something unique to them without them having to jump ship (your site) to go look for your stock images.

[mtomalty]

Cameron,

Agree with all you say but the recurring problem for all these sites is that, apart from a relatively few photographers with a recognizable brand name, next to no
buyers ever find these sites and the amount of effort and promotion dollars required to build a stock brand and drive traffic to ones site is out of reach for almost all.

It really is, or has been, a very frustrating catch-22 for many stock photographers.  Sure, a few have modest success but the majority fail.

I've had a really profitable 30 year stock career through, primarily, one agency but finding the magic recipe to try to market my personal archive has been practically impossible.

I started with IPNstock who were,really, the first out of the gate in designing individual stock sites for photographers and then linking these sites under one common search engine
in an effort to offer 'independence' for the stock photographer yet build critical mass for a buyer by linking a number of sites together through a search engine. Great idea but it never really caught on in a significant way.


Next up, was the Digital Railroad fiasco.  Again, a decent idea that couldn't gain traction in the market.


Photoshelter, whom I see you use for your personal, non-represented images, is still standing but were smart enough to quickly backpedal out of the stock game and instead
offer an amazing set of tools for the photographer to make available and distribute an image archive.
Unfortunately,even though they seen to have hit the sweet spot for price to feature archives, there are not very many success stories out of the 1000's using their templates and licensing tools.

With that in mind, I can't see how Photodeck is going to be any different.


Best,
Mark

www.marktomalty.com
www.marktomaltystock.com

[Camdavidson]

Cameron,

Agree with all you say but the recurring problem for all these sites is that, apart from a relatively few photographers with a recognizable brand name, next to no
buyers ever find these sites and the amount of effort and promotion dollars required to build a stock brand and drive traffic to ones site is out of reach for almost all.

It really is, or has been, a very frustrating catch-22 for many stock photographers.  Sure, a few have modest success but the majority fail.

I've had a really profitable 30 year stock career through, primarily, one agency but finding the magic recipe to try to market my personal archive has been practically impossible.

I started with IPNstock who were,really, the first out of the gate in designing individual stock sites for photographers and then linking these sites under one common search engine
in an effort to offer 'independence' for the stock photographer yet build critical mass for a buyer by linking a number of sites together through a search engine. Great idea but it never really caught on in a significant way.


Next up, was the Digital Railroad fiasco.  Again, a decent idea that couldn't gain traction in the market.


Photoshelter, whom I see you use for your personal, non-represented images, is still standing but were smart enough to quickly backpedal out of the stock game and instead
offer an amazing set of tools for the photographer to make available and distribute an image archive.
Unfortunately,even though they seen to have hit the sweet spot for price to feature archives, there are not very many success stories out of the 1000's using their templates and licensing tools.

With that in mind, I can't see how Photodeck is going to be any different.


Best,
Mark

www.marktomalty.com
www.marktomaltystock.com

Mark

PhotoDeck is not an agency.  It is a software platform where there is no middlemen involved other than the hosting/service.  

This is not a replacement for a traditional agency relationship it is a compliment. If you are known as a shooter with a unique approach or niche, clients will come to your site to look at your assignment work.  If they are also interested in licensing a stock image, they can view the archive that is seamless or attached to your website.  

I think this appeals to assignment photographers who have their own collections that have not been placed with the big agencies or for the need to control the images and how they are used.  

PhotoDeck makes it very simple for someone to license an image and it is still in beta.  Jef is improving the design and functionality everyday.  I also had a site with IPN and it was worthless.  My current version of AerialStock is a PhotoShelter site and will remain with them.  My biggest complaint from clients regarding non-Getty/Corbis archives is the cumbersome sign-up process to license an image. They often give up and call directly to license an image.  PhotoDeck makes it much easier.

Rather than dismiss PhotoDeck, please take a look at it.  Jef is a friend and I have no business interest in his venture.  I think it is an excellent opportunity for photographers to handle the imagery they do not place with agencies and to give it an opportunity to be seen and licensed.

 I have a friend who is a nationally known portrait shoot and known to many on this board.  Consistent style, approach and refinement of his brand have made him known to many art directors and art buyers.  The licensing of his stock portrait images to ad agencies fuels his career and allows him to say no to bad assignment deals.  He has spent several years crafting the perfect licensing engine for him.  After all that effort he made to create his perfect stock site, he decided to switch over to PhotoDeck.  His reasons -  elegance and simplicity.

[Graham Mitchell]

This is not a replacement for a traditional agency relationship it is a compliment.

Some stock agencies' agreements prohibit this.

[Camdavidson]

Some stock agencies' agreements prohibit this.

Graham,

I have been with Getty since it was Tony Stone (Mid-Nineties) and with Corbis a little over a year.  My contract with both of those agencies is "image exclusive."  

Getty moved away from exclusive representation quite a while ago when the changed the legal basis for how they represented stock photography.  As I understand it, most contracts with the big agencies are that the image (and sisters) are exclusive to the agency, not the photographer.

So, a photographer with a large collection of images at a large agency could also use PhotoShelter or PhotoDeck to showcase, distribute and license images that are not restricted to exclusivity with their stock agency.

I am sure, as you have pointed out, that there are agencies that are photographer exclusive.  Given how the world is these days, I feel that exclusivity with one agency could undermine your long-term success with stock images.

[mtomalty]

Some stock agencies' agreements prohibit this

I'd go one step further than Cameron and suggest that you will find NO stock agencies with contracts
that would prohibit alternate distribution of non-similar images.

I've been represented by Masterfile for over 30 years and a part owner for over 25 years and we were among the
last to finally, and thankfully, move from artist to image exclusive contracts

You could make the argument that editorial/assignment agencies such as Magnum or Vll might require total exclusivity
but they are not seen as stock agencies in the traditional sense


Mark