pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Picfair Raises $520K To Take On Getty  (Read 15537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2014, 22:19 »
-5
You're simply dead set on believing microstock cannot be affected by a boycott, though boycotts have been effective against all sorts of businesses, governments, prejudice, you name it...

Of course boycotts work in other industries. They just don't seem to work in microstock. We can't organize and rally around a boycott with much more than a quarter of the contributor base, and we're in an industry where these companies could lose half of their contributors tomorrow and still stay in business. A successful boycott in microstock would require a lot more than 50% of us to take part, which will never happen.

...You're also dead set on believing that if we can't shut a site down within five minutes any effort we make is completely useless...

You're right there. Any effort to shut down a site is useless. Shutting down a site is impossible. No way could we ever organize a boycott or protest big enough to do that.

...I'm just very glad so many others here don't share your defeatist attitude.

If "defeatist" means that I've given up on the idea of shutting down DPC through image opt-outs, a strategy that has already failed as the image count is rising at DPC, then sure, I'll wear that badge proudly.


Ron

« Reply #26 on: June 10, 2014, 02:35 »
+5
DPC boycot hasnt failed at all

« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2014, 05:15 »
+1

...You're also dead set on believing that if we can't shut a site down within five minutes any effort we make is completely useless...

You're right there. Any effort to shut down a site is useless. Shutting down a site is impossible. No way could we ever organize a boycott or protest big enough to do that.
Many companies find themselves tottering on the edge of extinction for all sorts of reasons. It sometimes only takes a tiny push to send them over the edge. In those circumstances, a boycott that could be laughed off by a solid, healthy company could prove fatal for one that is struggling.

So you simply don't know whether or not it would be possible to shut down any given site.

Look at the section here on sites that have died. Obviously, they were all on the edge for a while before they gave up and a sharp push in the last few months of their existence would probably have finished them off early. So in theory it IS possible for external action to shut down a site. Look at the debt burden on Getty Images and the rating agency's reaction to Getty's failure to meet its projections for earnings growth - just being big doesn't mean there aren't financial storm clouds on the horizon.

I'm not advocating trying to close sites, just saying that in some instances action could lead to closure.


Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2014, 06:10 »
+4
You're simply dead set on believing microstock cannot be affected by a boycott, though boycotts have been effective against all sorts of businesses, governments, prejudice, you name it...

Of course boycotts work in other industries. They just don't seem to work in microstock. We can't organize and rally around a boycott with much more than a quarter of the contributor base, and we're in an industry where these companies could lose half of their contributors tomorrow and still stay in business. A successful boycott in microstock would require a lot more than 50% of us to take part, which will never happen.

...You're also dead set on believing that if we can't shut a site down within five minutes any effort we make is completely useless...

You're right there. Any effort to shut down a site is useless. Shutting down a site is impossible. No way could we ever organize a boycott or protest big enough to do that.

...I'm just very glad so many others here don't share your defeatist attitude.

If "defeatist" means that I've given up on the idea of shutting down DPC through image opt-outs, a strategy that has already failed as the image count is rising at DPC, then sure, I'll wear that badge proudly.

Well, be proud wearing that badge of "only the most extreme outcome counts as success." To me, just the fact that Fotolia was pressured into an opt out is success. That means people who rely on their Fotolia earnings haven't been forced to decide between either allowing their images to sell for a dollar or closing their FT account completely and forfeiting that income.

How you don't see that as a win is beyond me.

Tror

« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2014, 06:28 »
+3
Great news! Benji is a great guy and if he makes it there will be a very friendly agency option for us contributors. I wish him all the best - and a efficient FTP/IPTC processor :D

« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2014, 08:36 »
-1
Well, be proud wearing that badge of "only the most extreme outcome counts as success." To me, just the fact that Fotolia was pressured into an opt out is success. That means people who rely on their Fotolia earnings haven't been forced to decide between either allowing their images to sell for a dollar or closing their FT account completely and forfeiting that income.

How you don't see that as a win is beyond me.

You and Paul have something in common. You both seem to enjoy suggesting that I've said things I've never actually said.

To reiterate (yet again), I've always supported other efforts to push back DPC. I've used that exact phrase, "push back". Not "shut down", which I think is impossible anyway.

I never said that the opt-out wasn't a good thing. Feel free to quote me if you think that I did.

« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2014, 09:36 »
+1
Of course boycotts work in other industries. They just don't seem to work in microstock. We can't organize and rally around a boycott with much more than a quarter of the contributor base, and we're in an industry where these companies could lose half of their contributors tomorrow and still stay in business. A successful boycott in microstock would require a lot more than 50% of us to take part, which will never happen.

I would say the most successful boycott would probably involve both contributors and buyers.

« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2014, 09:37 »
+1
I think it's because we can see nothing's going to play out differently than any others who have tried to start the exact same thing in the past.  It's a site that accepts any image that comes in and wants to payout %80 of the sales which means no money for marketing or improvements.  It's just nothing new, so we can see the end of the story.

actually its 100% for the photographer

Yes, the 20% is added on top. So, if you price an image at 5, the buyer will pay roughly 6.40. 5 to you, 1 (the 20%) to Picfair, and 0.40 to Stripe, who process our payments.

(Benji reply)

« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2014, 11:05 »
0
Do they still have that upload limit of 210 images / account?

Started uploading, not bad but they need to allow more images than that.

Also the license they offer is kinda like an extended lease, so I didn't put anything below 10.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2014, 11:08 by Nikovsk »

« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2014, 11:21 »
0
It would be really nice to have IPTC read...

« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2014, 12:58 »
+1
I think it's because we can see nothing's going to play out differently than any others who have tried to start the exact same thing in the past.  It's a site that accepts any image that comes in and wants to payout %80 of the sales which means no money for marketing or improvements.  It's just nothing new, so we can see the end of the story.

actually its 100% for the photographer

Semantics.  Of the price a buyer pays, the contributor gets 80% and the agency gets %20.  Well 83 and 17 but same idea.

« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2014, 13:32 »
+1
I think it's because we can see nothing's going to play out differently than any others who have tried to start the exact same thing in the past.  It's a site that accepts any image that comes in and wants to payout %80 of the sales which means no money for marketing or improvements.  It's just nothing new, so we can see the end of the story.

actually its 100% for the photographer

Yes, the 20% is added on top. So, if you price an image at 5, the buyer will pay roughly 6.40. 5 to you, 1 (the 20%) to Picfair, and 0.40 to Stripe, who process our payments.

(Benji reply)

That's one way to look at it - 20% added on top.

As a buyer, I'd prefer to just see the price I pay not some price and a bunch of fees to be added (which is more like renting a car from the airport - $100 for the car and $70 in taxes/recovery charges/etc).

If the buyer's price is 6.40, taken as a percentage of the total paid, the photographer gets 78.1% the agency 15.6% and the payment processor 6.3%

It's a bit worse for a 3.00 image (76.9, 15.4, 7.7) and a bit better for a 50 image (80.7, 16.15, 3.15) because the Stripe fee isn't linear (0.30 and 1.94 respectively).

But if that 50 surfing image were ever to find a buyer, seeing 50 on the search page and then discovering it's really 61.94 would be off-putting, IMO - it's a lot more money

« Reply #37 on: June 11, 2014, 15:04 »
0
Jo Ann, I would guess that the buyer sees the total price, not the photographer's share. But it's only a guess.

« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2014, 15:14 »
0
They say that promotional use is okay - and yet promotional use of many of these images would be problematic. That makes no sense. And they say that they are hoping to revisit the licensing later.

It's not serious. It's bizarre that anyone has given them money. Bubble economy still.

« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2014, 18:41 »
+1
Jo Ann, I would guess that the buyer sees the total price, not the photographer's share. But it's only a guess.

I used the site to check those things I posted. I don't have an account there (and don't plan to either buy or contribute). As far as they knew, I was a buyer.

I acted as I think a buyer would and clicked buy but then cancelled the purchase before paying. You see three items on the page where the price is totaled - the teaser you saw in the search, the PicFair fee and the payment fee.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
123 Replies
56377 Views
Last post August 10, 2016, 17:33
by shiyali
20 Replies
9051 Views
Last post December 09, 2014, 15:57
by Ariene
12 Replies
7939 Views
Last post January 31, 2015, 05:42
by DennisJacobsen
4 Replies
2774 Views
Last post October 29, 2017, 21:20
by oscarcwilliams
41 Replies
19676 Views
Last post February 14, 2020, 02:50
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors