MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: luissantos84 on August 29, 2014, 10:03
-
by IMGembed
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/imgembed/imgembed-a-win-win-solution-for-image-owners-and-u (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/imgembed/imgembed-a-win-win-solution-for-image-owners-and-u)
-
I can't say that I get super excited about these embedding images business models. Maybe, I should just start a Kickstarter for myself. The pay Cory to do nothing Kickstarter.
-
I don't understand how this isn't just another agency with a mixture of free and paid content, flexible licensing options and some embed code.
What am I missing? For the items that are paid licenses, what's the royalty model - who collects, and what percentage goes to the artist?
Looked around a bit - you get 70% and they keep 30%. You get to set your own prices. May look some more later, but the intro video talks about importing images from a smart phone, so I guess they are thinking of people monetizing their walk around snaps, not traditional stock
-
I don't see what's great about free embedded images either. Just another Getty, only unproven.
-
Free - no.
But what I could jump on board with is if they could create a service where the website could embed the image (with link back to me or the agency) and also have a back end server that automatically billed the owner of the website a monthly subscription fee of say $19.99 per image embedded.
That fee automatically gets transferred via ACH to the agency and then I automatically get my payout at the end of the month....every month (one month lag because of timing).
No payment = image blocked on the feed
I would support that 100%
-
Go test the search. For example "car" you get all photos of people (some have part of a car, most do not) Try "Bicycle" you get people, some have a bicycle part, but not one photo of just a bicycle.
What I'm getting at, is the keywords are already spammed with the usual distant and unrelated subjects. Dead...
-
Go test the search. For example "car" you get all photos of people (some have part of a car, most do not) Try "Bicycle" you get people, some have a bicycle part, but not one photo of just a bicycle.
What I'm getting at, is the keywords are already spammed with the usual distant and unrelated subjects. Dead...
i guess that's the opposite of what you get when you search of google, yahoo,etc...
for say "mother teresa" and you get porn :D
ie. one gives you what you' re not looking for;
the other (spamming) add more so you get what you're not looking for.
-
Good one! Unfortunately your example is totally fabricated and false. I also suggest Bing or Metacrawler (the search that searches, searches) I don't Google much anymore because of the way it features pay sites and ignores relevant little ones. What's a Yahoo? Are they still in business?
(http://s5.postimg.org/l0jl87ron/mother_t.jpg)
With an image agency, a buyer would like to get the keyword(s) they enter, not something else. If this new agency has a search that's just as bad as the rest, they missed what makes happy buyers. :)
Go test the search. For example "car" you get all photos of people (some have part of a car, most do not) Try "Bicycle" you get people, some have a bicycle part, but not one photo of just a bicycle.
What I'm getting at, is the keywords are already spammed with the usual distant and unrelated subjects. Dead...
i guess that's the opposite of what you get when you search of google, yahoo,etc...
for say "mother teresa" and you get porn :D
ie. one gives you what you' re not looking for;
the other (spamming) add more so you get what you're not looking for.