Anyone work for the "Assignment" side of GettyImages?

[rcdurston]

Just wondering if anyone here has any experience with Getty's Assignment division? I would just like to pick your brain, either online or privately.
Thanks
Rob

[Greg Whitaker]

In My opinion, they are killing the photography assignment business by offering assignment shooting on spec, just as they killed the stock business for individual creators.  A friend and colleague of mine in Chicago was asked to bid on a job for a major fast food chain, and told that he must be budget friendly. He'd worked for the same division of the company, through the same large ad agency, same art director, same art buyer, several times. They loved his work for them. He bid it cheaper than he'd done things for in the past, and lost to Getty assignments as their cost was less than 1/4th what his was. The creative team was very unhappy that the client had chosen to go this way, and they were also very unhappy with the end result, but the client was thrilled with the $$. Getty also gave away more rights for less money.  He then started asking around and found that this had been the case with many other shooters in Chicago as well as NYC and LA.
I would, under no circumstances, cast my lot with the robber barons of the photography industry just to make a few bucks. Might as well go work fast food.

[Rob C]

In My opinion, they are killing the photography assignment business by offering assignment shooting on spec, just as they killed the stock business for individual creators.  A friend and colleague of mine in Chicago was asked to bid on a job for a major fast food chain, and told that he must be budget friendly. He'd worked for the same division of the company, through the same large ad agency, same art director, same art buyer, several times. They loved his work for them. He bid it cheaper than he'd done things for in the past, and lost to Getty assignments as their cost was less than 1/4th what his was. The creative team was very unhappy that the client had chosen to go this way, and they were also very unhappy with the end result, but the client was thrilled with the $$. Getty also gave away more rights for less money.  He then started asking around and found that this had been the case with many other shooters in Chicago as well as NYC and LA.
I would, under no circumstances, cast my lot with the robber barons of the photography industry just to make a few bucks. Might as well go work fast food.

Even easier: throw your expensive equipment into the rubbish bin.

It's the start of another monopoly, but to reach that goal, it requires suicidal snappers. There will be no problem finding them; check the stock business of today.

Rob C

[LenR]

Imho any photographer that works for that bunch of sleazbags needs a check-up from the neck- up!

Commercial photographers as a trade should be doing all we can do to put them out of business.

Just say no.

[rcdurston]

I know the past of Getty Images and the state they, Corbis and everyone else put the industry into. I'm not interested in stock. I live in a remote depressed market where all commercial and advertising work is quoted on a "day rate". There are one or two local photographers who don't but then they also don't shoot locally anymore.
If I was to sign with them, I would be going up against others who would have to be brought in from abroad for the project.
I would think that their rates for projects are higher than the existing local rates for the same type of work.
Do you see where I'm going with this? If the local was going to shoot the job they might get only £xxx but if Getty brought in one of their "assignment" photographers they would be working from a higher rate scale.
I haven't signed anything and please don't anyone take personal offence, I'm just weighing the opinions right now.
Thanks
Rob

[Greg Whitaker]

I know the past of Getty Images and the state they, Corbis and everyone else put the industry into. I'm not interested in stock. I live in a remote depressed market where all commercial and advertising work is quoted on a "day rate". There are one or two local photographers who don't but then they also don't shoot locally anymore.
If I was to sign with them, I would be going up against others who would have to be brought in from abroad for the project.
I would think that their rates for projects are higher than the existing local rates for the same type of work.
Do you see where I'm going with this? If the local was going to shoot the job they might get only £xxx but if Getty brought in one of their "assignment" photographers they would be working from a higher rate scale.
I haven't signed anything and please don't anyone take personal offence, I'm just weighing the opinions right now.
Thanks
Rob

I'm not understanding why you'd think that Getty's rates for projects are going to be higher than those of the local shooters?? They will undoubtedly undercut any and all local competition because they can.
In my experience, and I've spoken with alot of folks here state-side about it, they are going to undercut the local market in terms of rates and give away more rights for less money than local shooters. Their goal is to be the go-to source for all imagery, and to put to sleep any competition. Their model is based on the idea that there is always someone willing to do it cheaper for short-term benefit.
Your work is too good, and I understand the concept of a depressed local market. I live in a smaller market in the Midwest USA and I can tell you that almost every imaging project gets filled now by $1 stock images, and those that aren't are shot by local shooters who are trying to keep the market alive, or by interchangeable Getty clones who work for next to nothing in order to "build their portfolio" or "just keep working".
Soon there will be no more independent commercial shooters in every market, just a few super famous national acts who fight over the few remaining clients/agencies that are doing original work. The rest of us will be shooting weddings and senior portraits.
I will be farming at that point.