Author Topic: New stock agency - FAA / Pixels.com (Read 38248 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #75 on:** March 22, 2014, 09:01 »

I read that thread. Sounds like they don't really have the knowledge, experience or planning to correctly implement this.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #76 on:** March 22, 2014, 09:53 »

The thinking seems to be that offering unlimited options is some how a good business strategy.

stockastic · « **Reply #77 on:** March 22, 2014, 09:55 »

Just read the posts from Sean McDunn and skip the chatter. He says right up front that he doesn't have a complete plan and thinks that if he just gets started with a few volunteers he'll figure it out as he goes. Well, maybe. Obviously others have done it at some point. But from a contributor's point of view it looks like a big waste of time and a distraction from what he should be doing: improving FAA's print sale site.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #78 on:** March 22, 2014, 10:17 »

Looking at the example in that thread, why would you buy an extended license for "print advertising" when the standard license allows you to use it for print advertising? Or promotional use?

It seems like if you want the largest size for some reason, they force you to buy the EL, but if you don't, you're fine with the cheaper regular license.

stockastic · « **Reply #79 on:** March 22, 2014, 10:19 »

He apparently wants input on the licensing language as well. Or, write your own. Nothing is finalized. To be fair, contributors are running ahead of what McDunn has actually said.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #80 on:** March 22, 2014, 10:35 »

Weird thing about 500 Prime is the titles - the photos have cutesy "art" titles like "Puss'n Boots" on a picture of a cat.

I don't get Sean's panicky thoughts that he doesn't want to become the next Circuit City. 500px seemed like they have been scrambling to find a business model. Doesn't FAA have a business model that is working?

stockastic · « **Reply #81 on:** March 22, 2014, 10:50 »

Quote from: DF_Studios on March 22, 2014, 10:35

I don't get Sean's panicky thoughts that he doesn't want to become the next Circuit City. 500px seemed like they have been scrambling to find a business model. Doesn't FAA have a business model that is working?

I think if we actually met the guy, all would come clear.

The print sale part of FAA works pretty well and has made him a ton of money, but maybe he's bored with it and dreams about moving up to Jon Oringer's level of wealth. From my point of view, FAA desperately needs some serious competition in print sales. There are already enough stock sites.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #82 on:** March 22, 2014, 11:18 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on March 21, 2014, 20:06

Quote
So many businesses failed in the dot.com era because people thought all it took to run a business is to have a bunch of programmers write code.

This guy actually accomplished more than most people on this board, so he must have some understanding of business.

I'd agree. I have a technology background and I find it amazing with what he's done mostly on his own and has been successful with it.

Nobody knows how this stock part will end up but at the art part is definitely doing well for me.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #83 on:** March 22, 2014, 11:37 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 22, 2014, 10:17

Looking at the example in that thread, why would you buy an extended license for "print advertising" when the standard license allows you to use it for print advertising? Or promotional use?

It seems like if you want the largest size for some reason, they force you to buy the EL, but if you don't, you're fine with the cheaper regular license.

From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #84 on:** March 22, 2014, 12:09 »

Did the thread there go poof? I can't see it anymore.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #85 on:** March 22, 2014, 12:11 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 22, 2014, 12:09

Did the thread there go poof? I can't see it anymore.

No, it's still there. Maybe your login timed out, or maybe the other sean has changed the access rights.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #86 on:** March 22, 2014, 12:16 »

Ok, I did time out.

Looks like he's trying to get all the benefit (income) of licensing RM (or as he calls it, EL, which makes no sense, since they're the opposite of extended) with none of the responsibility of administrating it.

And as someone else said, the "RM" licenses there should be cheaper than the RF, since they are so much more restrictive. It really makes no sense at all.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #87 on:** March 22, 2014, 12:18 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 22, 2014, 11:37

From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....

FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #88 on:** March 22, 2014, 13:53 »

It would have been easy enough to invite a group of power sellers in for a weekend conference and hash out all of the issues. And then perhaps attend a few industry gatherings to learn how the business works.

stockastic · « **Reply #89 on:** March 22, 2014, 15:36 »

But that wouldn't be "disruptive".

LesPalenik · « **Reply #90 on:** March 22, 2014, 16:17 »

Quote from: DF_Studios on March 22, 2014, 13:53

It would have been easy enough to invite a group of power sellers in for a weekend conference and hash out all of the issues. And then perhaps attend a few industry gatherings to learn how the business works.

That would have been a good idea. It seems, that right now everybody there has very different expectations or worries - the site owner, the stockers, the stock-haters, the painters, and the totally clueless. The main question is: who will be the buyers?

ShadySue · « **Reply #91 on:** March 22, 2014, 16:24 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on March 22, 2014, 16:17

Quote from: DF_Studios on March 22, 2014, 13:53
It would have been easy enough to invite a group of power sellers in for a weekend conference and hash out all of the issues. And then perhaps attend a few industry gatherings to learn how the business works.
That would have been a good idea. It seems, that right now everybody there has very different expectations or worries - the site owner, the stockers, the stock-haters, the painters, and the totally clueless. The main question is: who will be the buyers?

i.e. is he going to promote the site?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #92 on:** March 22, 2014, 16:34 »

"Looks like Sean changed the license names to "Royalty Free" and "Rights Managed". (no more "standard" and "extended".) "

It's really all backwards. They're not "managing" the rights, because he says you need to monitor the web and world for incorrect usage. They're actually restricting the rights. They way they have it set up, it should be RF at the top, at the highest price, and the restricted uses for lesser prices.

Crazy they jumped into this without any research.

Ron · « **Reply #93 on:** March 22, 2014, 16:43 »

I havent checked back but he is talking a lot, but not answering real concerns about watermarking etc. Nothing changed, they never address questions about changing stuff they have no interest in changing.

I dont care, it will not work anyways. Buyers can buy my images elsewhere. If people start reporting steady sales, I can easily opt in.

ShadySue · « **Reply #94 on:** March 22, 2014, 17:14 »

Quote from: Ron on March 22, 2014, 16:43

I havent checked back but he is talking a lot, but not answering real concerns about watermarking etc. Nothing changed, they never address questions about changing stuff they have no interest in changing.

That, unfortunately, is the bottom line with FAA: 'my way or no way'; and it's also their archilles heel. Of course, it's his ball, he can make up his own rules; but ultimately that might not be best business practice, and may fall well short of legality.
For example, when I pointed out that their claim, "When someone clicks on your advertisement and then signs up for a new website on artistwebsites.com, you'll instantly earn $5.00." isn't true, I got a personal email from Sean explaining that the person has to go past the time (30 days?) when the person can't ask for a refund. Fair enough, as I replied, that's not unreasonable, but the promise is thereby totally untrue. And six months later, the lie is still there:
http://fineartamerica.com/announcement-artist-websites-referral-program.html?affiliateid=
I think that basic disregard for honesty and legality (in the UK, that wording is neither honest nor truthful ), even when it's pointed out, is worryingly arrogant.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #95 on:** March 22, 2014, 17:16 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 22, 2014, 16:34

Crazy they jumped into this without any research

But FAA Sean says they did a ton of research - "The point is - the market was thoroughly researched before we decided to get involved."

I think the problem is that he gathered a lot of data he didn't understand and is now circling the wagons against anyone who doesn't agree with him. He also seems to equate a microstock extended license with high end RM in claiming that no one tracks usages. He said SS is selling 25 million images a month - it's per quarter. And on and on...

MarcvsTvllivs · « **Reply #96 on:** March 22, 2014, 18:05 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 22, 2014, 16:34

"Looks like Sean changed the license names to "Royalty Free" and "Rights Managed". (no more "standard" and "extended".) "

It's really all backwards. They're not "managing" the rights, because he says you need to monitor the web and world for incorrect usage. They're actually restricting the rights. They way they have it set up, it should be RF at the top, at the highest price, and the restricted uses for lesser prices.

Crazy they jumped into this without any research.

Exactly what I have been thinking about Zoonar's weird misuse of the term RM for a long time. Although at least they got the pricing right (RF being way more expensive than "RM").

Gunter Nezhoda · « **Reply #97 on:** March 22, 2014, 19:12 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 22, 2014, 12:18

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 22, 2014, 11:37

From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....

FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.

But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?

ShadySue · « **Reply #98 on:** March 22, 2014, 19:13 »

Quote from: Gunter Nezhoda on March 22, 2014, 19:12

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 22, 2014, 12:18
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 22, 2014, 11:37

From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....

FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.

But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?

And if he's not careful, he could lose it all in lawsuits.

Gunter Nezhoda · « **Reply #99 on:** March 22, 2014, 19:17 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 22, 2014, 19:13

Quote from: Gunter Nezhoda on March 22, 2014, 19:12
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 22, 2014, 12:18
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 22, 2014, 11:37

From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....

FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.

But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?

And if he's not careful, he could lose it all in lawsuits.

I wish I could say that about myself

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New stock agency - FAA / Pixels.com (Read 38248 times)

Sean Locke Photography

DF_Studios

stockastic

Sean Locke Photography

stockastic

DF_Studios

stockastic

PaulieWalnuts

BaldricksTrousers

Sean Locke Photography

BaldricksTrousers

Sean Locke Photography

Jo Ann Snover

DF_Studios

stockastic

LesPalenik

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

Ron

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

MarcvsTvllivs

Gunter Nezhoda

ShadySue

Gunter Nezhoda

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors