Paying amateur content creators
I was reading more about the recently launched Getty/Flickr agreement this morning in the Creative Review. Getty have struck a deal with Flickr (and more importantly, with some of their users) to license images under the same terms that they offer standard image from their retained photographers.
Its a really interesting model for a few reasons:
1. Aggregating content and then paying the creator when the content gets used is nothing new. Doing it by striking a deal with a social media site set-up for amateur content creators definitely is.
2. Getty insists on exclusivity - Flickr photographers cannot sell the rights to their images anywhere other than through Getty.
3. Getty has recognized that the depth and bredth of their ‘product’ can be radically enhanced by including of amateur content.
4. Getty are applying an editorial filter on which images get in and which do not.
There are clear cross-over implications for other industries that depend on providing content. Getty are not employing any of these photographers directly, but they are harnessing the power of a established image library for their own benefit, and they are passing along the rewards to the image creators on the same terms they share with their retained photographers. Finally, they are only paying the content creator when they image gets used, making the project low risk and generating minimal variable cost.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to see a news content business employing a similar model? Aggregating content from amateur reporters (read: bloggers) and thereby increasing the depth of their own content and enabling them to cover stories beyond the reach (geographic and interest) of their retained journalists. They could replicate the payment piece by rewarding writers based on how many people view the page, and accordingly how many ad impressions they generate.
Nice to see a company trying something new, and using a social media poster child to facilitate.
