MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Freestock  (Read 11713 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 05, 2010, 23:56 »
0
If you submit a series of images and two get rejected (perhaps the noise was a little high or the lighting a little less good or the focus a tad soft - sites are getting very persnickety about things). Do you really want to compete with yourself by having the free ones that were not quite good enough out there? How could that possibly be good for your business?

This is exactly what I was thinking.

I'd really like to see the performance data behind this free model. I get the idea but I question the benefits vs damage. Like how many freebie hunters get converted into paying buyers? How many images do they download for free versus pay for?

I feel for every image somebody gets for free that's one less image that gets paid for. One of us just lost a sale. The more "good enough" free images that exist for buyers the less they will buy. If there weren't any free images buyers would be forced to pay, take pictures themselves, or do without the image. If it's worth using it's worth paying something for. And again, isn't microstock cheap enough already?

Whenever you can get something for free that's "good enough" how often do pay for the upgraded version? Rarely?

I am not allowed to give because  too new here but one heart to PaulieWalnuts one heart to  jsnover  .

Only winners for free image is agency because agency can say we have 8 million pictures for you to use. 
But yes, I too believe free image is lost sale to creator and one more step in wrong direction for profitable business for stock contributor.  Much like moving in direction youtube for musicians and freeloader for movies.
If we support this , soon there will be no reason to pay photographers. Or maybe already this model exist.
I hope I make sense.


« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2010, 07:38 »
0
A couple of people invited made the point it may be because they have a low acceptance rate. I'm about 85% acceptance on SS and 9 out of 10 rejections I get make sense once I have checked the image over - without having drunk too much wine the night before.

As for giving these rejections away for free? If an image is seen as not up to snuff I'm not sure I want my name attached to it any longer.....and If I think it is and SS got it wrong, I'll sell it elsewhere.

« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2010, 11:03 »
0
A couple of people invited made the point it may be because they have a low acceptance rate. I'm about 85% acceptance on SS and 9 out of 10 rejections I get make sense once I have checked the image over - without having drunk too much wine the night before.

As for giving these rejections away for free? If an image is seen as not up to snuff I'm not sure I want my name attached to it any longer.....and If I think it is and SS got it wrong, I'll sell it elsewhere.

Same for me. Shutterstock rejection is always I agree because when like you say-make sense once I have checked the image over - without having drunk too much wine the night before.  It is not leaning on personal opinion that is shaky like we don't think this is stock material,etc that can smell doubtful.
Same with IStock rejection, always you agree. You make correction and re-submit and it approve.

But yes, if is not up to snuff, I too don't want my name attached even for free.  I think everyone here is thinking same ie. not a good idea to give free.

« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2010, 11:18 »
0
Come on guys, "free" doesn't really mean free.  It just means no commissions have to be paid.  

The idea is to accumulate an ever-growing collection of images for which no commission has to be paid - and then, SS is free to find ways to "monetize" that collection.  One obvious way is advertising - buyers will have to look at ads to get their free images. Another way would be through a subscription plan that is extremely low-cost and only gives access to the commission-free images.   The plan would be called something else, of course, to maintain the "free" fiction. It might be a "search application", or a membership, but whatever it's called, it means the agency gets income without paying commissions.

We get fame and recognition, of course.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2010, 12:19 by stockastic »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #29 on: June 06, 2010, 11:37 »
0
Come on guys, "free" doesn't really mean free.  It just means no commissions have to be paid.   The idea is to accumulate and ever-growing collection of images for which no commission has to be paid - and then, SS is free to find ways to "monetize" that collection.  One obvious way is advertising - buyers will have to look at ads to get their free images. Another way would be through a subscription plan that is extremely low-cost and only gives access to the commission-free images.   The plan would be called something else, of course, to maintain the "free" fiction. It might be a "search application", or a membership, but whatever it's called, it means the agency gets income without paying comissions. We get fame and recognition, of course.

That's another good point.

There are probably thousands of rejected contributors and millions of rejected images. Why not make freebie hunters stare at advertisements while they spend a ton of time looking for that gem among the junk. Buyer gets a free image, stock site gets ad revenue, contributor gets nothing.

The more I think about this the less benefit I see coming from it for all of us. Prices, commissions, and sales volume need to go up. This accomplishes none of those.

« Reply #30 on: June 06, 2010, 11:42 »
0
Come on guys, "free" doesn't really mean free.  It just means no commissions have to be paid.   The idea is to accumulate and ever-growing collection of images for which no commission has to be paid - and then, SS is free to find ways to "monetize" that collection.  One obvious way is advertising - buyers will have to look at ads to get their free images. Another way would be through a subscription plan that is extremely low-cost and only gives access to the commission-free images.   The plan would be called something else, of course, to maintain the "free" fiction. It might be a "search application", or a membership, but whatever it's called, it means the agency gets income without paying comissions. We get fame and recognition, of course.

That's another good point.

There are probably thousands of rejected contributors and millions of rejected images. Why not make freebie hunters stare at advertisements while they spend a ton of time looking for that gem among the junk. Buyer gets a free image, stock site gets ad revenue, contributor gets nothing.

The more I think about this the less benefit I see coming from it for all of us. Prices, commissions, and sales volume need to go up. This accomplishes none of those.

This exactly what I think , like free music and free movies. Only so the people who give free get points from movie and music downloads. Many countries consider illegal practice for copyright infringement. Now agencies for stock want to do same? 
I am sure it make money for agency and save money for freebie user. But PaulieWalnuts is right again.
We see no commission and still  Buyer gets a free image, stock site gets ad revenue, contributor gets nothing.

Not a good idea for me and you .

« Reply #31 on: June 06, 2010, 12:59 »
0
Or maybe buyer realizes how much time he or she wasted looking for that free image and decides to investigate those not free but awfully reasonable images linked from the free site.  The buyer does a little cogitation and comes to the conclusion that free isn't worth what he or she paid in terms of time and tedium.  I'm guessing that's the reasoning being hosting such a site.  Ad revenues alone don't justify building and marketing it.  Probably, anyway.

« Reply #32 on: June 06, 2010, 13:02 »
0
Or maybe buyer realizes how much time he or she wasted looking for that free image and decides to investigate those not free but awfully reasonable images linked from the free site.  The buyer does a little cogitation and comes to the conclusion that free isn't worth what he or she paid in terms of time and tedium.  I'm guessing that's the reasoning being hosting such a site.  Ad revenues alone don't justify building and marketing it.  Probably, anyway.

Good idea. So maybe it is good idea to dump crappy rejects to Free Section. Only we must remove contributor name so we can hide the shame , ha!ha!.

« Reply #33 on: June 06, 2010, 15:32 »
0
Come on guys, "free" doesn't really mean free.  It just means no commissions have to be paid.   The idea is to accumulate and ever-growing collection of images for which no commission has to be paid - and then, SS is free to find ways to "monetize" that collection.  One obvious way is advertising - buyers will have to look at ads to get their free images. Another way would be through a subscription plan that is extremely low-cost and only gives access to the commission-free images.   The plan would be called something else, of course, to maintain the "free" fiction. It might be a "search application", or a membership, but whatever it's called, it means the agency gets income without paying comissions. We get fame and recognition, of course.

That's another good point.

There are probably thousands of rejected contributors and millions of rejected images. Why not make freebie hunters stare at advertisements while they spend a ton of time looking for that gem among the junk. Buyer gets a free image, stock site gets ad revenue, contributor gets nothing.

The more I think about this the less benefit I see coming from it for all of us. Prices, commissions, and sales volume need to go up. This accomplishes none of those.

I agree with you both. There has to be money in it somewhere for the site.

Similarly, blogs used to provide a reader with information from that particular author. Now they have turned into moneymakers. The quality of the blog means nothing...all of the ads that surround the paragraph of information are the true reason for the blog...to make money for the blogger. It's not about the sharing of info anymore...it's all about money.

It is heading in the direction where there isn't going to be any actual product/content/information/images anymore...it's just a bunch of ads and people feeding off of each other.

« Reply #34 on: June 06, 2010, 15:51 »
0
If you submit a series of images and two get rejected (perhaps the noise was a little high or the lighting a little less good or the focus a tad soft - sites are getting very persnickety about things). Do you really want to compete with yourself by having the free ones that were not quite good enough out there? How could that possibly be good for your business?

This is exactly what I was thinking.

I'd really like to see the performance data behind this free model. I get the idea but I question the benefits vs damage. Like how many freebie hunters get converted into paying buyers? How many images do they download for free versus pay for?

I feel for every image somebody gets for free that's one less image that gets paid for. One of us just lost a sale. The more "good enough" free images that exist for buyers the less they will buy. If there weren't any free images buyers would be forced to pay, take pictures themselves, or do without the image. If it's worth using it's worth paying something for. And again, isn't microstock cheap enough already?

Whenever you can get something for free that's "good enough" how often do pay for the upgraded version? Rarely?

I agree, for many years people said micro wouldn't do anything because poor quality. But for plenty it was 'good enough' and then through competition the standards rose, but some of my best sellers are not 'great' images and in a number of cases rejected on one site, good seller on another.

My wife bought an image for her blog on the weekend, it cost a whole $1. I really dont see why we should give them away

« Reply #35 on: June 06, 2010, 17:29 »
0
To subscriptions and to SS, being a subs site, goes the customers very price-oriented, the ones that want spend less... and nothing is less that some cents. So, this peculiar "business move" will probably have inverted effects: they will lose a portion of customers, deligthed to discover that they can spend even less --nothing.

« Reply #36 on: June 07, 2010, 16:35 »
0
As a buyer I get it.  I go to the dumpster out back of the restaurant and pick through the garbage. I hear the good stuff is on the bottom. But if that stuff is too rotten I can always go in the front door and order from the menu. Thank goodness my time isn't worth anything.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3420 Views
Last post March 02, 2014, 22:31
by gbalex

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors