Author Topic: Check Out PicturEngine (Read 67766 times)

cthoman · « **Reply #250 on:** December 06, 2012, 12:50 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 06, 2012, 12:39

Yeah, I don't understand your fixation here. The buyer buys an image, the amount covers the licensing and costs of transaction. Do you think the seller is supposed to have two wallets? One for incoming payments, and some other wallet that holds money he made from mowing lawns, to pay the transaction fees? It's all the same bucket.

I don't understand a lot of what happened in this thread. It seems like some people are really digging to find some nefarious scheme. It's cool if you have some doubts about the company. I know I do. That's healthy, but this conspiracy stuff is kind of annoying.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #251 on:** December 06, 2012, 13:02 »

Quote from: Poncke on December 06, 2012, 12:49

Where did I say that? You are making stuff up.

Well, where do you supposed the money for the transaction fee comes from? There are two sources of income. Buyer payments and contributor payments. They all go into the same wallet. The transaction fees come out of that wallet. Ergo, the buyer "pays" the transaction fees.

cascoly · « **Reply #252 on:** December 06, 2012, 14:31 »

Quote from: PicturEngine-JustinB on December 06, 2012, 11:26

Quote from: cascoly on December 05, 2012, 12:49
first, it would be appreciated if you answered the paypal question --who is going to pay the surcharge & how is it explained?

This has been answered (many times over). We have been using PayPal for many years and are not violating any of the PayPal or credit card terms....

We have ONE price (the license fee you set, plus the fee to process it, and you keep 100% of that license fee). We do not offer cash as a payment option.

From PayPal:
“Parallel payments enable a sender to send a single payment to multiple receivers. For example, your application might be a shopping cart that enables a buyer to pay for items from several merchants with one payment. Your shopping cart allocates the payment to merchants that actually provided the items. PayPal then deducts money from the sender's account and deposits it in the receivers' accounts.

first, how do you set any prices at all when you dont require a login? nowhere does it say that paypal is the ONLY payment method

parallel paymemts isn't the problem -- but adding a surcharge for paypal payments is and THAT, as quoted earlier, is a direct violation of paypal terms --
so to repeat the question that you havent answered- is the surcharge paid by the buyer or by the seller?and how do you calculate the paypal fee without knowing the seller's arrangements with paypal, since that affects the fees?

Quote from: PicturEngine-JustinB on December 06, 2012, 11:26

Anyone, buying anything online, fully, totally, and completely understands, that businesses have to cover processing costs when selling items online.

peripheral but absolute nonsense anyone who's done e commerce knows that you can never underestimate the ignorance/understanding of buyers. these are some of the most common annoyances of working on ebay or amazon

cascoly · « **Reply #253 on:** December 06, 2012, 14:39 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 06, 2012, 13:02

Quote from: Poncke on December 06, 2012, 12:49
Where did I say that? You are making stuff up.

Well, where do you supposed the money for the transaction fee comes from? There are two sources of income. Buyer payments and contributor payments. They all go into the same wallet. The transaction fees come out of that wallet. Ergo, the buyer "pays" the transaction fees.

that's the key point -- paypal does not allow a surcharge in which buyers pay the fees.

it's all pretty fuzzy - PE says they dont take cash, but they dont require buyers to login, so it's unclear how they can even come up with a cost - and how do they deal with agencies that take multiple forms of payment?

cascoly · « **Reply #254 on:** December 06, 2012, 14:44 »

Quote from: Beach Bum on November 28, 2012, 07:25

I don't understand the obsession with Paypal fees. The buyer should know that there are fees associated with a Paypal transaction, as there are with credit card transactions. He should also know that he's paying those fees, one way or another. Simply a business expense passed on to the customer. No big deal.

it's not a minor point - as a seller you can have your paypal account frozen or even closed if paypal decides you're in violation of their rules

if you doubt this, check this recent NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/technology/paypal-antifraud-measures-are-extreme-some-users-say.html?pagewanted=all

grafix04 · « **Reply #255 on:** December 06, 2012, 15:12 »

I'm copying over cascoly's post from the other thread. It needs to be read. Scary!

Quote from: cascoly on December 06, 2012, 14:50

it appears that buyers & sellers are being told 2 different things - sellers are told we can direct the search to our preferred site or agency, but buyers are told " Image buyers get the best image at the best price with access to all outlets from which the image can be licensed."

here are extracts from the PE website :

=======================
picturengine to buyers:

Search, find and license images. It’s that simple! The world's stock photos consolidated into ONE search! Some images are exclusive to a single stock photo agency, some are listed with multiple agencies and some are available directly from the photographer. Image buyers get the best image at the best price with access to all outlets from which the image can be licensed.

....,.
The option to choose not only which image to license, but also from whom to license it, assures images buyers the best image at the best price. We include all representatives licensing a particular image and allow the image buyer to make an informed purchasing decision.

Once you find and image, we show you all available sources to license that image
============================
picturengine to photographers:

Does PicturEngine compare prices?

Last Updated: Aug 17, 2012 10:58AM CDT

NO. PicturEngine does NOT compare prices.

We know buyers demand good prices. The only way to get the best price on ANY good or service, is to reduce the distance from the producer to the buyer. We DO NOT compare prices, instead we send the buyer to the base agency (where the image was uploaded FIRST) or directly to the photographer (if they are on the PicturEngine platform). Sending the buyer directly to the base agency or photographer, effectively removes unnecessary expenses added to the sale. Our goal is to help both photographers and image buyers get the most out of each transaction.

---------------------
Am I competing with my agencies?

Last Updated: May 05, 2012 10:34PM CDT

No. If an image is listed with an agency, and the photographer lists the same image on the PicturEngine platform, buyers see only the image listed by the photographer on the PicturEngine platform.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/picturengine-some-thoughts/msg283338/?topicseen#new

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #256 on:** December 06, 2012, 15:30 »

Quote from: cascoly on December 06, 2012, 14:44

it's not a minor point - as a seller you can have your paypal account frozen or even closed if paypal decides you're in violation of their rules

if you doubt this, check this recent NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/technology/paypal-antifraud-measures-are-extreme-some-users-say.html?pagewanted=all

I've already addressed this above. Thanks.

lisafx · « **Reply #257 on:** December 06, 2012, 15:45 »

Wow. If I am interpreting this correctly they are going to charge us a fee to advertise our own sites on their search engine (or more to upload to them directly) and then provide the customer with multiple options so they can choose the cheapest? W_T_F?

Thanks for posting that.

Quote from: grafix04 on December 06, 2012, 15:12

I'm copying over cascoly's post from the other thread. It needs to be read. Scary!

Quote from: cascoly on December 06, 2012, 14:50
it appears that buyers & sellers are being told 2 different things - sellers are told we can direct the search to our preferred site or agency, but buyers are told " Image buyers get the best image at the best price with access to all outlets from which the image can be licensed."

here are extracts from the PE website :

=======================
picturengine to buyers:

Search, find and license images. It’s that simple! The world's stock photos consolidated into ONE search! Some images are exclusive to a single stock photo agency, some are listed with multiple agencies and some are available directly from the photographer. Image buyers get the best image at the best price with access to all outlets from which the image can be licensed.

....,.
The option to choose not only which image to license, but also from whom to license it, assures images buyers the best image at the best price. We include all representatives licensing a particular image and allow the image buyer to make an informed purchasing decision.

Once you find and image, we show you all available sources to license that image
============================
picturengine to photographers:

Does PicturEngine compare prices?

Last Updated: Aug 17, 2012 10:58AM CDT

NO. PicturEngine does NOT compare prices.

We know buyers demand good prices. The only way to get the best price on ANY good or service, is to reduce the distance from the producer to the buyer. We DO NOT compare prices, instead we send the buyer to the base agency (where the image was uploaded FIRST) or directly to the photographer (if they are on the PicturEngine platform). Sending the buyer directly to the base agency or photographer, effectively removes unnecessary expenses added to the sale. Our goal is to help both photographers and image buyers get the most out of each transaction.

---------------------
Am I competing with my agencies?

Last Updated: May 05, 2012 10:34PM CDT

No. If an image is listed with an agency, and the photographer lists the same image on the PicturEngine platform, buyers see only the image listed by the photographer on the PicturEngine platform.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/picturengine-some-thoughts/msg283338/?topicseen#new

Poncke · « **Reply #258 on:** December 06, 2012, 16:25 »

Quote from: cascoly on December 06, 2012, 14:31

Quote from: PicturEngine-JustinB on December 06, 2012, 11:26
Quote from: cascoly on December 05, 2012, 12:49
first, it would be appreciated if you answered the paypal question --who is going to pay the surcharge & how is it explained?

This has been answered (many times over). We have been using PayPal for many years and are not violating any of the PayPal or credit card terms....

We have ONE price (the license fee you set, plus the fee to process it, and you keep 100% of that license fee). We do not offer cash as a payment option.

From PayPal:
“Parallel payments enable a sender to send a single payment to multiple receivers. For example, your application might be a shopping cart that enables a buyer to pay for items from several merchants with one payment. Your shopping cart allocates the payment to merchants that actually provided the items. PayPal then deducts money from the sender's account and deposits it in the receivers' accounts.

first, how do you set any prices at all when you dont require a login? nowhere does it say that paypal is the ONLY payment method

parallel paymemts isn't the problem -- but adding a surcharge for paypal payments is and THAT, as quoted earlier, is a direct violation of paypal terms --
so to repeat the question that you havent answered- is the surcharge paid by the buyer or by the seller?and how do you calculate the paypal fee without knowing the seller's arrangements with paypal, since that affects the fees?

Quote from: PicturEngine-JustinB on December 06, 2012, 11:26

Anyone, buying anything online, fully, totally, and completely understands, that businesses have to cover processing costs when selling items online.

peripheral but absolute nonsense anyone who's done e commerce knows that you can never underestimate the ignorance/understanding of buyers. these are some of the most common annoyances of working on ebay or amazon

Thats exactly the point I wanted to make when I said it was rubbish to assume people always know fees are included when buying online.

grafix04 · « **Reply #260 on:** December 06, 2012, 23:48 »

Quote from: PicturEngine-JustinB on December 06, 2012, 22:10

As stated previously in post :
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/picturengine-some-thoughts/msg283239/#msg283239
Quote from: PicturEngine-JustinB on December 06, 2012, 11:22
...
My statements are clear when taken “in” context. (Anyone can change the meaning of a statement when taking text “out” of context.)
....
I will try to stay out of “your” conversations on this thread unless asked a direct question. I will need to respond, however, if misquoted.
Best,
JB

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on December 06, 2012, 19:17
Does Justin and PE really believe that contributors will be willing to pay to be part of a service that effectively sends buyers to the cheapest source of their images? Is that what PE will offer for buyers? I've been convinced by Justin thus far, but my confidence is seriously shaken by this revelation. Justin, I'd really like to hear your explanation...?

Monty’s answer: Sadly, some users of this forum appear to be on a witch hunt, taking my old posts, removing a word here and there until my words (out of context, of course) say what they want them to say. It’s called libel.
We are and always have been crystal clear regarding price comparisons. Let me spell it out, W-E D-O-N-’-T! Furthermore, buyers see only ONE place to license an image. Please, please review the PicturEngine support center.

Look, I love this industry. I love photography. I have profound appreciation for photographers. It’s what I’ve wanted to do all my life. I want this industry to survive. I want this industry to succeed! Every day I get up motivated to do everything I possibly can do to save, and ultimately reinvent this dying industry before it’s dead. I’m simply offering an alternative, a fantastic alternative, to the status quo. If you’re not looking for an option to constantly decreasing commissions, lower image prices, buyers frustrated by image duplication and marketplace chaos, and on and on, then don’t join PicturEngine, it’s that simple. I understand skepticism and questions. Hey, I’m skeptical and ask tons of questions every day of my life, and that’s simply being smart and savvy. But outright libelous accusations, are just not productive to our common goal. May I ask that we keep the discussion based in reality by first reviewing the PicturEngine support center resources, and secondly by reading original posts rather than concocted and false misquotes. If after reviewing these resources, something remains unclear, please PLEASE, by all means, ask me!!

Please try to keep in mind that I’m a photographer, I think like a photographer, I know what it’s like to be a photographer. We’re on the same team. Your success is our success. Please join me on this positive journey. Together we CAN create a bright future for the stock photo industry.

Best,
JB

Why would anyone quote you from this thread or from anywhere and then change words? Are you saying Cascoly's quote is fabricated? What quote did they change? Where is the original? I can't see it on your site? Did you change it?

And I think you're being paranoid about there being a 'witchhunt'. You're asking for $480 on a site that's not even live, we're entitled to pick it apart and figure it out for ourselves, especially since you've been known to sugarcoat answers, or avoid them completely for weeks. How many times did we ask about your advertising plans before we got a real answer from you? How many times did we ask about ktools and in the end you expect Lisa to chase them up on your behalf? It's your business. Lisa or anyone else shouldn't be dealing with ktools to get ktools working on YOUR site. Asking Lisa to chase it is pretty unprofessional if you ask me. Do you want us there or not? And forgive us if we don't believe a single word you say when you've failed to keep your promises. You were supposed to go live, you still haven't. You were supposed to have ktools and other platforms set up, you haven't. For months you said nothing of the 1000 unique images that are 'NOT' on any of the microstock, that we need to have to be eligible to sign up, saying you don't want 'same old' content as the micros. Then you have the nerve to tell us we're taking you out of context. No we're not, we're interpreting you by the LITERAL meanings of the words you use. Perhaps you should choose your words more carefully next time. You're also very patronizing and that's hardly going to get anyone on your side, let alone get us to hand over $480, for probably not much in return until the site gets going. And who know when that will be - if ever.

sharpshot · « **Reply #261 on:** December 07, 2012, 03:35 »

Straight from the PE site:-
"Image buyers get the best image at the best price with access to direct outlets from which the image can be licensed."
http://www.picturengine.com/beta/static.php?page=link2&type=buyer

Perhaps the best price isn't supposed to mean the cheapest price but how else can you define it? If we're putting our images on a site that gives us a good commission, it's unlikely to be the best price for the buyer. The cheapest subs site is going to give buyers the best price but I don't think we would want PE to send buyers there.

qwerty · « **Reply #262 on:** December 07, 2012, 03:41 »

I couldn't find the bit about the "cheapest"

From the FAQ

"Buyers also demand good prices. There is only one way to get the best price on ANY good or service, and that is to reduce the distance from the producer to the buyer. We DO NOT compare prices, instead we send the buyer to the base agency (where the image was uploaded first) or directly to the photographer (if they are on the PicturEngine platform) to get the best possible price. "

Microbius · « **Reply #263 on:** December 07, 2012, 04:01 »

I think the explanation from Justin has been pretty clear. It doesn't give buyers the option of multiple outlets to chose from and doesn't do a price comparison. Some statements could have been misread if you wished to misread them, but they have now been clarified. Can we move on?

grafix04 · « **Reply #264 on:** December 07, 2012, 05:38 »

"Can we move on?"

No, not just yet. I'd like to know where Cascoly got that 'extract' from. It had to have come from somewhere. If it's come from the site and it's buried somewhere, I'd like to know. If it's come from his imagination, I'd like to know that too so I can ignore anything else he types. I can't imagine anyone becoming vindictive and making that stuff up just because of a PayPal fee debate, but who knows. I want to see what he has to say. Justin did imply that the extract does exist and a 'few' words were changed and taken out of context so I'm leaning towards believing there's an area on the site that we're missing and need to see.

Microbius · « **Reply #265 on:** December 07, 2012, 06:00 »

Quote from: grafix04 on December 07, 2012, 05:38

"Can we move on?"

No, not just yet. I'd like to know where Cascoly got that 'extract' from. It had to have come from somewhere. If it's come from the site and it's buried somewhere, I'd like to know. If it's come from his imagination, I'd like to know that too so I can ignore anything else he types. I can't imagine anyone becoming vindictive and making that stuff up just because of a PayPal fee debate, but who knows. I want to see what he has to say. Justin did imply that the extract does exist and a 'few' words were changed and taken out of context so I'm leaning towards believing there's an area on the site that we're missing and need to see.

Sorry I skimmed the post by Cascoly. This part does seem to contradict what Justin has been saying on this forum, so it would be good to see where it came from:

"The option to choose not only which image to license, but also from whom to license it, assures images buyers the best image at the best price. We include all representatives licensing a particular image and allow the image buyer to make an informed purchasing decision.

Once you find and image, we show you all available sources to license that image"

Microbius · « **Reply #266 on:** December 07, 2012, 06:06 »

Found it with advanced Google search. They've removed it, here's the Google cached version, better get some grabs if you want it before the cache goes:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MEQb7BTJQtgJ:support.picturengine.com/customer/portal/articles/415464-how-does-picturengine-work#

I guess this is the new edited version with the "show you all of the available sources to license that image" bits removed.
http://support.picturengine.com/customer/portal/articles/415524-how-does-it-work-

It now seems a bit harsh to have accused someone of libel on the strength of quite accurate quotes, could you not have just said you have changed the way Picturengine was supposed to work (if that is what has happened)?

Poncke · « **Reply #267 on:** December 07, 2012, 06:15 »

Quote from: Microbius on December 07, 2012, 06:06

Found it with advanced Google search. They've removed it, here's the Google cached version, better get some grabs if you want it before the cache goes:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MEQb7BTJQtgJ:support.picturengine.com/customer/portal/articles/415464-how-does-picturengine-work#

I guess this is the new edited version with the "show you all of the available sources to license that image" bits removed.
http://support.picturengine.com/customer/portal/articles/415524-how-does-it-work-

It now seems a bit harsh to have accused someone of libel on the strength of quite accurate quotes, could you not have just said you have changed the way Picturengine was supposed to work (if that is what has happened)?

I have a screenshot. Cheers. Will upload when I am home

grafix04 · « **Reply #268 on:** December 07, 2012, 06:20 »

Wow, good job Microbius. That was cached as recently as Nov 26. I'm uploading it in case it disappears.

I tried to have a look at the site using Wayback Machine but they've blocked the web crawlers. Are they hiding anything else I wonder?

Edit. Ponke, you posted as I was posting. Spared you the trouble

Monty-m-gue · « **Reply #269 on:** December 07, 2012, 07:55 »

Oh dear, it's not looking good, is it?

leaf · « **Reply #270 on:** December 07, 2012, 09:24 »

Ok, this is getting confusing with 2 threads. I'm locking this thread so we can keep everything together. Further conversation can go in this thread
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/picturengine-some-thoughts/

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Check Out PicturEngine (Read 67766 times)

cthoman

Sean Locke Photography

cascoly

cascoly

cascoly

grafix04

Sean Locke Photography

lisafx

Poncke

PicturEngine-JustinB

grafix04

sharpshot

qwerty

Microbius

grafix04

Microbius

Microbius

Poncke

grafix04

Monty-m-gue

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors