Any photographer who’s been in the business for more than a few years can tell you that the old business model has changed. It used to be that photography clients had only one option.
To buy from their photographer!
Today more than ever clients want the rights to their images and each day more photographers are willing to oblige. That in and of itself is not a problem except for the fact that many photographers undervalue their work and sell “the rights” way to cheap. But I digress… that is a discussion in and of itself.
The real question is what are those clients doing with those “Digital Negatives”? Well I can tell you. They are going straight to companies like Shutterfly and buying direct. Remember the good ol’ days and all the backend sales that used to come directly to photographers? Well those profits are now going to online services like Shutterfly. Is it any wonder that the CEO of Shutterfly wore a huge smile to this CNBC interview?
What do you think of the future of photography? Is it services like Shutterfly? Discuss it in the Pro Forums.
Back Home
2 Comments at "Shutterfly The Future of Photo"
Mark, thanks for posting this. Could be a great discussion (except discussions/responses rarely happen on this blog).
First, by clients I assume you mean client direct family oriented photography?
I don’t know what Shutterfly charges, but I’ll assume the only profits going to them would be the same profits going to any other producer of finished products (like digilabs, asuka, etc.). The potential profits lost are those the photographer/studio looses by not fulfilling the order. The customer doesn’t always get the same quality either. I will include a DVD of (hi-res) jpegs with a commission. Of course there has to be some consideration ($$) for this. But what I provide is not the same quality file as that used to make final purchased prints. I put time into each individual final file to make prints. I don’t put this time into each file on a delivered DVD (600+ images). The customer is made aware that the DVD has proof quality images. If they want better they can order prints/albums/cards from me.
btw – I also (specifically) do not release commercial or licensing rights to images. There could be great liability if a customer licensed an image (which I created) and a person portrayed in that image was not cool with it’s publication. Errs and omissions insurance may catch some of this, but it would still be a huge hassle.
So what will be the projected cultural response associated with DIY imagery ala Shutterfly/Snapfish/Winkflash/etc. ? Will it be cool, or common (McImages)?
I believe there will be those that want the common national brand oriented product. This is usually associated with a lack of diversity (think fast food). Then there are those that want (and will afford) the unique boutique experience.
There is also the potential fallout to the studios image (brand) if a customer produces lackluster imagery (via these Wallyworld type sites) associated with the studios name.
The future of imaging will be as it is now – multiple ways and means. The big question in my mind is if markets will continue to become so fractured that a reasonable ROI is not viable.
The DigiLabs Blog had a great post about this, although the title is a bit different:
http://blog.digilabspro.com/2010/04/30/how-to-compete-with-shoot-and-burn-photographers-this-wedding-season/
I think it is mostly about education. The products that DigiLabs and others produce is MUCH higher quality that Shutterfly/Snapfish/Kodak. Unfortunately it is the job of the photographer to sell that quality. The blog gives some good tips on how to overcome that.
Comment Now!