STOCKFUNNY, new site searching photographers!!

lthn

« Reply #25 on: September 03, 2011, 04:47 »

#link

Quote from: soma on September 03, 2011, 04:29

Hi friends,
yes I'm agree that the whole design style,logo, web, etc is not the best in the world maybe. They told me that they are working on it, that's only a sketch. But, you have an example with Canstockphoto, I think their design is horrible but I'm selling many licenses there, that's the most important for me

I have post this thread because I think it's an opportunity to enter a new site without any effort. If it doesn't work, OK, you haven't loose any time, but if it works (obviously in other level than Shutter, iStock...) I think it will have been well worth it.

All of us are free to decide what we do, but I think we should be respectful of the work and efforts of others, even if we don't like it.

Sorry for my english

I'll design a sleek site for you for a decent fee, beleive me. It will make other ms sites look like a msg board for toothless hillbillies, 'cmon


	Ignore \| Logged

lirch

« Reply #26 on: September 03, 2011, 04:59 »

#link

Nice site, just like photaki- in spanglish:)


	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #27 on: September 03, 2011, 05:04 »

#link

Quote from: soma on September 03, 2011, 04:29

The big difference is that Canstockphoto got in early, when there wasn't so much competition. It's an established site that has lots of buyers and is now owned by a big agency. There are very few sites launched in the past few years that have had any success because the market already has enough places selling the same images. They really have to be exceptional to stand any chance.

It's a big waste of time sending a DVD to a site that is highly unlikely to make enough sales for you to get your money. How much do you have to make to receive a payment? Can you really trust every new site with a DVD of your portfolio? They are probably legitimate but it's really hard to see how these sites make any money and that puts me off taking a risk.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #28 on: September 03, 2011, 06:39 »

#link

I don't want to be unfair so I clicked on "health" category of images. How can we (not mentioning buyers) take seriously agency that accept such a terrible images? I'm afraid that "Stock Funny" is the right name.


	Ignore \| Logged

click_click

« Reply #29 on: September 03, 2011, 11:42 »

#link

Everybody does business differently, obviously...

However, even at the point where the site is in beta and only accepts submissions before going live, it should represent to agency's professionalism in some way.

Whether that is by having a well designed site or displaying some big names that already signed up there, it has to have something that "attracts" new contributors.

Most importantly, I could not find the terms and commissions for contributors. It may be somewhere on the page, but I couldn't find it. That's bad.

I have no idea what the "cheap prices" are and what I will get as a contributor - why would I upload to a place like that?

This will literally only attract amateurs who want to be surprised that their images will actually sell for who knows how much and they receive 80% of what? 25 cents per sale? Cheap price, how commission -> net revenue for the contributor = $0.20

I tried to make that point with Canstock as well.

If I get
50% of a $5 sale ($2.50 for the highest resolution) at Canstock
or
15% of a 30 credit sale ($7.00 for an XXXL Photo+) at iStock I'll take iStock's sale any day.

We need numbers.


	Ignore \| Logged

Noedelhap

« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2011, 04:44 »

#link

Any company with a logo and brand that uses the Hobo font, is not to be taken seriously. Bad logo design, bad site design, bad images. No thanks.


	Ignore \| Logged

lthn

« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2011, 08:25 »

#link

Quote from: Noedelhap on September 05, 2011, 04:44

Any company with a logo and brand that uses the Hobo font, is not to be taken seriously. Bad logo design, bad site design, bad images. No thanks.

how 'bout comic sans? thats a funny font for a funny site : )


	Ignore \| Logged

Morphart

« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2011, 10:16 »

#link

Quote from: soma on September 03, 2011, 04:29

It's sometimes good to know about new sites... but let the site owners come and answer our questions here. Unless you have a great and fruitful experience why would you want to share it? Like many said, there are tons of ''new'' site, and if you stick to their promotional pitch hell we should all be rich by now.

I think that there is a hell of a different approach and marketing from Canstockphoto than Stockclown here. First the name. Canstock not flashy, but at least looks a bit more serious

. Stockfunny is a really bad name, they offer translation but the site is not translated well... or some part not at all.

As a client, I wouldn't be inclined to spend my money there. I say let them settle and prove they can do better, myself like many other is not convinced at all by this first impression... and first impressions are hard to change once they are done. If you have to start something at least start it right, or in the right track... they will need to change track and the whole train now, not sure it will go far.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: STOCKFUNNY, new site searching photographers!!

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results