MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Free: The Future of a Radical Price"  (Read 22350 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 15, 2009, 18:09 »
0
I was reading the other day about the book "Free: The Future of a Radical Price", by Chris Anderson, from Wired magazine.  He has been recently in Brazil for the launch if his book.

He discusses the effect that free things in Internet - legal free things such as online newspapers, search tools, website hosting, YouTube, etc - has on the consumers' behaviour. 

One example he discussed here (I don't know if it's in his book as well) is the Brazilian band Calypso that is very popular in Northern and Notheastern Brazil.  They distribute their own CDs and allow street vendors to copy them and resell these copies.  Their CDs are in regular stores at affordable prices as well.  They make money not from their CDs, but from concerts, which are always crowded because their songs are played in all sorts of popular places thanks to the cheap/free CDs.  This has proven a profitable business model - they even have their own private jet. 

I wonder if they would be able to make more money if they were with a big record company behind them.  Their CDs would cost more, would still be pirated like everyone else's, so in the end how much would they actually get?

Anyway, this is something to think about: giving something for free to advertise yourself (not the free photos we have in some agencies!).  Imagine having bookmarks with a nice image on them given away free by a local bookstore, with a link to your website were people would be able to buy prints, posters, photo books...  There would be a cost of course in printing these bookmarks, and perhaps some agreement with the bookstore, but would sales generated from this advertisement prove profitable? 


« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2009, 19:05 »
0
Interesting.  I think 'free' is where microstock really wants to be.  When buyers see millions of images available for pennies - from multiple sources - they realize that  there's basically an enormous oversupply.

Eventually some big microstock is going to throw in the towel and start giving away the images,  and run ads on the search pages. Contributors will get nothing - but of course, we'll make it up on the increased volume of sales... :) 

« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2009, 20:43 »
0
Moo cards? (where applicable)

« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2009, 22:01 »
0
Interesting.  I think 'free' is where microstock really wants to be.  When buyers see millions of images available for pennies - from multiple sources - they realize that  there's basically an enormous oversupply.

Eventually some big microstock is going to throw in the towel and start giving away the images,  and run ads on the search pages. Contributors will get nothing - but of course, we'll make it up on the increased volume of sales... :) 


the tighter the entry and criteria for rejection gets the more likely it is to happen. there was a site a while back trying to focus on the rejected images (cant remember details though). sxc has 400k+ images. how many people would be upset if flickr said we're running ads and give you a percentage of the revenue. I think they'll end up free, just a matter of time

« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2009, 22:27 »
0
Interesting.  I think 'free' is where microstock really wants to be.  When buyers see millions of images available for pennies - from multiple sources - they realize that  there's basically an enormous oversupply.

Eventually some big microstock is going to throw in the towel and start giving away the images,  and run ads on the search pages. Contributors will get nothing - but of course, we'll make it up on the increased volume of sales... :) 


Oversupply of what? Images no one needs? That I CAN SEE. Markets change - so does stock photography, collections always have a shortage of images that customers are actually looking for. As for giving stuff away for free, somehow, someway, they have to make money or they will close. Simple as that.

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2009, 08:39 »
0
I was reading the other day about the book "Free: The Future of a Radical Price", by Chris Anderson, from Wired magazine.  He has been recently in Brazil for the launch if his book.

He discusses the effect that free things in Internet - legal free things such as online newspapers, search tools, website hosting, YouTube, etc - has on the consumers' behaviour. 

One example he discussed here (I don't know if it's in his book as well) is the Brazilian band Calypso that is very popular in Northern and Notheastern Brazil.  They distribute their own CDs and allow street vendors to copy them and resell these copies.  Their CDs are in regular stores at affordable prices as well.  They make money not from their CDs, but from concerts, which are always crowded because their songs are played in all sorts of popular places thanks to the cheap/free CDs.  This has proven a profitable business model - they even have their own private jet. 

I wonder if they would be able to make more money if they were with a big record company behind them.  Their CDs would cost more, would still be pirated like everyone else's, so in the end how much would they actually get?

Anyway, this is something to think about: giving something for free to advertise yourself (not the free photos we have in some agencies!).  Imagine having bookmarks with a nice image on them given away free by a local bookstore, with a link to your website were people would be able to buy prints, posters, photo books...  There would be a cost of course in printing these bookmarks, and perhaps some agreement with the bookstore, but would sales generated from this advertisement prove profitable? 


yes,

it's the future of microstock : free images, no copyright, and few bucks $ coming from advertising or revenue sharing.
be prepared, as in 2-3 years this will be the norm.

« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2009, 09:02 »
0
Wrong, wrong and wrong!

That will never happen...

Always good photo will have price...

« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2009, 10:36 »
0
Always good photo will have price...

But with millions of free photos available - not necessarily "good", but "good enough" for the buyer's purposes...

We aready have Junk Food. Are we entering the era of Junk Images?




Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2009, 10:50 »
0
Always good photo will have price...

But with millions of free photos available - not necessarily "good", but "good enough" for the buyer's purposes...

We aready have Junk Food. Are we entering the era of Junk Images?

we already entered the junk images era : it's called microstock.


« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2009, 12:28 »
0
Wrong, wrong and wrong!

That will never happen...

Always good photo will have price...

wrong.
there's plenty of good photos on micros and they're sold for 5$ each and you
get paid 0.20$ ...

tell me ONE reason they should pay you more than today.
if anything, they'll raise their own commission and lowering yours,
there's 1000s of microstockers knocking at their doors every day,
they're grabbing you by the balls and all you can do is complaining in a forum.

Why more than 80 % of new microstockers never reach first payout?
Because they think that too much effort for "too little money"..
I future will be 95 %...

In every young industry comes to the phase of falling earnings for "workers" , and phase branding and filtering ...
In fact ,Professionalism comes in every segment where you can earn money...

Follows the phase of establishment and strengthening of  "Microstock Photographers Association", and even the establishment of new microstock agencies by  "brand microstockers"...
After filtering,will come times when microstock agencies will pray you to incorporate your portfolio on their site...
One day they will start to offer more and more in percent for every good photographer...
Because, with further development of the Internet, you will not need the agency to sell photos and get money,some other services will make marketing for you...

Marketing and advertising always need a photography...

I saw this steps in some other but similar industries, where afer some period you don't need agencies any more for your business.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2009, 12:34 by borg »

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2009, 12:42 »
0
exactly.

too much work, and too few money.
that's why i only sell RM.

if you wait for micros to raise your royalties, hahaha, you'll wait a looong time my dear.
you better stop microing and join some serious RM agency instead.

ask yourself how many pros are selling on micros ?
none, because they have very good reasons.

the biggest stockers all sell RM for a simple reason : it pays the right price
and it pays more, period.


« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2009, 12:44 »
0
Always good photo will have price...

But with millions of free photos available - not necessarily "good", but "good enough" for the buyer's purposes...

We aready have Junk Food. Are we entering the era of Junk Images?


Also I can find new cotton t-shirt for 10 $ for me, but my wife will buy 10 times more expensive, because one reason, "name of company" on it...
Both are t-shirts... ;)

« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2009, 12:47 »
0
too much work, and too few money.
that's why i only sell RM.

Maybe you're looking for rightsmanagedstockgroup.com then, eh?

« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2009, 12:51 »
0
exactly.

too much work, and too few money.
that's why i only sell RM.

if you wait for micros to raise your royalties, hahaha, you'll wait a looong time my dear.
you better stop microing and join some serious RM agency instead.

ask yourself how many pros are selling on micros ?
none, because they have very good reasons.

the biggest stockers all sell RM for a simple reason : it pays the right price
and it pays more, period.




Maybe You have right, but microstock has different license for their users, RM sells "originality", purchased image is only your...
Search and needs are not always on originality, but on the brand is much more frequently....

I think that the process of growth of earnings will be faster,maybe it already started...

Please read "download  per image" by LEE THORENS...
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/page/6
« Last Edit: August 16, 2009, 13:14 by borg »

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2009, 13:38 »
0
wrong.

RM == rights managed, it doesn't imply what "right" exactly, it means the buyer can
track who bought that picture before and for what use etc, it doesnt mean it cant
be resold.

and you can sell as RM or L (licenced), not just RM, you can choose
which continent or country to sell, you can sell it "editorial only", and much more.

this is the way everything should be and the way it was before the appearance of micros.

with RF you've no choice on nothing, buyers can do whatever they do, they can pay you 1$
for a cover of TIME magazine or use the image of your wife for advertising an escort service...

« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2009, 13:45 »
0
wrong.

RM == rights managed, it doesn't imply what "right" exactly, it means the buyer can
track who bought that picture before and for what use etc, it doesnt mean it cant
be resold.

and you can sell as RM or L (licenced), not just RM, you can choose
which continent or country to sell, you can sell it "editorial only", and much more.

this is the way everything should be and the way it was before the appearance of micros.

with RF you've no choice on nothing, buyers can do whatever they do, they can pay you 1$
for a cover of TIME magazine or use the image of your wife for advertising an escort service...


If you sold an image (RM), does it still visible in your portfolio and ready to another sale...?

« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2009, 13:48 »
0
with RF you've no choice on nothing, buyers can do whatever they do, they can pay you 1$
for a cover of TIME magazine or use the image of your wife for advertising an escort service...

Sergey,
You are so wrong on many points, there are limitations of use on a Microstock Licence, it cannot be used in many ways, do a bit of research!

You only sell RM which suits you, others here prefer RF which suits them, you are inviting all the RF photographers to change to RM, if they did this that would dilute your revenue so best keep it a secret for now.

You may think we are micro fools, but I like many others here do upload our RM images to Alamy, I assume that is why you are quoting the 'L' license, we can see the value of both models and realise that different images suit different agencies, so we have a finger in both pies, instead of in our ears.

David  ::)  
« Last Edit: August 16, 2009, 13:51 by Adeptris »


Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2009, 14:07 »
0
yes, i see you like microfools.

your only legitimate excuse is that some types of images only sell well on micros,
in that case do whatever you feel pays more.

as for me i do mainly travel editorial so RM is the best choice by far,
i would never sell much on micros and even if it did i dont wanna
dirt my hands with a dozen fly by night micro agencies.
 
but money apart, no microstocker so far agreed that micros just
dont pay the right price, that's the biggest drawback reading this forum.

there is a point where you better NOT sell your images rather than spend
time selling it for peanuts and that point has been already reached by micros
a long time ago.

0.20$ for an image ? is it a joke ?
on RM the cheapest i sold was 50$.

this is the price i'm willing to sell, for less than that i better get another job or another hobby
and so you should too but you're blinded by the microstock virus, you feel micros are
the new frontier, the new eldorado.

micros are the biggest ripoff in the history of photography, either you get it or you dont.

« Reply #18 on: August 16, 2009, 15:26 »
0
exactly.

too much work, and too few money.
that's why i only sell RM.

if you wait for micros to raise your royalties, hahaha, you'll wait a looong time my dear.
you better stop microing and join some serious RM agency instead.

ask yourself how many pros are selling on micros ?
none, because they have very good reasons.

the biggest stockers all sell RM for a simple reason : it pays the right price
and it pays more, period.



quite a number of pros selling on both macro and micro

« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2009, 15:35 »
0
I think you got my post completely wrong.  I am not talking about free images or near-free images.  It's about giving things for free in order to attract customers, like the example of the band.  It's not about giving away photos to sell photos, but for instance distributing postcards or bookmarks that people will enjoy having and may in return be attracted by other products by that person.

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: August 16, 2009, 16:29 »
0
I think you got my post completely wrong.  I am not talking about free images or near-free images.  It's about giving things for free in order to attract customers, like the example of the band.  It's not about giving away photos to sell photos, but for instance distributing postcards or bookmarks that people will enjoy having and may in return be attracted by other products by that person.

it's still "indirect marketing".

are you selling photos or postcards ?

years ago i did the same making a travel blog with lots of photos
in order to sell my e-book.

as it turned out, i made some money with advertising and sold
very few ebooks, and many of my images got stolen despite the watermark.

on top of that i received 5 offers from travel magazines and newspapers
to use my images for free (!) .. "we can't reward your work but we'll credit you and your web site" ..
*, and one of them was a well known magazine that is not starving nor going bankrupt soon.
 
as far as i'm concerned, it pays much more if you're fast to go out and shoot instead
of "promoting" here and there ... of course you can potentially make big bucks even with
travel photoblogs but it takes too much time and dedication in the end.

moreover,i see plenty of portfolios around selling also their own stock.
now tell me, unless it's 100% automated how much time it will take to reply to the client,
giving him a link to the hires image, agree on the payment, price, etc ?

it's just not gonna happen.
if you like this way then better upload your whole portfolio on Flickr with a watermark
linking to your site for stock and prints, if you're lucky you'll fish the random sale every here and then
but once again is it worth it ?

there are 100 ways to promote your pics but none is working as good as putting your pics
on a stock agency and counting the money flowing in, fact !

as a stocker i don't give a sh-it about who's the buyer and yadda yadda, i don't even
need a portfolio if that matter nor a web site, i don't need promotion at all actually
as the only reason i do stock is because someone else (my RM agencies) provide
the market and the clients for which they eat their generous fee.

10.000 pics dont pay enough ?
good, then make 20.000, or 30.000.
*, there's people with 100.000 pics for sale and they're mostly rubbish.

if they can do it, we can all do it.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2009, 16:38 by Sergey »

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #21 on: August 16, 2009, 16:47 »
0
exactly.

too much work, and too few money.
that's why i only sell RM.

if you wait for micros to raise your royalties, hahaha, you'll wait a looong time my dear.
you better stop microing and join some serious RM agency instead.

ask yourself how many pros are selling on micros ?
none, because they have very good reasons.

the biggest stockers all sell RM for a simple reason : it pays the right price
and it pays more, period.



quite a number of pros selling on both macro and micro

but not the top pros.

and yes, i could sell micros as well, actually it was the reason for which i
came in this forum initially.

but i concluded it's not worth the hassle.
i rather focus on making more pictures in my field and forget
about wasting time with shooting food, textures, patterns, etc

after all it makes sense, just do what you do best, dont mess
with the rest unless it pays well.

« Reply #22 on: August 16, 2009, 16:56 »
0
as for me i do mainly travel editorial so RM is the best choice by far,
i would never sell much on micros and even if it did i dont wanna
dirt my hands with a dozen fly by night micro agencies.

Ah, "travel editorial", aka "un-released vacation snapshots".  Are you sure you want all the other travelers around the world uploading to RM?  You'd probably never make a sale then...

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2009, 17:12 »
0
as for me i do mainly travel editorial so RM is the best choice by far,
i would never sell much on micros and even if it did i dont wanna
dirt my hands with a dozen fly by night micro agencies.

Ah, "travel editorial", aka "un-released vacation snapshots".  Are you sure you want all the other travelers around the world uploading to RM?  You'd probably never make a sale then...

well in case you never noticed most of the travel editorials have always been and always will be in RM.
and dont think millions of pics are enough, try for instance to search for a specific area of your city
or a specific event and see what i mean.

micros will never beat the variety of RM agencies/

as for the other travelers you overestimate them.
most of them are casual shooters and quite slow
and overcritic on their work, then they go home and spend
nights on photoshop, and guess what ? they sell zero
or not enough to justify the whole waste of time.

too much photographers are overdemanding and overcritic
and too much focused on their gear and the technical side
of imaging.

and i can tell you, 90% of the "holiday shooters" are shy
and so you rarely see good ethnic portraits or they're pityfuly
staged.

so what ? they end up shooting the usual boring touristic
spots that millions of people shot before them.

conclusion : very nice pics, very few sales due to enormous
competition.

i instead focus on people, street people if possible, and i go
straight in the people's face, some say my style is "slash and burn" :)

but it gets the job done and you end up meeting lots of bizarre people,
i like it, even if it can get a bit risky sometimes...

my opinion ?
a pictures is worth a 100 words, but a good portrait is worth 100 pictures.
and you'll never find 'em on micros, see by yourself, and that's why buyers
are willing to pay.



« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2009, 19:12 »
0
well in case you never noticed most of the travel editorials have always been and always will be in RM.

No, most of them are with an editorial license, which may be RM or RF, simply because you don't have releases.  You may find more in RM, because they aren't in high demand, and most would rather make that lottery sale then consistent sales.

« Reply #25 on: August 16, 2009, 22:02 »
0
Sergey (Hippy),

WHY do you even want to bother with this forum at all?  Very strange, since from the sounds of it you're making soooooo much more in RM than you could ever dream of in microstock.  Why's this place rate even a brief moment of your thought, much less so much actual posting?  Something doesn't add up.  Sounds like out of the goodness of your heart you're really concerned about the sorry plight of micro-shooters.  Or jealous of them.  Or scared of them.......

Xalanx

« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2009, 00:24 »
0
Scared, I guess. If I remember correctly from some older posts which I'm too lazy to really look for now, Old Hippie tried his hand at microstock with his traveling shots and was amazed that his shots were rejected. Some "what do these guys want?!" that any newbie would ask. So, one could only assume that he doesn't really have the understanding of what flies in microstock.


« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2009, 01:23 »
0


i instead focus on people, street people if possible, and i go
straight in the people's face, some say my style is "slash and burn" :)

"cheap holidays in other people's misery" - seems like a very punk ethic for an old hippy.

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2009, 04:49 »
0
Sergey (Hippy),

WHY do you even want to bother with this forum at all?  Very strange, since from the sounds of it you're making soooooo much more in RM than you could ever dream of in microstock.  Why's this place rate even a brief moment of your thought, much less so much actual posting?  Something doesn't add up.  Sounds like out of the goodness of your heart you're really concerned about the sorry plight of micro-shooters.  Or jealous of them.  Or scared of them.......

it's simple.

i come here to learn, and eventually to teach.

Xalanx

« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2009, 05:22 »
0
it's simple.

i come here to learn, and eventually to teach.

yea, but WHY?

RacePhoto

« Reply #30 on: August 17, 2009, 10:35 »
0
Interesting.  I think 'free' is where microstock really wants to be.  When buyers see millions of images available for pennies - from multiple sources - they realize that  there's basically an enormous oversupply.

Eventually some big microstock is going to throw in the towel and start giving away the images,  and run ads on the search pages. Contributors will get nothing - but of course, we'll make it up on the increased volume of sales... :) 



Seems to be the trend. The hosting site makes money off page views and "free" images, which are almost free now with some of the pricing plans, and the contributors get ???

Here's a review. I found one that was more critical last month, but haven't discovered where I read it. Interesting concept based on supply and demand and the availability of "free" information because of the Internet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jun/28/review-free-chris-anderson

« Reply #31 on: August 17, 2009, 10:48 »
0
racephoto, interesting review, thanks.

When free content becomes available, consumer standards drop down to meet it. For example, Wikipedia isn't as well written as Encyclopedia Brittanica. But it's free, so in time, people forget that there used to be something better.   One could say that Brittanica was better than it needed to be, that people really only wanted the raw information, not the fine English.  But I'm convinced something of value is being lost.  And in time, the pendulum will swing back the other way.

I'm guessing that the big money players moving into microstock are spinning grand plans in which the images are just loss leaders, a way to pull in customers to whom they will eventually market other products and services.  
« Last Edit: August 17, 2009, 10:58 by stockastic »

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2009, 11:11 »
0
racephoto, interesting review, thanks.

When free content becomes available, consumer standards drop down to meet it. For example, Wikipedia isn't as well written as Encyclopedia Brittanica. But it's free, so in time, people forget that there used to be something better.   One could say that Brittanica was better than it needed to be, that people really only wanted the raw information, not the fine English.  But I'm convinced something of value is being lost.  And in time, the pendulum will swing back the other way.

I'm guessing that the big money players moving into microstock are spinning grand plans in which the images are just loss leaders, a way to pull in customers to whom they will eventually market other products and services.  


microstock will never die, because there's a ton of people willing to upload even for free, look at Flickr for instance.
who owns the micros will make money, it's you the microstocker who'll get more and more screwed and you'll realize it
before or later i hope.

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #33 on: August 17, 2009, 11:15 »
0
Interesting.  I think 'free' is where microstock really wants to be.  When buyers see millions of images available for pennies - from multiple sources - they realize that  there's basically an enormous oversupply.

Eventually some big microstock is going to throw in the towel and start giving away the images,  and run ads on the search pages. Contributors will get nothing - but of course, we'll make it up on the increased volume of sales... :)  



Seems to be the trend. The hosting site makes money off page views and "free" images, which are almost free now with some of the pricing plans, and the contributors get ???

Here's a review. I found one that was more critical last month, but haven't discovered where I read it. Interesting concept based on supply and demand and the availability of "free" information because of the Internet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jun/28/review-free-chris-anderson



image hosting barely can cover their own expenses.
do you think they all make millions ? think again, Facebook is in deep red, Twitter never made a single dollar so far,
Google's net gain is from 5 to 10% of their revenue, and the list goes on.
Youtube is LOSING 1million$  A DAY.

the only cash cows on the web are poker/gambling/dating/porn/moneytransfer/creditcardgateways  sites.
anything else is lucky to make a 10% net profit.

the free model is all to be seen where is it going in the future.
murdoch is going pay-per-read soon for instance and he's  right.

« Reply #34 on: August 17, 2009, 12:13 »
0
Yes, the pendulum always swings, or as the French put it,  "the more things change, the more they stay the same".   Many if not most of these grandiose free-content schemes will eventually crash and burn, and microstock (after it goes 'free') will probably be one of them.

I agree that the vast majority of microstock contributors are losing money, to the extent they value their time.  For me it's been a useful learning experience.  I am at the point where I know I can produce images that sell, and I also know I'm light-years away from making enough money per image for this activity to be worthwhile.  Now, I'm wondering what to try next. Stick with microstock and try to zero on on profitable subjects? Try moving up to something like Alamy?  Sell photos at art fairs?   Or just forget about ever making any money from photography?

I could spend a lot of effort  creating 1,000 good stock images, at about the same time these agencies grind each other down to a price point of 0, making it all a waste of time.

As always, the future will head off in directions we never predicted.




« Last Edit: August 17, 2009, 12:57 by stockastic »

« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2009, 13:08 »
0
And what is conclusion!?


« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2009, 15:37 »
0
...
You may think we are micro fools, but I like many others here do upload our RM images to Alamy, I assume that is why you are quoting the 'L' license, we can see the value of both models and realise that different images suit different agencies, so we have a finger in both pies, instead of in our ears.

David  ::)  

haha very well put :)


« Reply #37 on: August 17, 2009, 16:53 »
0
For example, Wikipedia isn't as well written as Encyclopedia Brittanica. But it's free, so in time, people forget that there used to be something better.  

And the quality of information is not necessarily good or accurate.  But I confess I resort to Wikipedia almost daily.  ::)

I agree people give less value to quality than to price, and that's even before the recent economic crisis.  Due to the internet, at least in its early days, we got used to getting things for free and it's no surprise people now think everything in the internet is free unless it is blocked by subscription or some other controlled access.  When Geocities started it was totally free, then Yahoo took over and included popups and ads (still free, but annoying, and you could get rid of them with a paid account).

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #38 on: August 17, 2009, 17:19 »
0
Yes, the pendulum always swings, or as the French put it,  "the more things change, the more they stay the same".   Many if not most of these grandiose free-content schemes will eventually crash and burn, and microstock (after it goes 'free') will probably be one of them.

I agree that the vast majority of microstock contributors are losing money, to the extent they value their time.  For me it's been a useful learning experience.  I am at the point where I know I can produce images that sell, and I also know I'm light-years away from making enough money per image for this activity to be worthwhile.  Now, I'm wondering what to try next. Stick with microstock and try to zero on on profitable subjects? Try moving up to something like Alamy?  Sell photos at art fairs?   Or just forget about ever making any money from photography?

I could spend a lot of effort  creating 1,000 good stock images, at about the same time these agencies grind each other down to a price point of 0, making it all a waste of time.

As always, the future will head off in directions we never predicted.






yes, the core point is HOW MUCH TIME IT TAKES to keyword/upload/edit to a dozen microstock agencies ?

what about people paying models or making expensive shoots ?
can they really cope with the pityful micro payouts ?

micro can only go down the drain as long as they're fighting each other on prices,
and this will first and foremost screw the photographers not the agencies.

it's the same with supermarkets now, farmers are paid so low they start leaving
their vegetables on the trees as selling to Tesco they would lose money.

and what Tesco does then ? importing cheaper vegs and fruit from China and Africa
and screwing the farmers.

it's a rat race, that's why only RM will survive in the long term, coz there is still a shitload
of money on RM.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2009, 17:22 by Sergey »

« Reply #39 on: August 18, 2009, 02:50 »
0
Back to the OP and the use of the word 'Free'

I was listening to a report on the radio driving into work and a quote I heard put it into context, and the quote was:

"Free only means that someone else is paying"

Before you can look at giving anything away 'Free' you have to look at "who and how", who will pay in the longer run and how you are going to monitize it, if you cannot answer these questions then there is no point in giving anything.

When the websites like flickr give away limited free accounts, the revenue to pay for these comes partly from advertising and the 'Paid Pro Accounts', so the free stuff is never 'Free' 

David   

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #40 on: August 18, 2009, 03:23 »
0
Back to the OP and the use of the word 'Free'

I was listening to a report on the radio driving into work and a quote I heard put it into context, and the quote was:

"Free only means that someone else is paying"

Before you can look at giving anything away 'Free' you have to look at "who and how", who will pay in the longer run and how you are going to monitize it, if you cannot answer these questions then there is no point in giving anything.

When the websites like flickr give away limited free accounts, the revenue to pay for these comes partly from advertising and the 'Paid Pro Accounts', so the free stuff is never 'Free' 

David   


right on the spot.

FREE works fine for who owns the micro agencies : someone else is paying .. .YOU microstockers with your time and work !


« Reply #41 on: August 18, 2009, 05:57 »
0
Before you can look at giving anything away 'Free' you have to look at "who and how", who will pay in the longer run and how you are going to monitize it, if you cannot answer these questions then there is no point in giving anything.

Of course just giving away for free is no good.  The trick is using free as a bait for more. 

When Yahoo took over Geocities, they created paid accounts without advertisements/popups, more storage, etc.  It was a natural way for someone who had started a website in Geocities for free and then grew it (my case).  I was too lazy to move to a more intelligent solution - my domain and a host, a choice that was however only available at affordable prices years later.

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #42 on: August 18, 2009, 06:09 »
0
it's just too easy today to mess with the web.

never before it has been so cheap to publish images and articles and spread the word around
to a huge list of contacts.

but as production and distribution costs are next to zero, so are the earnings because when anyone can clone your idea or your products without effort where's the real value of your product ?

and why clients should pay for it ?

the only way to sell on the web is making something unique and hard to steal and that's simply not possible in any fields but only in some specific market niches.

« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2009, 00:12 »
0
Speaking from both the view point of a buyer and a seller, RF has its place in the market.  As a web designer it makes absolutely no sense to pay $50 for a small photo to put on a web page. And my clients don't have $1000's to spend on just images alone...and I doubt I am unique in that regard.

That being said, there is, and will likely always remain a niche out there for the very best photographers, taking photos that nobody else can get,  using equipment no else can afford.  But the combination of the internet, computers, and high quality digital cameras have leveled the playing field on the lower end of the photography profession, at the same time whole new markets demanding cheap imagery have emerged.

So nothing has really changed, those who find themselves in a niche with a high barrier of entry will make the big bucks, or at least a decent living, and those who don't will get the left overs.

« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2009, 00:30 »
0
Stockastic,

About you thoughts on Wikipedia, I do agree something was lost (editorial quality), but at the same time it brought to the market some very powerful things, that its competitors just couldn't match. It allowed everyone on Earth to be an editor...many of whom were willing to add material and review other's material for "free". This has obvious draw backs, but it also has numerous benefits. While not exactly related, the best example of this occurred when a bunch of bloggers were able to nail Dan Rather to the cross when he tried to take down a sitting president with bogus documents. The web and Wikipedia in particular have made it possible for a level of access and transparency that didn't exist 10 years ago. And lastly there is timeliness. With all that free access and help Wikipedia is generally updated with in seconds of something significant can happening on any given subject. I wouldn't be surprised while I was sitting on the shores of Lake Powell taking pictures this summer, someone, somewhere was madly typing away on Wikipedia the second Michael Jackson was rumored to have died. Wikipedia's competitors just can't compete with that...especially when there are so many people willing to do for free, what they would have to pay an army of editors to do (update, and watch the headlines).

That said I think Wikipedia may have lost temporarily some editorial quality, but I think in the end it will get that back and still have many of the advantages it has now over its former competitors.

« Reply #45 on: August 19, 2009, 09:20 »
0
gwhitton,

Wikipedia is evolving.  Eventually we may have full confidence that its content is provided by people with appropriate expertise, is peer-reviewed and reliable. While the story about Dan Rather shows value, Wikipedia has also published erroneous and self-serving material that they've struggled to clean up.

With regard to images for web pages - aren't you basically saying that your clients can't afford traditional stock prices, so they deserve to get images for whatever they feel they want to pay?  That's how people justified Napster - CD prices were too high, so we 'deserve' free music.  

99.9 % of my sales on SS are 25 cent subscriptions, so we got from "$50" to 25 cents very quickly. I hope your customers are happy at this point, but if not,  I guess the next stop is zero.  The microstock have created a nearly perfect "buyer's market".  

  



« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 10:05 by stockastic »

RacePhoto

« Reply #46 on: August 19, 2009, 13:55 »
0
Back to the OP and the use of the word 'Free'

I was listening to a report on the radio driving into work and a quote I heard put it into context, and the quote was:

"Free only means that someone else is paying"

Before you can look at giving anything away 'Free' you have to look at "who and how", who will pay in the longer run and how you are going to monitize it, if you cannot answer these questions then there is no point in giving anything.

When the websites like flickr give away limited free accounts, the revenue to pay for these comes partly from advertising and the 'Paid Pro Accounts', so the free stuff is never 'Free'  

David  

Radio is "free" and so is broadcast Television.  ;D You are correct and the point of the book isn't driving a nail into microstock, but for information. For Screwgle/old H/serge/ (soon to be announced new name?), it always comes back to that. The reasons for print publications going out and that includes magazines and newspapers that are in deep financial trouble, electronic is a modern medium that is almost freely accessible and in many cases "free". Print publications are supported by advertising, not subscriptions. So is the internet.

10% profit is great! If you sell 200 million in products and make 10% that's 20 million dollars! Years ago I knew someone who owned a supermarket and they said, after expenses, if they made 2% it was wonderful. If the microstock agencies make the investors any profit, it's good, and 10% is more than you can get storing your money into a bank account. A retail storefront needs to make 25% on sales to cover expenses and overhead, or it will lose money. An internet company has much lower fixed expenses, so they can sell for less.

Ask yourself how many dedicated camera shops are there in your city compared to ten years ago? Locally, a city of one million, there are three left!

Hey folks, lets go back to the first days that anyone came here and asked, can I make money in Micro? What's the answer? Yes, but it takes hard work, and a large portfolio. It's not easy money. Photos have to be nearly perfect. Getting them through QC is only the first step, because getting someone to buy them is another thing. Then people have 200 photo portfolios and don't make much, they forget the first advise in bold above.  ;D

There may be a very small number of people, I can think of a few IS exclusives who have around 300 photos, and make good sales. They are 300 very good photos. I can also see that there are people with 1000 average photos on the top six, who don't reach payout every month. That's about $50 a month in sales. It won't pay the bills or set you free from your day job. Not that it can't be done, it takes a big effort and at least a year of hard work.

Speaking of FREE there's no free money from selling snapshots on Microstock. It's a highly competative volume business and "some people" fail to recognize that!  ::)

« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 00:04 by RacePhoto »


« Reply #47 on: August 19, 2009, 15:26 »
0
Well, sure. There's no pot of gold here, that's pretty clear.  What is really disappointing though is that prices seem to be still falling. It's hard to motivate yourself to produce hundreds of images without some confidence that the returns you thought you might get won't turn out to be a mirage.

And I'm serious when I say the price could go to zero.  The microstocks know there's virtually no resistance to cutting the commission.  At some point many contributors will stop submitting, but will they actually delete their files and close their accounts?  (Especially if it's a royal pain to do so?)  

All my sales at SS now are 25 cent subscriptions.  It's probably already too late.

« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 17:13 by stockastic »

« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2009, 19:50 »
0
gwhitton,

Wikipedia is evolving.  Eventually we may have full confidence that its content is provided by people with appropriate expertise, is peer-reviewed and reliable. While the story about Dan Rather shows value, Wikipedia has also published erroneous and self-serving material that they've struggled to clean up.

With regard to images for web pages - aren't you basically saying that your clients can't afford traditional stock prices, so they deserve to get images for whatever they feel they want to pay?  That's how people justified Napster - CD prices were too high, so we 'deserve' free music.  

99.9 % of my sales on SS are 25 cent subscriptions, so we got from "$50" to 25 cents very quickly. I hope your customers are happy at this point, but if not,  I guess the next stop is zero.  The microstock have created a nearly perfect "buyer's market".  



Stocktastic,

No I am not concluding that I or anyone should have to pay nothing for photographs. And I wasn't the one who determined .25c was the right price to by or sell at. What am saying is that for a glorified thumbnail, $50 is way to much, and simply would not fly in the internet age, when suddenly millions of multi-media websites needed cheap imagery to be practical. But at the same time the internet opened up photographers 1000's if not millions of new clients they couldn't have reached in the past. So there is a trade off, and the microstock explosion is the manifestation of both realities.

Nothing is stopping you of course from charging $50 or $100 dollars at the local photo gallery, but as was always the case in the past, 95% of the people will look at a photo on the wall, comment how nice it is and walk on. But at the same time they won't hesitate to buy a photo calendar or a postcard covered with the very same images. Two different markets, it just comes down to whether you are willing to serve both.

« Reply #49 on: August 20, 2009, 05:00 »
0
Which site pay less $$ per download now than they did 12 months ago?

« Reply #50 on: August 21, 2009, 17:25 »
0
Check this story on Wikipedia:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/21/hewlett_funds_wikipedia/

Wikipedia's free content is paid for by big donations from individuals and groups. And they're barely scraping by.  As the article points out, watch for this "free" content to become ad-supported in the future.

« Reply #51 on: August 21, 2009, 17:57 »
0

Wikipedia's free content is paid for by big donations from individuals and groups. And they're barely scraping by.  As the article points out, watch for this "free" content to become ad-supported in the future.


I don't think free microstock will come from the money people will make, it will come about simply because it can. Most people don't care that wikipedia scrapes by on donations they just use the service because it works and because it's free.

it's started already with low quality freebies as the dangled carrot, from there we go to free sites wanting to differentiate themselves by offering more or better quality and higher resolutions. If it's possible then it will happen regardless of photographers liking the idea or not. The photos may come from all various sources, microstock rejects, perhaps aggregation of already free images online, by people donating images for some reason or reward (being on the 'frontpage' is enough for a lot of people) or through paying for content supported by ad revenue.

I'm beginning to wonder if that even the good stuff, the difficult to obtain or setup will eventually end up this way. it's fine if you find that idea abhorrent, just hope that EVERY other photographer on the face of the internet feels the same way.

When all that is said, even if there is free stuff around, there will still be plenty of people willing to pay for stock photos, convenience, guarantee, exclusivity etc, that's why there are still people buying RM and macro RF images even while micro is selling similar things for a few dollars.

« Reply #52 on: August 21, 2009, 20:46 »
0
Once the microstocks acquire a critical mass of free "good enough" images it may become hard for not-free portfolios to compete, as many buyers will just stop looking at anything that isn't free.   Free stock will become a singularity, a black hole that pulls everything in.

I think we're doomed to go through this cycle with every sort of content: news, music, photos, encyclopedias.  All will be available free, somewhere, for a while; and in the long run it doesn't work.

« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 21:41 by stockastic »

« Reply #53 on: August 22, 2009, 01:39 »
0
There are already 'Free Licenced Images' from companies like Getty I blogged about one service here:

Quote
PicApp has 20 million images from Getty Images, Splash, Corbis and alike, covering sports, news, entertainment, fashion, travel and more. All images are fully licensed and free to use.

I just used the PiccApp service and searched for 'Business Growth' and over 200 images were returned, I selected  this Getty image which is embedded in my blog post is a typical microstock style image, there is a button to embbed the image in your online website, article or blog, the cost of this service is free for the writer with a condition that the image has a relevent paid advertisment below it.

The PicApp service works by selling advertising to companies, some of this revenue is passed on to the image suppliers, this all sounds good but reading FAQ's from the PicApps website the images from Getty are wholly owned, which looks like the artist does not benefit as Getty own the copyright.

The PiccApp image I embedded has no advertisement and only has an ugly thumbnail gallery below it at the moment, and when you click on a thumbnal or the Image it returns you to the website, where you will see the name Getty with a link.

I do not think that a service like this would appeal to any microstock agency for un-owned content as the returns would be to low, but these services have a positive side in educating people that there is a requirement to use 'Licenced Images' even if they are 'Free at the point of Delivery', but we all know that the advertisers are paying for this 'Free Service'

David
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 02:27 by Adeptris »

« Reply #54 on: August 22, 2009, 04:00 »
0
Once the microstocks acquire a critical mass of free "good enough" images it may become hard for not-free portfolios to compete, as many buyers will just stop looking at anything that isn't free.   Free stock will become a singularity, a black hole that pulls everything in.

I think we're doomed to go through this cycle with every sort of content: news, music, photos, encyclopedias.  All will be available free, somewhere, for a while; and in the long run it doesn't work.


But they wont ever achieve a critical mass of free "good enough" images, so there is nothing to worry about.  Why would the sites that are making good profits now, in a poor economic climate, allow their profits to be eradicated by their own free sections?  Why would contributors who are making money supply images to free sites that reduce their earnings?  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  There are already free alternatives to windows, office, photoshop, illustrator etc. but I don't see microsoft and adobe going out of business.  People will always pay for a superior product.

« Reply #55 on: August 22, 2009, 07:23 »
0

But they wont ever achieve a critical mass of free "good enough" images, so there is nothing to worry about.  Why would the sites that are making good profits now, in a poor economic climate, allow their profits to be eradicated by their own free sections?  Why would contributors who are making money supply images to free sites that reduce their earnings?  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  There are already free alternatives to windows, office, photoshop, illustrator etc. but I don't see microsoft and adobe going out of business.  People will always pay for a superior product.

You have right Sharpshot....

Many of people here make conclusion with semi-informations. Maybe just because they want to heard different...

I have friend who is web designer... He works for big american company for a 10 years or more, I think....

He said:
"Before microstock was very hard to find "good enough" photo on free photos site, I needed several hours to find subject for my project, often with too bad quality...
 Microstock was big refreshment for all of us, sometimes I need "express" some photo, of an old ship,for example...
Now I go to IS, type "ships old" in search engine and I have tons of high quality images about ships, all kind, even with "match color" with my project.. After start of microstock I never go on free sites again...
For 15 $ I have too good photos for site which I'll charge a few thousand dollars to my client... Before microstock I had to (very often) to take my compact camera and try to shot some isolation or some object on white, only because I couldn't find that motive on internet...
That was big waste of time for me"
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 08:09 by borg »

« Reply #56 on: August 22, 2009, 07:41 »
0
For 15 $ I have too good photos for site which I'll charge a few thousand dollars to my client...

This I don't agree with.  I'm fine with a "search" or "research" fee added on to find the image.  But gouging the client just because you can isn't very smart.


« Reply #57 on: August 22, 2009, 07:57 »
0
For 15 $ I have too good photos for site which I'll charge a few thousand dollars to my client...

This I don't agree with.  I'm fine with a "search" or "research" fee added on to find the image.  But gouging the client just because you can isn't very smart.

I am not saying that the client pays only a reselling of picture, he pays the whole project where the image is only a small part of overall and demanding job, with all wishes fulfilled by the client, with probably the annual maintenance of the site...

The aim was to show the cost of some image is minimal compared to the price of the final product for someone like web designer...
This is an investment in raw materials, like in any other industry...
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 08:07 by borg »

« Reply #58 on: August 22, 2009, 08:03 »
0

I have friend who is web designer... He works for big american company for a 10 years or more, I think....

He said:
"Before microstock was very hard to find "good enough" photo on free photos site, I need several hours to find subject for my project, often with too bad quality...

After start of microstock I never go on free sites again...
For 15 $ I have too good photos for site which I'll charge a few thousand dollars to my client... Before microstock I have to (very often) to take my compact camera and try to shot some isolation or some object on white, only because I couldn't find that motive on internet...
That was big waste of time for me"

If he worked for a big American company and is charging a few thousand dollars, why was he even looking for 'Free Images' spending 'Several Hours' looking at 'Bad Quality', the savings alone for the hours he charged looking for free images or playing with his P&S would have more than covered the cost of safe quality images from an agency.

This type of thing so de-values microstock I hope the end clients get to read this topic, the artist gets a few dollars and the designer wastes chargable time passing this onto the clients few thousand dollar fee, is the designers work worth that much more, microstock should have a good look at introducing licences that stop this kind of commercial abuse.

David    
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 08:12 by Adeptris »

« Reply #59 on: August 22, 2009, 08:15 »
0
Maybe is problem in my English language, I don't know how to explain to you...

I was trying to explain situation  before Microstock and after...

If some project cost few thousand dollars,  doesn't mean that is web designer's fee... That is all-included price...

Also one big interactive web site isn't only "micro image"+ playing in photoshop...

Programming of engine costs, design costs pictures cost, servers cost, site domain cost, maintanance cost etc.
Team of people are working on one good interactive web site...

Of course, I am also for higher prices for microstocks photos... ;)
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 08:25 by borg »

« Reply #60 on: August 22, 2009, 08:31 »
0
Hi Borg,
My point was your friend would have better spent his time on the design and charged the customer for the purchased images, if the customer then asked about the cost of the images, your designer friend could say, "No problem I will just charge you for the time I spend looking for cheap poor quality images", the customer would pay the fee and the designer and his teams time would be better value being spent on the delivery of the 'bug free' website.

The images have always been out there but not at a price your friend liked  ;)

Often Free and 'Do-it-Yourself' is a false economy when looking for quality, I could likely research the web and fix my own car, but when I account for the time, effort and tools required I just go to the garage and hope to get a quality job, sure I always think that I have been overcharged, but then I think about my own charge out rates and it is not so bad.

I work in IT consultancy where charge out rates for the companies I contract to, can be 115 - 120 an hour to thier end clients, many services have been setup to undercut these rates, but none seem to have survived because they can not deliver the quality resources, so free and cheap is not always the best.

David
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 08:49 by Adeptris »

« Reply #61 on: August 22, 2009, 11:13 »
0
I guess we all just agree to meet right here, 2 years from today, andd see how much free stock imagery is available, and what that's done to the microstock market.

« Reply #62 on: August 22, 2009, 11:46 »
0
I guess we all just agree to meet right here, 2 years from today, andd see how much free stock imagery is available, and what that's done to the microstock market.


Lets not wait 2 years but go back 9 years, in 2000 there was a website launched by a photographer named Bruce Livingstone to provide designers with 'Free Images', they were called IstockPhoto I wonder what ever happened to them?

Quote
As an experiment I started giving away my photographs. Members to the site suggested that they would also supply photographs if we built the mechanism. Jeffrey Zeldman and I were chatting about the old subscription models like ArtToday.com and how iStockphoto could be different. iStockphoto started as a simple photo sharing system for designers and photographers


Services might start as Free but the concept soon dies!

David  ;D
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 11:59 by Adeptris »

« Reply #63 on: August 22, 2009, 13:27 »
0
Good point. Seems though that Livingstone wasn't trying to make money from a giveaway site - it was just a personal project. 

when a couple of the Big 6 players eventually get into money trouble, things may get crazy. They'll have millions of images in the bank, a vague sense that their model is losing steam, and will be under pressure (from owners and investors) to come up with new ways to make money from the images they already have. The rainbows of ad-supported free content, and free content as a hook to other paid services, are often chased at those times.  
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 13:55 by stockastic »

« Reply #64 on: August 22, 2009, 14:02 »
0
I'm new to this forum but one thing is immediately clear, almost every thread dissolves into a row over how much everyone get's paid and RF versus RM.

It's enough to put me off Microstock before I've even got started.  :-[

« Reply #65 on: August 22, 2009, 14:26 »
0
I'm new to this forum but one thing is immediately clear, almost every thread dissolves into a row over how much everyone get's paid and RF versus RM.

It's enough to put me off Microstock before I've even got started.  :-[

These are debates not arguments, it is always good to take other perspectives, a lot of contributors are sold on the hype of "easy money from your snaps" but the reality is this is a business, there are different photographers with different content, and that content might suit one model or the other, so we have supporters of all the different models.

Selective reading can take you down the wrong path, if you are starting out try the different models until you find one that fits your content, unlike the bad press not all microstock is 'smiling telephone support operators' and $0.25 a download, there is diverse content with different sites having different tastes and price points.

Sorry if our posts are putting you off.

David  ;)   

« Reply #66 on: August 22, 2009, 15:09 »
0
Thanks David.

Regarding Madelaide's original post. It's a very forward-thinking suggestion - "freebies" are a proven business model. I base that on a working life spent selling everything from Computers to people (as a recruitment consultant - not a pimp).

There is a cost outlay but anything that links back to your product/service is a good thing in my book. I once read an article by a UK photographer who generated a lot of interest in his Fine Art photography by donating free images to small businesses;cafes,garages,doctor's surgeries etc across several counties.

It's not sustainable as a full-time practice but does uplift sales and with hard work and luck you can use that spike in activity as a springboard.

Cheers,Ed



« Reply #67 on: August 22, 2009, 16:20 »
0
It's enough to put me off Microstock before I've even got started.  :-[

Good.

« Reply #68 on: August 22, 2009, 16:21 »
0
I am not saying that the client pays only a reselling of picture, he pays the whole project where the image is only a small part of overall and demanding job, with all wishes fulfilled by the client, with probably the annual maintenance of the site...

Sorry - my bad.  I misread the statement.  :)

« Reply #69 on: August 22, 2009, 16:39 »
0
It's enough to put me off Microstock before I've even got started.  :-[

Good.

Sir Locke,

I can see you have very little to worry about when it comes to competition - but your reply has motivated me to give RF a crack. Whether it was intended to or not.

Have a good weekend.

Ed




« Reply #70 on: August 22, 2009, 16:54 »
0
I seem to recall a business model which gives away all its pictures and still has managed to eke out a profit of a few hundreds of billions of dollars over the years. A little business called 'broadcast TV'. I think it still brings in quite a bit more revenue than Getty does.

Google is busting its a$$ trying to find a way to make billions from Youtube, which gives away moving pictures. Anybody want to bet that they will not succeed? If people want something there will always be some people who will give it away, and others who will make a lot of money selling it.

« Reply #71 on: August 23, 2009, 07:00 »
0
I can see you have very little to worry about when it comes to competition - but your reply has motivated me to give RF a crack. Whether it was intended to or not.

Go for it.  I dislike it when people expect us to motivate and convince them to compete with us.  At least you've got some initiative :) .

« Reply #72 on: August 23, 2009, 08:46 »
0
I think microstock is going to be hitting a point soon where the content demanded fundamentally changes. They might be giving away lots of stuff, but its mostly rejects so far, or old content. I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you shoot what is up and coming in demand, but low in supply, you'll make money. I'm constantly searching for niches that have the potential to become the next "big thing".

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #73 on: August 23, 2009, 11:35 »
0
Check this story on Wikipedia:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/21/hewlett_funds_wikipedia/

Wikipedia's free content is paid for by big donations from individuals and groups. And they're barely scraping by.  As the article points out, watch for this "free" content to become ad-supported in the future.



And what do you think is going to happen when corporate sponsors are paying for ads? Right, they'll want full control over their company's Wikipedia content and it will no longer be really community driven.

« Reply #74 on: August 23, 2009, 13:28 »
0
[And what do you think is going to happen when corporate sponsors are paying for ads?

Nothing good, that's for sure.  "Free" only works until the novelty wears off. 



PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #75 on: August 23, 2009, 13:52 »
0
[And what do you think is going to happen when corporate sponsors are paying for ads?

Nothing good, that's for sure.  "Free" only works until the novelty wears off. 


Free only works as long as money lasts. Eventually the people offering the free stuff run out of money to support it and then they beg for money (Ken Rockwell), continue it as a side business (MSG?), start charging for it (Istock), or let it die (take your pick).

« Reply #76 on: September 13, 2009, 13:05 »
0
Yesterday I was browsing this book at a bookstore - and mind you, it costed almost US$30 ;D - and one part caught my atraction. He was discussing Wikipedia vs Britannica and how the free online encyclopedia devalued the high price of a traditional printed encyclopedia.  It's a situation that has a parallel with the microstock vs traditional agencies/photographers conflict.


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #77 on: September 13, 2009, 13:17 »
0
Printed encyclopedias have been devalued because there are other free offerings like Wikipedia but also because most people these days now expect instant information. Take a second to search online or try digging through a collection of printed encyclopedias.

One day most credible information on the internet will cost something. We're in a transition right now. Companies who don't figure out how to make the transition and also produce the best content will disappear.

Look at all of the newspapers who laughed 10 years ago when anyone said the internet would replace them.


« Reply #78 on: September 13, 2009, 14:47 »
0
I agree it's unthinkable to buy printed encyclopedias these days - I'd rather have a DVD-ROM, and these are also much cheaper now, partially because of the cost of printing in high quality paper and binding in hard covers, but also because they would not sell if very expensive.

Curiously, though, I went to Britannica site and they still sell hard cover prints of the encyclopedia - costing US$1000 and above. 

lisafx

« Reply #79 on: September 14, 2009, 10:07 »
0
Printed encyclopedias have been devalued because there are other free offerings like Wikipedia but also because most people these days now expect instant information. Take a second to search online or try digging through a collection of printed encyclopedias.


Not to mention that printed encyclopedias become obsolete the minute they are printed.

As a kid in around 1970 or 71 my husband had to write a report on Martin Luther King Jr.  He used his parents' 1967 set if encyclopedias, so unfortunately he omitted Dr. King's assassination!

(guess at around 8 years old he wasn't up on current events)

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #80 on: September 14, 2009, 23:12 »
0
Printed encyclopedias have been devalued because there are other free offerings like Wikipedia but also because most people these days now expect instant information. Take a second to search online or try digging through a collection of printed encyclopedias.


Not to mention that printed encyclopedias become obsolete the minute they are printed.

As a kid in around 1970 or 71 my husband had to write a report on Martin Luther King Jr.  He used his parents' 1967 set if encyclopedias, so unfortunately he omitted Dr. King's assassination!

(guess at around 8 years old he wasn't up on current events)

Yep the good olde days.

Today isn't much different. We now get instant information from Wikipedia, but who creates the entire? Scholars? Teachers? No, Joe and Jane average. So we risk being fed instant misinformation. Britannica and all the rest missed the boat on the transition. So now we have la-la land.

« Reply #81 on: September 15, 2009, 16:14 »
0
Today isn't much different. We now get instant information from Wikipedia, but who creates the entire? Scholars? Teachers? No, Joe and Jane average. So we risk being fed instant misinformation. Britannica and all the rest missed the boat on the transition. So now we have la-la land.

In fact I think they are adjusting, with encyclopedia CDs for US$30 or less, including access to their website for an year. If I had kids on school, I would try that.  I am even considering that even for the fun of it - I always liked encyclopedias.  :)

« Reply #82 on: September 15, 2009, 23:40 »
0
Today isn't much different. We now get instant information from Wikipedia, but who creates the entire? Scholars? Teachers? No, Joe and Jane average. So we risk being fed instant misinformation. Britannica and all the rest missed the boat on the transition. So now we have la-la land.

In fact I think they are adjusting, with encyclopedia CDs for US$30 or less, including access to their website for an year. If I had kids on school, I would try that.  I am even considering that even for the fun of it - I always liked encyclopedias.  :)
I still think that Wikipedia is good enough for everyday use. If i had to work on a scientific paper, I would not rely on the info in Wikipedia. However, to quickly glance through some information, Wikipedia or just a simple internet search works wonders. The risk of misinformation is there, but I think it's low enough that we can take it for convenience sake.

RacePhoto

« Reply #83 on: September 15, 2009, 23:52 »
0
Printed encyclopedias have been devalued because there are other free offerings like Wikipedia but also because most people these days now expect instant information. Take a second to search online or try digging through a collection of printed encyclopedias.


Not to mention that printed encyclopedias become obsolete the minute they are printed.

As a kid in around 1970 or 71 my husband had to write a report on Martin Luther King Jr.  He used his parents' 1967 set if encyclopedias, so unfortunately he omitted Dr. King's assassination!

(guess at around 8 years old he wasn't up on current events)

Yep the good olde days.

Today isn't much different. We now get instant information from Wikipedia, but who creates the entire? Scholars? Teachers? No, Joe and Jane average. So we risk being fed instant misinformation. Britannica and all the rest missed the boat on the transition. So now we have la-la land.

While I agree with you and the above, there's one free resource that I used over the "Cliff Notes" version of information, AKA encyclopedia. Libraries are still free and a great resource for people looking for in depth information and doing even a tiny bit of real research. Whole books on one subject.

Good points about newspapers, which are still trying to make the transition but I think most haven't got a clue and are a little bit late on picking up on how it all works.  ;D

Stock photos have fallen to the simple economics of supply and demand, plus some lively competition. It will all sort out someday, but prices will never be what they used to be before affordable high quality digital cameras. Some still argue that film is better, but then some would argue that a horse and carriage is better than a car.

A bunch of photographers happened to be talking cameras and film at a race last weekend and we were all lamenting the loss of professional camera stores. Soon we won't be able to get our frozen film processed, and they already stopped making most print paper for film. Color labs are gone. Just another effect of the Internet and digital equipment. Need an enlarger or a film processing machine? There are many sitting idle.


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #84 on: December 27, 2010, 12:13 »
0
[And what do you think is going to happen when corporate sponsors are paying for ads?


Nothing good, that's for sure.  "Free" only works until the novelty wears off. 



Free only works as long as money lasts. Eventually the people offering the free stuff run out of money to support it and then they beg for money (Ken Rockwell), continue it as a side business (MSG?), start charging for it (Istock), or let it die (take your pick).


An old topic but according to Paul Melcher PicApp as a free image service is dead. The model has been changed.

http://blog.melchersystem.com/2010/12/27/moments-later/

« Reply #85 on: December 27, 2010, 14:07 »
0
I've just had a wonderfull read of this older thread.  But really most summizing are just wild guesses. 

The simple thing is that nobody knows where this whole movement will end up.  The only certainty is that change will occur, and the rate of technology advance will ensure that the changes will be massive and probably in unexpected directions.

It has happened for centuries - technonogy changes the world, buit now the pace of change is simply breathtaking. We'd better get used to it though, coz it ain't gunna slow down  - quite the reverse.  And there will always be deniers who have a head-in-sand view of their little part of the world - best revisit the Luddites - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite.

« Reply #86 on: December 28, 2010, 10:07 »
0
The pace of change is indeed breathtaking. It's like someone from the year 1700 standing in front of a speeding truck reasoning that it was impossible to have something moving faster than a horse.

The future of digital photography is so exciting I think I'll stop here and go start another thread about predictions for 2011 and beyond. Come join the fun. And happy new year to all.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5462 Views
Last post December 12, 2007, 16:56
by araminta
30 Replies
14835 Views
Last post September 30, 2008, 01:03
by RacePhoto
11 Replies
6312 Views
Last post November 09, 2008, 14:48
by litifeta
5 Replies
3593 Views
Last post December 05, 2013, 17:20
by 33ft
13 Replies
4259 Views
Last post November 16, 2017, 04:51
by qunamax

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle