Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2010, 12:42

Login with username, password and session length

Microstock Group - A meeting place for microstock photographers

Microstockgroup Sponsors

PantherMedia.net

« previous next »
Poll
Question: Would it work?
Yes - 0 (0%)
No - 8 (57.1%)
Maybe - 2 (14.3%)
Yes with the money to promote it. - 0 (0%)
Worth a try but risky - 4 (28.6%)
Total Voters: 13

Pages: [1] Print

Topic: Scratch and Dent Photos?  

(Read 903 times)
cshack


« on: May 30, 2008, 14:58 »

Scratch and Dent Photos?

I was asked by a friend about an idea he had for a bargain basement stock site for everyday folks and small web designers.  What he has put together is a site (not public yet) that will offer images for below micro prices.  The catch is the images will be only those rejected by the other sites.  Sounds kind of odd to me but I was listening.  I told him that I had no idea but it would be tough to make any money because the market is already flooded with stock sites.  He wants to offer images that a sub par to the current standards.  He also would sell images for as low as .25 USD.  He also said he had a process where images with noise and artifacts etc would be downsized by the reviewers to make them acceptable.  The image would be priced according to size only.  The smallest size would be 300x200 for 25 cents.  As the size goes up the price follows up to $2.00.  He wants to offer 70%  commission to the contributors. 

This much I do know, the guy is a good photographer and web designer.  He has the money to do Google, Yahoo and Ask for sponsored search and several magazines for web developers. 

One idea he had was to open up the world to photos taken at higher ISO like 1600 and size them down a bit to allow those images to be sold at lower prices.  I did like that part.  I have a lot of shots that don’t pass that wouldn’t pass the review process at any or very few sites because of noise.  However they still make great small web images.

I told him that I would ask the question and see what the community thought about it.  Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks   


Ignore | Logged


Pixmac Snapixel.com
sjlocke


« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2008, 15:28 »

That's called iStockphoto, 2003.  Guess what happened...  It had to evolve to what the market wanted.

Offering crap images for a $.25 is no way to start a business.  Unless he's just looking for a way to lose some money.


Ignore | Logged


anonymous


« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2008, 15:53 »

Hell, who knows..it might fly. The difficult part would be the potential for the site to be inundated with REALLY bad stuff. He would have to set some kind of bar for acceptance. As a web designer, I've frequently had to go outside of the "Big 6" to find the content needed to complete a project. That being said, I would think there is a market for lower rez images (for web, and maybe even print) that are passed on by bigger agencies. I would certainly check it out both as a designer and photographer, but that's just me.

Hope the .02 cents helps.


Ignore | Logged


whatalife



« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2008, 16:07 »

.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2008, 08:33 by bittersweet »

Ignore | Logged


j2k


« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2008, 16:08 »

Personally I think that photos right now are cheaper than necessary. If a designer can not afford to spend a few dollars on a photograph, then they are in the wrong business.

Besides who would like sub par images even if they cost 25 cents? Just go to fli*r and look for images with cc licence for free.

I see that crapstock.com already exist, would that be the future home of this idea?? Smiley


Ignore | Logged


cshack


« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2008, 16:24 »

I see that crapstock.com already exist, would that be the future home of this idea?? Smiley


Nope that's not it.  The name he chose sounds much better but delivers the same message.


Ignore | Logged


whatalife



« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2008, 16:27 »

crapvillage?



Ignore | Logged


leaf
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2008, 16:33 »

why would he resize the images down.  If people knew that it had lots of grain but still wanted the image why should´t they be able to buy it.  wouldn´t that be the whole point of the site, to offer images that otherwise would be unacceptable.  if you resize the images you are then trying to make them acceptable again.

not sure it would fly... but you never know.


Ignore | Logged


anonymous


« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2008, 17:03 »

Personally I think that photos right now are cheaper than necessary. If a designer can not afford to spend a few dollars on a photograph, then they are in the wrong business.

Besides who would like sub par images even if they cost 25 cents? Just go to fli*r and look for images with cc licence for free.

I see that crapstock.com already exist, would that be the future home of this idea?? Smiley

devil's advocate: The prices they're discussing are in line with all of the existing micros. A great conceptual photo that suffers from technical problems (i.e. shot down by most agencies) may be exactly what a designer is looking for, so, the concept is feasable. I'm a believer in "more options" are better than "less options" as far as the consumer is concerned. Again, I'm a designer by trade. To have more choices is a value-add for me. I'm solid in Photoshop...I can take "unusable" photos and make them into exactly what the client wants. Flickr is as boring to me as any other vanity site..never go there (no dis intended J2K).


Ignore | Logged


bendicks



« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2008, 20:47 »

Hi All, new here and 1st post.

I see a market for the idea.

I see in above posts designers are mentioned, well there are millions and millions of people out there that put together their own website, myspace page and so on and they need images.

If you were to advertise at places like godaddy (domain registration), myspace and places like these you would pick up the the amateur website designers, mom and pop websites and people that need images, backgrounds and such for their myspace page.

These people don't even know that microstock exists. And most of them wouldn't know a technically perfect image if it bit them.

I know I've been there.

Prior to March of this year I did not know about Microstock. I have been doing my own web stuff since the late 90's and if I knew I could get an image of whatever type I needed it sure would have made things easier.

Advertised in the right places and I think it could work.

-Don


Ignore | Logged


PaulieWalnuts



« Reply #10 on: May 30, 2008, 23:13 »

And by "friend" you mean you, right?  Wink

You could try it but I don't see a future for this. I think below where microstock is today are the free sites. Are buyers really that cash strapped that they need a crappy image for $2 as opposed to a really good one for $5?

And does the image need to be "exclusively" rejected. Meaning, every single other possible site rejected it before it will be accepted?


Ignore | Logged


Royalty Free Images
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
photos.com
New Sites - General
dbvirago 6 2500 Last post October 02, 2006, 05:02
by pelmof
Photos.com
General Stock Discussion
jcpjr 2 705 Last post March 31, 2007, 23:32
by a.k.a.-tom
photos.com
New Sites - General
fleitao 1 769 Last post July 05, 2007, 20:00
by steve-oh
SXP / Photos.Com « 1 2 »
StockXpert.com
Pixart 26 4458 Last post August 04, 2008, 21:05
by dgilder
6 pictures that aren't up to scratch but I cannot take forward- please comment
Photo Critique
bosharpe 18 1715 Last post March 03, 2010, 14:47
by WarrenPrice

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc