but who's to blame for that? definitely not the sites.
we submit what we want. if we mass submit to everyone, we shoot ourselves in the foot and this is what happens in the end.
To a degree I will agree... but only a small degree. The primary fault didn't lay with the photogs, it was the site. I understand your point completely, however, it doesn't correlate with the fact that I can sell the same pic on SS for 30 cents, 50 cents on StockXpert and $2.50 on IS and $5.00 on Alamy [ !!!!! MODIFIED: CORRECTION, I meant to say FP, NOT Alamy. Sorry ] People are going to pay what they want. Are there hard core 'shoppers' out there that'll jump site to site? Yeah, but most buyers are satisfied shopping in one place. The buyers I know usually shop only at their fav one or two agencies. They don't look all over and they are happy to pay what they usually pay. They are looking for a specific image.
On the other had if a guy publishing a book on the Grand Canyon wanted a quick and easy source for a variety of Grand Canyon pictures, dozens or even hundreds, he could have got them all
in just my portfolio on NLS (or other photogs there). I don't have a large Grand Canyon portfolio on SS, IS, DT, etc. Why? Because they don't want them. "too many on site" "not stock material" "not a big need for this".
NLS was supposed to be a 'nature' site. It was supposed to cater to specific groups, a select target,... scientists, naturalists, environmental agencies, etc. Not account execs at an ad agency. They started out great, faithful to that niche, but soon, everything started showing up there. It quickly digressed into another something for everyone site.
Photogs started uploading everything they had there simply because
the site allowed it. They could have rejected a picture of a blond eating cheesecake, a guy talking on a phone, a secretary typing on a computer as... "not NLS stock material" "no need for this on NLS", but they didn't and in a matter of weeks it started looking like SS, IS, DT, etc and worse, not at 25, 30 or 2.50, but $6 bucks.
They shot themselves in the foot. NLS wound up with photogs that weren't nature/landscape photographers at all. It went from a site that had a lot of potential to serve the needs of exclusive communities that
would pay more... to another upstart free-for-all with everything at a price that then became ridiculous.
Only they would know their financial condition. But it is pretty much a well known fact that one year is not sufficient time to get a business like that operational, let alone profitable. 12 months is not enough time to become an established provider of niche photography.
To your point, that is why most of us have two different portfolios for micro and macro. Agree to your point, if a photog is placing the same pic on micro and macro, yeah, that's not the best decision in MHO also. It doesn't make business sense to have the same pix on both. That is the photog shooting him/herself in the foot. And really not professional in their relationship with the organization that is now unknowingly featuring micro images on their macro site.
But, to have the same pix spread across the micro world... makes perfect sense to me. In the case of NLS, they wanted to be a boutique agency. They should have stuck to that. They should have policed what they accepted. They didn't by choice, only known to them.
Again, they shot themselves in the foot. ..... I'm tired, hope that made sense.
=tom
Just to reiterate... I liked NLS. I was disappointed to see the direction the company portfolio took and I'm sorry to see they had to throw in the towel so soon.
