3 ms·
This is misguided. First, you can't "organize labor" to take an iconic photo of a shuttle landing that happened 30 years ago. That is, there is enormous value
by mrcwinn 2y ago
This is misguided.
First, you can't "organize labor" to take an iconic photo of a shuttle landing that happened 30 years ago. That is, there is enormous value in their existing library.
Second, decentralized photography is called Instagram, yet those photos aren't worth anything. Instagram has no interest in licensing them. Instead, they monetize around the photo (engagement) and not the photo itself. The real value has been in the content produced by professional photojournalists.
Whether Getty/Shutterstock is a good business is a different topic. They've been around for a long time, despite your claim they are "easily disrupted." You both underestimate the value of indexing (distribution) and mislabel them as being merely an indexer (they protect rights, organize deals, bundle and package, centralize relationships, to name a few).
- righthand 2y agoI never claimed they were an indexer, I claimed that is how a company to displace them would work. Everything you’re telling me is misguided is a misinterpretation about my claims of a non-existent competitor. Your interpretation of my response is misguided. You don’t need a back catalog for a 30 year old photo of a shuttle launch, that wouldn’t sell to recent news outfits looking for latest editorial content. The fact that Shutterstock has spent the last decade switching from php to react to nextjs and only acquiring their competitors is more than enough evidence they are easily displaced. The only thing your competitor has to do differently is not sell out to Shutterstock.