MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Rage on April 14, 2017, 23:39
-
Came across this crazy article today.
https://bizztor.com/royality-free-stock-images (https://bizztor.com/royality-free-stock-images)
So how do sites like this get images? Why do these contributors want to give them images for free despite a production cost? And finally apart from google ads, how do they make money?
-
My guess is, that it is photographers that canīt sell them elsewhere any way.
For example on Unsplash try to search "friends".
Canīt really see any of those files as good sellers on either Shutterstock or Fotolia. It mostly look like snapshots in my oppinion! So thatīs where I think they get them, and I really dont see it as a competition to the "real market"
-
Photography is a hobby for millions of people. They are happy to share them with anyone.
They are not a threat to the stock industry, because they donīt invest in models, mua, post production etc...they do sunsets, flowers, family pets, all the things anyone can do with little or no training.
that material has low market value anyway. Many also have logos, no releases etc...so the customer doesnīt know if all rights were secured.
Some do gorgous wallpaper art - travel, high end flowers etc...but again, the wallpaper market is not our market.
A few agencies are connected to SS and other sites, that use them as a clickbait to lure customers to the better quality files on SS.
And on this site it is the photographer himself who is posting some of his files for free and then probably gets a commission if someone uses his discount code and buys more from SS.
http://gratisography.com (http://gratisography.com)
-
I suspect they're also stock rejects. If you look at many of the photos at 100% you'll see they're OOF, noisy, have motion blur or have other technical issues. So they offer them free and make money from the ads. Some also start charging after a while or offer some kind of "premium" collection for $.
-
I suspect they're also stock rejects. If you look at many of the photos at 100% you'll see they're OOF, noisy, have motion blur or have other technical issues. So they offer them free and make money from the ads. Some also start charging after a while or offer some kind of "premium" collection for $.
Also the free photos are just as above but usually terrible. Then the good ones are links for partner to API for sites like SS where nothing is free. This is also called bait and switch. There are free photos but anything anyone wants will be pay and the free site gets a percentage for sending buyers to a Microstock site. Also known as nothing is free.
-
Well I've had a ton of people tell me that i should just shoot for them for free. Else they'll just go online and get much better pics than mine from the internet 😛😛
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
-
Paul Melcher just released a blog post: FREE PHOTOS: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY?
http://blog.melchersystem.com/free-photos-threat-or-opportunity-2/ (http://blog.melchersystem.com/free-photos-threat-or-opportunity-2/)
Interesting take on what sites are linked and why he thinks the free sites seem to work.
-
Proposal of "free" can threaten many businesses. People care less about quality if they can get something for free. They don't care about your expenses. For supplier of a free service this is usually a side, additional business, supported by main activity. Motivations are different, from attempts to enter new fields to "i will damage because i can do it". Free photos, graphics, cleaning, hairdressing, office supplies, even pizzas and transport. Something should be created to differentiate charity from this kind of damping.
-
"Advertising is simple: Traffic is enticed to click on relevant banner ads. Each click is rewarded by a fee paid by the advertiser. Calculated by the thousands, or CPM, they can generate a substantial amount when multiplied by large numbers. At .20 per CPM, multiplied by 1 million, and you get $200,000. Not bad."
I'm not an expert in this but isn't that a wildly high estimate both in terms of no clicks and revenue per click?