The new Sotheby's on-line auction site has opened for business, but it looks more like it is in "beta" than "ready for prime time".  The site's infrastructure is clearly not up for the traffic; its search engine is possibly the weakest I've seen on a web site of this scale; photo descriptions are misleading; start and reserve prices are generally too high; and the format is cumbersome and slow to use.

Reportedly over $45 million was spent, but too little seems to have been accomplished for this huge sum of money.  Dealer input seems to be totally ignored.  But don't feel bad, because I know of at least one Internet consulting company, which was paid $50,000 by Sotheby's and reportedly had all of its recommendations ignored too.

Sotheby's multi-million dollar advertising program for their new on-line service was equally misplaced in my opinion by a major ad agency, which, of course, proceeded to place the bulk of the business with big traditional print media.  That's an easy and highly profitable route for the agency, but rarely gives results for the client.  Oh, if you missed Sotheby's full-page ad in the LA Times, it was buried in the nearly thousand-page Special Issue the Times did just before Christmas.  Yes, Sotheby's bought into the major search engines and some of the large portals, but these are also passé. And they're talking television! 

If only a larger portion of all this was spent on the art and photo art publication market, Sotheby's could have dominated the eyeballs that might actually be bidding on its site. 

So, what are the problems with the site itself?

Let's start with a system that when it first opened up for bids was slower than eBay during a crash.  Now that traffic and bids have slowed to a trickle, you can get back on.  But what the site clearly needs is better Internet connections and possibly a stronger bank of servers, so it can actually survive real traffic when it finally shows up.  A mirrored site in two different parts of the country would also help.

The search engine?  It's a toy that often pulled up totally inappropriate items during its opening weeks.  There are virtually no multiple search capabilities--a must for a site like this one. 

A major problem is a bidder can't even bookmark an item to return to bid when they have to, let alone use any bidding software.  That's a must for any serious on-line bidder.

The descriptions on photographs are also a real problem.  I don't know whether to blame Sotheby's, the dealers or--more likely--inadequate training, although to Sotheby's credit they did actually provide dealer training.  My particular concern is over something that is supposed to be illegal in NY and is now against new AIPAD ethics rules.  It seems that most dealers are filling in the "date of object" as to when the photograph was taken and not when the print was made, misleading (in most cases) bidders to believe that these are vintage pieces.  Lewis Hines/Man Ray scandals all over again!  Oh and if you think you have a guarantee that will protect you, think again and read the VERY fine print.  Here's a small sample: "The Seller may request, before determining whether to rescind a sale under the Authenticity Guarantee, that the Buyer obtain the written opinion of up to two recognized experts in the relevant field who are mutually acceptable to the Seller and the Buyer."  First, try and get two such experts that are acceptable to the seller, and second, what do you think that will cost you? 

As I've said many times before in these newsletters: at auction, whether on-line or off, it is always buyer beware.  An email to the dealer listing the item clarifying condition and vintage is a necessity, but not a cure-all.  And while most are top photo dealers, not all are that well known and being known doesn't mean that you'll always be accurate.

Then there are the cosmetic things, like the site only showing 10 items at a time, or not being able (any more, at least) to view all of the photographs together.  Now you have to go into three separate areas (19th, 20th and contemporary).  Many of us buy and collect in ALL of these areas.  The small pop-up view of the photo is also annoying.  Items do not always seem to line up properly under many of the listings.

I also wonder what Sotheby's will do to keep the pipeline full.  It's already down to 247 photographs at my last count and that's with a three-week bidding period.  That is about 50 off of last week.  Compare that to eBay's 60,000 photograph items over a similar period.  Yes, most items on eBay are junk, but there's also an awful lot of higher-level material lately-- and they are selling.  Supposedly Sotheby's intends to put up items in its own inventory, but be aware some of these are "damaged goods" that Sotheby's is selling off with the blessing of its insurance company.

Few items are getting bids on the Sotheby's site.  Sotheby's hoped to get 30% sales, which they claimed to be 50% higher than the average on-line auction results.  Funny, I've gotten about 65% on Ebay last year.  And in 1998 I used to get 80%.  Just set reasonable reserves, put up interesting items and you get bids. While Sotheby's can't really control that, I do think their estimated sales percentage is "wildly optimistic" at the moment.  It looks more like under 10% to this observer.  Are most on-line buyers rejecting the 10% buyer's premium?  It's hard to tell, and I doubt Sotheby's did an adequate job of researching this factor before making it a core part of its site. And perhaps if Sotheby's did away with its clause preventing dealers from using any other site for items over $300, they might get experienced Internet dealers to put up material.

OK, so what's right about the site?  At least there is some "editing" of material.  You don't get the thousands of $1 stereo cards, cheap '50s soft porn, and view master reels that you have to wade through on other sites.  Items are in the right price range for more serious collectors.

And then there is the Sotheby's name and brand.  It could be powerful if used correctly and not squandered with bad media decisions.  Frankly if Sotheby's spent more promotional dollars directed to its traditional customers, it would get more bang for the dollar.  It's got a great list and a wonderful franchise.  Hopefully it will wake up and use these strengths, which it has barely tapped yet.

I'm sure eventually Sotheby's will get it right.  It took Ebay over two years to come down off its high horse and deal more directly with its problems.  I just had high hopes that Sotheby's would heed the competitive lesson rather than do it the hard way.

 

is at it again.  Two more recent photographic-related auction sales have seen a lone phone bidder distort results and send prices to dizzying levels that bear no relationship to market values for the items.

After the Jammes sale and the impact of L080 buying three-quarters of the sale by pounds sterling value, some of us in the industry questioned the long-term effects of a dominant player/s on the auction market.  Years ago, the Getty Museum determined it would not use its immense funding to distort auction markets--a wise move in my view.

Apparently there are wealthy individuals or organizations that don't share the Getty's philosophy.  In November, I heard from a number of disgruntled attendees of Christie's London sale of Magic Lanterns, which was largely bought out by one phone bidder.  I thought it was something in the water. But the silliness persists.

In the Christie's South Kensington sale of Photographica on January 27th, which included lower level images as well as equipment, items sold for astounding prices, in some cases 100 times estimates. 

In one case, a lot of three daguerreotypes (Lot 16), which had no estimate--usually a sign that the house expected the item to fetch under £200, brought £54,300 or nearly $90,000! 

I talked to English dealer Pierre Spake, who, while stunned by the prices, told me that he knew who the underbidder was on this lot and that they were just as capable of buying the lot.  "It was just a question of two people with money meeting at the right time with a genuine interest to buy, even if there was no intrinsic value," says Spake. 

Frankly, the lot wouldn't bring a thousand dollars in the real world and it wasn't the only aberration.  How about £62,000 or over $101,000 for a group of roughly 1500 cdvs that was estimated at £600-800 and was expected to realistically bring about £1500 before the sale?  Or £40,000 for 101 albumen prints of Middle Eastern and European albumen prints, also estimated at £600-800?  That latter lot seemed to be driven up by an English underbidder in pure frustration over the sale. And the equipment side of the sale was equally skewed.  The top lot was a 19th century lens that went for a world record price of £6900 or over $11,000.  It was the kind of lens that I use to be able to buy for about $150 about 15 years ago, and today might bring about $1000-2000 but move very slowly.  True, the estimate was closer to the price at £2500-3000, but most felt before the sale that the house estimate was "aggressive".

As Spake told me, "It became bloody annoying.  If you would have normally bid £2000 on an item, you wound up taking it to £2500, or higher."  A lot higher for some bidders.

London dealer Beryl Vosburgh also emailed me that the same thing happened at the earlier November Magic Lantern sale: "After a while when the rhythm had been established, people began to bid way beyond reason in the certainty that the Telephone would top whatever was being ventured."

Vosburgh, who has a shop in London, says she can't blame bidders, who she feels were being used cynically to establish a price.  As she puts it with a sense of humor: "One bid above a collector or dealer must be a bargain, right?"

Before the sale it was expected to realize about 100,000 pounds sterling, instead it brought in 246,106 pounds, with many items going for 10 times estimates, most (about 85% by one observer's notes) bought by one anonymous bidder.  Tongue-in-cheek, Vosburgh says she suggested those nearest to the phone banks "cut the wires, but they didn't."

Christie's camera specialist Michael Pritchard warns bidders: "Irrespective of the situation, bidders should intend to purchase the items they bid on and they should be fully prepared to pay for them."  He notes that the mysterious bidder in the Magic Lantern sale did not buy all the items that were pushed up, leaving people in the room and other phone bidders to pay for their inflated bids.

Pritchard wouldn't confirm that the anonymous bidder was the same in both sales, but I got the impression they were none-the-less.  And he used the pronoun "he" when referring to the anonymous bidder in both auctions.  He also states he has "no idea whether the individual is prepared to bid again or has satisfied his needs."

Pritchard points to a sale in 1991 when two dominant bidders had a more permanent impact on the spy camera marketplace.  He also notes that the sales totals (£248,565 or $406,000 in the morning image-related session and £245,082 or $401,000 in the afternoon equipment-related session) weren't very much in the context of what's happening in other markets, like fine or contemporary art, although he does say, "It seemed a lot in the context of a collectible sale."  Pritchard also notes "cameras and optical equipment are very strong at the moment."  And, as Pritchard points out, "Interest translates into a strong market, and strong prices and interest at auction effects the whole market, whatever it might be--Le Grays or Underwood stereo cards."

Pritchard says he has a "flood of consignments", but will not change his estimates--at least just yet. Whether or not the anonymous bidder is active again, Pritchard does expect strong bids because of the caliber of the material.

All the anonymous phone bidders get another two shots at Christie's South Kensington in May when there is a Photographs sale (May 5) and another Magic Lantern Sale (May 12).

 

This year's Photo LA was a much-improved version.  High ceilings (for most of the hall) provided less claustrophobia and more openness.  A larger number of dealers in mostly larger booths gave visitors the impression that this was a show to be reckoned with.  Better parking and a more upscale neighborhood also helped.  Attendance was up dramatically, according to Steve Cohen, the show's organizer.  He expects the show's total attendance to hit close to 6,000 versus the 3,700 from the year before and the more normal 4,000+ from 1998.  Many dealers, including my own company, Vintage Works, reported considerably increased business over the old Butterfield & Butterfield site.  Cohen says his gallery had its best show ever and Henry Feldstein feels the show rivaled AIPAD for buyers.

Another nice touch was the non-photo dealer vendors, including Sotheby's, Gordon's, etc.

As Cohen says with only a "hint" of overstatement, "This show was spectacular.  There was really no comparison to the shows at Butterfield's.  It was ready to burst out, and it did."

Cohen says that he knew it was going to be a great show when the pre-sales doubled the previous year's totals.  He credits the Internet and the new venue with a lot of the new attendees.  But I also noted a lot of you, my e-newsletter readers, at the show and I appreciate the time some of you took to say hello.

The photographer lectures sold very well (Mary Ellen Mark's sold out early).

The downside: poor lighting in the back aisles where there was no overhead light made photographs on walls there difficult to view.  The photographer lecturers were also held in pitch-blackness, making it difficult to find a seat and impossible to take notes.  It also encouraged sleep instead of rapt attention.  Next year turn up the lights, Steve.

For 2001 Cohen expects to shift some of the pieces around a little.  He plans on moving most of the dealers into the high-ceiling main room and expanding the exhibit space towards the rear of the building.  The smaller room may get an international photo exhibit and some of the non-photo dealer vendors.  More photo collecting seminars will be added, because those this year sold out quickly.  And the photographer lectures may get moved to a tented area.  Eventually, Cohen feels, the convention center will add more meeting room space, which he will take advantage of.

What's next for Cohen?  He's launched a new show: Photo San Francisco, which will be held at the Ft. Mason Herbst Pavilion from July 27-30 later this year.  As Cohen notes: "San Francisco in the summer time is not a tough sale."  He then quotes Mark Twain's famous quip: "The coldest winter that I ever spent, was a summer in San Francisco", while noting most collectors and dealers would love to escape the sweltering heat in their areas to do a show in San Francisco.

"We're going to work very hard on the show," says Cohen, who expects to duplicate his 60 photo dealers at this show.

Put it on your calendar.  It's bound to be an interesting show.  And Cohen is right: What's not to like about San Francisco.

 

NY Photo Fair Cancelled

Sanford Smith & Associates has cancelled its NY Photography Fair, which was set again for October.  Citing dealer dissatisfaction and lower than expected gate, the show management company decided to move out of the photography area.  This follows on the heels of the Sanford Smith group de-emphasizing photography in its Modernism show, after putting Photography in the title of the show just a few years ago.

Given recent auction results and the Photo LA show's success, the problem doesn't seem to be in the marketplace but perhaps in the execution and lack of upfront investment necessary for a new show by this group.


New Titles and Players at Christie's

Rick Wester over at Christie's has a new title: International Department Head and Senior Vice President of Christie's Photographs.  I wonder if that means he gets to live in Paris, London AND NYC.  And how the heck is he going to fit all of that on a business card?

Meanwhile, Christie's South Kensington office loses lovely and talented Alison Jeffery Kist, who decided to go back home to Canada.  Canada's gain is London's loss. 

The new photography director replacing Alison at South Ken is Elizabeth Smith.  Smith was previously print sales manager at the Photographers' Gallery in London.  She is a graduate of Indiana University.  She will be supported by Lindsey Stewart, Christie's photographs consultant, and newly appointed junior specialist Michelle Jarman.

Congratulations to all.


Ginns Nominated as President of APHS

The American Historical Photographic Society has named photographica dealer Bryan Ginns president-elect.  This New York-based group has been floundering over the last several years and its board and membership has been aging and directionless.  But the election of Ginns may signal changes at one of the oldest photo societies in the country.  The only real question is: Is it too late?

Ginns had earlier served as a board member.  Ginns told me his goals are to try to improve the semi-annual show and develop a plan to increase membership. 

I've been a member for a number of years, but gave up exhibiting because the show went down hill in terms of buyers.  Knowing Bryan, as I do, his nomination gives me hope.

For membership information, you can email: gfine@monmouth.com .

To reach Bryan (He has a great new photographica catalogue coming out shortly, as I pointed out in the last newsletter; anonymous London bidders take note.), you can email him at: The3DMan@aol.com .