pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: You'll hear about a new site soon - stockphoto.com domain story  (Read 13403 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2013, 13:38 »
0
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 14:42 by leaf »

« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2013, 14:49 »
+5
My guess is that they have no intention of building a long term business there. A few sales might be nice enough but I'll bet that this is all about selling the domain on for more money. Hence all the pub.

Funny really because I strongly believe that it increasingly doesn't much matter what a site is called. A site selling stock photos really doesn't need to be called stock-anything. Having the word stock in the name of business could even be detrimental.

My bet is that the next great collection will be named after the curator and will be called the Somebody Something Collection. Like private galleries.

« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2013, 14:55 »
+6
When I'm looking for something I just type in a description of what I'm after and Google finds me (usually) some reasonable choices or the site I was looking for but whose URL I couldn't remember.

It's like phone numbers - you used to have to remember them to call someone and having a catchy easy-to-remember number was a good thing for a business. Now I have contacts on my phone and I increasingly have no idea what number I dialed (I can still remember my childhood phone number though!).

If having a good URL was all it took, photos.com would be the cream of the crop and it's a rather stale looking backwater...

« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2013, 15:01 »
-2
If having a good URL was all it took, photos.com would be the cream of the crop and it's a rather stale looking backwater...

meow

« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2013, 15:39 »
+1
Interesting story. It's a good domain name, but I think you'd want a little more than just a name to spend that much money on the site. I guess we'll see how it goes.

« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2013, 15:43 »
0
I also wonder if when (if) the floodgates open on new endings (like photos.stk and so on) if that will make sitting on domain names less profitable. some people have definitely cashed out with a little forethought and luck, but mostly they seem to be squatting leaches grabbing up useful domain names and then holding out for big bucks ransom to let people make use of them.

It certainly seems that article is trying to sell something - domain name auctions or similar. It doesn't really seem like they are trying to make a serious competitor to other stock sites, more just make some $ while hoping for a big $ buyout from someone.

« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2013, 15:47 »
+15
Jumping into a 250k 'investment' with no knowledge of the industry, and one contributor doesn't seem very smart to me.

« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2013, 16:00 »
+2
My reckoning is that they will end up being closed down by getty, just like "Mac" companies get closed by macdonald's.

« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2013, 16:13 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:16 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2013, 16:26 »
-1
Jumping into a 250k 'investment' with no knowledge of the industry, and one contributor doesn't seem very smart to me.

The $250K for the domain name is probably not as risky as it first appears. My guess is that the name itself will remain a saleable asset which will probably increase in value faster than most investments. At any rate the $250K is surely 'small beer' when compared to the likely costs of serious entry into the stock photography market.

I'm surprised, given the scale of the initial investment, that he's not making serious efforts to get other contributors yet.

« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2013, 16:33 »
+1
My reckoning is that they will end up being closed down by getty, just like "Mac" companies get closed by macdonald's.
I don't think stockphotos. com would have any problem from Getty, something like iStockpictures would maybe even iPictures would but I don't see how stockphotos could.  It's too generic a term, the 'i' seems to be the important part.

If I remember correctly, the "i" is only there because someone was sitting on "Stockphotos.com" when Bruce wanted the name, so he stuck "i" for "internet" in front of  the name.  If "i" has become important it seems to be an accident.

Anyway, time will tell. I really don't think this dude will see his quarter-million again.

« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2013, 16:33 »
+1
It would be more like Burger King trying to trademark 'burger'.


OK - so this is bit off thread. But I was reading that a chain of pho restaurants in England had tried to stop other places from using pho in their names on the basis that they had trademarked the word pho. Which would be just like trying to trademark the word burger.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2013/sep/25/vietnamese-pho-trademark-soup-cafe

« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2013, 16:36 »
+1
Forgive me, but what is "pho"?


« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2013, 16:39 »
+1
Forgive me, but what is "pho"?

Arguably the closest thing that Vietnam has to a national dish.

(Pronounced, more or less, fah? - with rising intonation like a question)

« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2013, 16:39 »
+2
Jumping into a 250k 'investment' with no knowledge of the industry, and one contributor doesn't seem very smart to me.

The $250K for the domain name is probably not as risky as it first appears. My guess is that the name itself will remain a saleable asset which will probably increase in value faster than most investments.

I don't think so. Soon new top-level domains should be available and then this domain will be worth a fraction of what he paid now. The availability of new TL domains will be like an earthquake for "domain investors". It will open new opportunities, too.

IMHO now is the last good moment to sell existing domains.


« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2013, 16:42 »
+2
Forgive me, but what is "pho"?

Arguably the closest thing that Vietnam has to a national dish.

(Pronounced, more or less, fah? - with rising intonation like a question)

Thanks for that. Gostwyck's google left me confused about whether it was a restaurant, a type of food or a particular dish. Sometimes human explanation is more enlightening that Google's algorithm.

« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2013, 16:49 »
+1
When I'm looking for something I just type in a description of what I'm after and Google finds me (usually) some reasonable choices or the site I was looking for but whose URL I couldn't remember.

It's like phone numbers - you used to have to remember them to call someone and having a catchy easy-to-remember number was a good thing for a business. Now I have contacts on my phone and I increasingly have no idea what number I dialed (I can still remember my childhood phone number though!).

If having a good URL was all it took, photos.com would be the cream of the crop and it's a rather stale looking backwater...

agreed but the SEO value of a good domain is worth a lot.  I have some pretty crappy sites that show up very high in the search results for matching searches.  Or, do a search for stock photo and this new site has already managed 4th spot.

I watched that auction on Flippa and was pretty surprised at the price when it sold.  I agree with Gostwyk though, I think the domain will have value in itself for quite a while.  Even if the added TLD's become popular, everyone is going to consider the .com as default for quite a while yet.  I've talked to the guy who owns the domain it a little and he seems like a genuine and nice guy (for what that's worth).  I can't comment on the business plan side of it though as I don't know much about his long term plans and wouldn't want to put words in his mouth even if I did.

« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2013, 16:57 »
+2
Most people are genuine and nice, in my experience. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether the purchase of a web domain at a high price was wise or not.

« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2013, 19:13 »
+1
...
Right now I've got my money on crapstock.com over stockphotos .com in the next few years....

That domain's already taken - a photographer here with a sense of humor is setting up a site on it as we speak :)

« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2013, 19:16 »
0
That domain's already taken - a photographer here with a sense of humor is setting up a site on it as we speak :)

I think he paid a couple million to get it from a college student.  ;)

jareso

  • Boris Jaroscak
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2013, 04:12 »
+5
I think it was a good buy in long term. That domain has many advantages, huge natural type-in traffic, huge typo traffic, great SEO possibilities, history, it is naturally brandable, thus it has great potential, if it will be treated with care and good business plan.

But it has also something else. Completely free bonus. The bonus is that there is iStockPhoto.com stock agency sitting "nearby" this domain! There must be TONs of people mistyping StockPhoto.com domain, instead iStockPhoto.com domain! No doubts it makes TONs of free typo traffic every day, when people type-in StockPhoto.com instead iStockPhoto.com!

That is great bonus for the buyer!

Every time when iStockPhoto.com agency invests their money, sources, and efforts in promotion of their iStockPhoto.com brand name, they (I am sure very involuntary now) make free promotion also for StockPhoto.com domain!

That is the main reason why, in this exact case, singular word (StockPhoto.com) has much higher value than plural word (StockPhotos.com). Through usually plural domain has higher value in most cases. But not in this case. Because of iStockPhoto.com brand, which makes free (involuntary) promotion also for StockPhoto.com and gives it free every day's influx of typo traffic/visitors.

Anyway, I guess risk of iStockPhoto.com suing StockPhoto.com, and wining that trial equals almost zero. Domain StockPhoto.com is older than iStockPhoto.com, so if someone was to sue anyone, it could end actually in reverse order.

Even StockPhotos.com probably receives some typo traffic from iStockPhoto.com too, but it will be much more less than typo traffic StockPhoto.com receives. To mistype only "i" in the beginning of the word is much more easier than to mistype "i" as well as "s" at the ending. The difference in typo traffic for those two domains will be miles between each other.

Anyway, as I mentioned at the beginning StockPhoto.com, as well as StockPhotos.com are great domains, because they receive also natural type-in traffic, in form of people looking for stockphoto(s). When someone wants to find stock photos on the internet what will he do? He will naturally put stockphoto(s) to address bar of his browser to see what website is there. If there is quality stock photos related website with quality content he will convert to buyer. And all of this is completely for free for the owner of the domain. No need for him to spend TONs of money in advertising, he has natural influx of people looking for stock photos and typing stockphoto(s) to address bar! Advertising is expensive, he could easily waste $250,000 on advertising, but when advertising campaigns ends, influx of advertising traffic also ends, but on the other side, natural type-in traffic is staying forever for FREE, and for all the time, as long as stock photo(s) words will exist, or there will not be some huge changes in the way internet domains works, which I guess will be not anytime soon. So type-in traffic is the best and FREE advertising! So in longer term it was a great purchase for the buyer! If he will do things right, he cannot loose with this purchase!
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 04:28 by jareso »

« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2013, 04:44 »
+2
Jumping into a 250k 'investment' with no knowledge of the industry, and one contributor doesn't seem very smart to me.

It depends on who that one contributor is. Professionals don't need other professionals.  :P

stocked

« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2013, 04:45 »
+1
I would question the SEO value a normal person like a small business owner probably use either Google image search or use a term like: 'where can I buy pictures' even if they aware of the term stockphoto. Designers already have one or more agencies that they are buying stockphotos and if they are looking for alternatives they will ask fellow designers for advice like in a forum.

The name itself is also not good was it stockphoto.com or stockphotos.com or stock-photo.com? With video becoming also more and more important it limits you to photo. Also with all this websites making jokes about stockphotos, stockphoto has already a negative vibe.

Also Google doesn't value the domain name that much anymore as it used to be in the past.

It's stupid and the interview with the guy (oh Shutterstock makes so much money with stockphotos and we already have one contributor it's a sure invest) just confirms it.

stocked

« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2013, 05:17 »
+1

Every time when iStockPhoto.com agency invests their money, sources, and efforts in promotion of their iStockPhoto.com brand name, they (I am sure very involuntary now) make free promotion also for StockPhoto.com domain!

Pity is they only invest money to promote iStock.com and Thinkstock.com! Istockphoto.com doesn't get any promotions anymore.
Actually I believe they only promote Thinkstock.com can't remember any iStock ads in magazines for quite a long time.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 05:27 by stocked »

« Reply #26 on: December 11, 2013, 08:25 »
0
I go to a local PHO restaurant and they have a BBQ kind of spring roll I like, but we usually get soup.  Our little saying at work is lets go get some PHOQUE... ;D ;D ;D ;D


« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2013, 11:03 »
0
Domain name is a past! Google ranking is everything!

« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2013, 11:17 »
0
Domain name is a past! Google ranking is everything!

Google ranking is the past! Personal recommendation is everything!

Most people looking to buy stock photos can ask their peers who to use - on Twitter, FB etc.

Seriously - I almost never Google when I am looking to spend money. Partly because I do not find the results particularly good. I go for personal recommendations - or else I use sites which I already trust such as Amazon (Amazon itself - not the 3rd party sellers). I also largely trust the seller reviews on eBay - although I am careful how I read them.

I find that Google is good if I am looking to know more about a particular product - but I do not trust it as a way of finding out who to buy a product from. For example - Google seems to often bring up company review results from TrustPilot and similar review sites - which are compromised (retailers can subscribe to 'moderate' bad reviews). These sites also seem to make it possible for dodgy retailers to spam their reviews with false positives via presumably bogus social media accounts. Some of the most unreliable companies have very positive review site scores and Google rankings.

« Reply #29 on: December 11, 2013, 11:40 »
+3
Google spins their algorithms  like penguin and panda and can drop sites into the abyss overnight. This could happen to stockphoto.com and the party is over.

Also, their site is dreadful. New buyers are expecting better and more full-featured sites. It is funny and kinda misleading to state " since 1995". On the other hand, it looks like it has not been updated since then

« Reply #30 on: December 11, 2013, 13:19 »
+1
Google spins their algorithms  like penguin and panda and can drop sites into the abyss overnight. This could happen to stockphoto.com and the party is over.

Also, their site is dreadful. New buyers are expecting better and more full-featured sites. It is funny and kinda misleading to state " since 1995". On the other hand, it looks like it has not been updated since then

I remember on Happy Days when Fonzie wanted to update Al's menu with new images and he had to use stock photos...

« Reply #31 on: December 11, 2013, 14:48 »
0
Business brand is everything and the domain should match. This is current SEO best practice. Unless the owner is going to invest heavily in the site to make it of high quality, then there is minimal advantage to owning this particular one. He must have a wad of spare cash though; I could have bought a nice house for that!

« Reply #32 on: December 11, 2013, 15:43 »
0
I go to a local PHO restaurant and they have a BBQ kind of spring roll I like, but we usually get soup.  Our little saying at work is lets go get some PHOQUE... ;D ;D ;D ;D

We don't have Pho restaurants where I live so I send people to the far que instead.

« Reply #33 on: December 11, 2013, 22:20 »
0
stockphotos.com

 
All I see on the site is this:
 

This URL is currently for sale.

For more information contact Jeff Kubarych at:

jeff@futuredot.com

phone: 203-200-0607

« Reply #34 on: December 11, 2013, 22:34 »
0
stockphotos.com

 
All I see on the site is this:
 

This URL is currently for sale.

For more information contact Jeff Kubarych at:

jeff@futuredot.com

phone: 203-200-0607

it's  stockphoto.com

« Reply #35 on: December 12, 2013, 01:28 »
0
stockphotos.com

 
All I see on the site is this:
 

This URL is currently for sale.

For more information contact Jeff Kubarych at:

jeff@futuredot.com

phone: 203-200-0607

it's  stockphoto.com

stockphotos.com is actually on flippa right now https://flippa.com/3002284-stockphotos-com-category-owning-domain-name-now-on-the-market

« Reply #36 on: December 12, 2013, 04:33 »
+2
stockphotos.com

 
All I see on the site is this:
 

This URL is currently for sale.

For more information contact Jeff Kubarych at:

jeff@futuredot.com

phone: 203-200-0607

it's  stockphoto.com

stockphotos.com is actually on flippa right now https://flippa.com/3002284-stockphotos-com-category-owning-domain-name-now-on-the-market

Maybe that explains the Flippa article  ;D


« Reply #37 on: December 12, 2013, 15:13 »
+3
IMHO, domain names are no longer important and if someone spent $250,000 on this one, I wouldn't want to be an investor.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2013, 16:31 by stockastic »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2013, 00:34 »
+10
Not sure about more on this but it was a joke for a few years, and then someone in NY registered the name. I did the faux whine about how I wanted that site and now it was too late.

Some people here took off on that and said, "well you should have registered it."  :o
Then I got an email from the lady who had registered it for an art project and she had decided on some other direction. We negotiated and I took over the site name.

So that's how humor turns into reality. Creation Date: 28-may-2011 (which by the way is before some of the people who object sternly to the name had heard of Microstock and before one of them owned a camera.) But I'm the evil troll who did this just to upset people.

OK No I didn't!

I did it for a joke. I did it to mock some of the CrapStock that people produce and try to sell. I did it to protest the 20,000 sliced vegetable photos, isolated on white, business handshake, girl with a headset, and the copies of every popular image, that some lemmings create in an effort to cash in on someone else's creative success.  And I did it with the intention of making a site with what I considered good images, that agencies had rejected. In fact it was going to be 100% rejected images, to prove a point.

But you don't want to know the rest of the story. The threats, the ignores, the accusations and criticism from some people with no sense of humor and who want to tell others how to run their lives. And what I should call my own website?

There will never be a real site, it's a Mock Site! I hope that explains it for anyone else who was terribly offended by me making fun of myself and the industry garbage that some sites and some people try to pass off as stock. I could add the Instagram fad, but I'm hoping that, like 3D TV, it will run it's course naturally and head back into the shadows.  :)

Now back on topic. I don't think that stockphoto.com has the value it might have, five years ago. All the people seem to think the name stock and photo are needed to make yourself noticed. I think rather, it's how to get buried in the weeds with all the other sites with similar names. Loss of identity anyone?

How does istock get away with "i" anything when Apple seems to own that? Maybe it's overlooked or because it's been around since before the Apple "i" everything phase?

And phone number? I've had one of them, since 1972, it ends 2277 which is? (what would you have thought?) CARS  8)  Home phone, private line at work and eventually ported to my cell phone. True,  easy phone numbers aren't what they once were either. We all carry phone books in our devices and don't need to remember easy numbers. People who I've know for 40 years have said what's your cell phone number and I say, same as it's always been, my home number. And if they don't have it in their phone, they don't remember?

What did Google mean, before Google.com? Hardly anyone but math people and science types had heard of a google or googleplex. What was a Yahoo? Twitter? WiKi? The Amazon is a natural place not a marketplace. eBay? But ask anyone and they know what these are. What the heck is a Zazzle or a Etsy? Maybe not giant killers, but well known and accepted.

Type in "Stock Photo Downloads" (BING) and what do you get? Dreamstime #1.

The name doesn't make the place, the content and public recognition makes the name! Call your next site BluePossum and it will be more memorable than all the stock or photo names in the world.

...
Right now I've got my money on crapstock.com over stockphotos .com in the next few years....

That domain's already taken - a photographer here with a sense of humor is setting up a site on it as we speak :)

Ron

« Reply #39 on: December 13, 2013, 01:33 »
+1
Pete, your posts are always balanced and smart. You get far too less up votes. ^^ one from me, more should follow

« Reply #40 on: December 13, 2013, 06:09 »
0
stockphotos.com

 
All I see on the site is this:
 

This URL is currently for sale.

For more information contact Jeff Kubarych at:

jeff@futuredot.com

phone: 203-200-0607

it's  stockphoto.com

stockphotos.com is actually on flippa right now https://flippa.com/3002284-stockphotos-com-category-owning-domain-name-now-on-the-market

that was fast, maybe not doing that ton of cash he talked about

ShadySue

« Reply #41 on: December 13, 2013, 06:21 »
+2
stockphotos.com

 
All I see on the site is this:
 

This URL is currently for sale.

For more information contact Jeff Kubarych at:

jeff@futuredot.com

phone: 203-200-0607

it's  stockphoto.com

stockphotos.com is actually on flippa right now https://flippa.com/3002284-stockphotos-com-category-owning-domain-name-now-on-the-market

that was fast, maybe not doing that ton of cash he talked about

Different site, note the 's'.

« Reply #42 on: December 13, 2013, 06:31 »
0
oh indeed!

Uncle Pete

« Reply #43 on: December 14, 2013, 17:34 »
+2
I try to be balanced and fair, but I know I'm a fool for that. Everyone has personal bias, and who says life is fair?  ;) Thanks for the thoughtful unprejudiced opinion.

Pete, your posts are always balanced and smart. You get far too less up votes. ^^ one from me, more should follow

« Reply #44 on: December 17, 2013, 09:03 »
+10
Hi everyone,

I'm Jon and I'm the one that bought the 'Stockphoto.com' domain via the Flippa marketplace.

Appreciate the kind comments but I also acknowledge all questions (and doubts). All concerns raised are reasonable and valid - I would have done the same.

I am the first to admit that you would have to be at least a little bit mad to pay that much money for a mere domain name. But I can assure you that the Flippa article was written to provide a tongue-in-cheek overview and as such, it does gloss over many details of my plan for the business - a long-term plan.

However, I'm not a stock photographer and so an important part of my day-to-day routine is to make sure I stay as up-to-date as I can on what works/doesn't work for you, via industry blogs and forums such as Tyler's here.

I surmise that there are two main avenues for the the stock photographer to market his/her portfolio. Firstly through marketplaces like SS, iStock, Stocksy etc. And the second, directly via a personal site. Both have their own strengths and weaknesses (documented extensively in this forum).

It is my hope that Stockphoto.com bridges the gap a little between the perceived lack of control experienced at the established marketplaces (commission rates, submissions etc), and the problem of attracting profitable amounts of targeted traffic at the personal website end of the spectrum.

Stockphoto.com's sole asset is its ability to consistently attract targeted web traffic. I've owned the domain for a year now and unless Google Analytics is lying to me, I know this to be a fact. With a test portfolio of 57,000 images also marketed at established marketplaces, priced at the same levels as that at those marketplaces, I have been able to validate that we are indeed able to attract visitors as well as getting them to buy (for a given level of quality and price). I even have a little profit left over after paying commissions, webhosting and all other expenses in running the business.

So I'm now slowly kicking on with growing the small amount of inventory I have.

I absolutely agree with the following sentiments:
- it's the ugliest website this side of the www
- it's so clunky (too many steps from search to download)
- it's got zero functionality like lightboxes etc
- this guy is not a stock photographer and lacks the perspective and understanding of one
- it's only got one contributor (...for the moment)

I'm working on it :) It's, still, practically a test site.

Again, thanks to Tyler for allowing me to be a member of this community (I've been happily lurking here for almost a year now). I'm very pleased to be here and look forward to learning the ropes from all of you.

Cheers,
Jon

« Reply #45 on: December 17, 2013, 09:49 »
0
OVERSUPPLY!!!!! Welcome to the fray.

« Reply #46 on: December 17, 2013, 09:56 »
0
OVERSUPPLY!!!!! Welcome to the fray.

not on stockphoto


« Reply #47 on: December 17, 2013, 10:04 »
0
stockphotos.com

 
All I see on the site is this:
 

This URL is currently for sale.

For more information contact Jeff Kubarych at:

jeff@futuredot.com

phone: 203-200-0607

it's  stockphoto.com

stockphotos.com is actually on flippa right now https://flippa.com/3002284-stockphotos-com-category-owning-domain-name-now-on-the-market

that was fast, maybe not doing that ton of cash he talked about

Different site, note the 's'.



Thank you for all of the comments and questions. StockPhotos.com is currently ranked on the 2nd page of Google for the search term stock photos. Google returns more than 500 Million results for that query and StockPhotos.com is ranked above some of the major companies in the industry at this time. Search engine algorithms change frequently and there is no guarantee of ranking in a certain position for any period of time, but it is powerful to see such a high ranking, given that there is no relevant content posted on the domain at this time.

Please feel free to send any questions you may have through the messaging section of flippa. Thanks.

(23 hours ago)

« Reply #48 on: December 17, 2013, 13:58 »
0
StockPhotos.com is currently ranked on the 2nd page of Google for the search term stock photos.

Not here it isn't. It's on page 5 for me.

« Reply #49 on: December 17, 2013, 15:23 »
+1
I got to the end of page 2 and gave up - no sign. Most user would not look past the top 3 or four results.

There is no definitive placing in Google. It depends where you are searching from and a whole other host of factors such as previous search history, sites you've visited etc, regularly used sites etc.

The same keyword phrase isn't all that brilliant either. It's very generic with a huge number of matches -"stock photo". Let's say you search for, "stock photo web site" - do you want to visit the URL for www.stockphoto.com or do you want to go to a site selling stock photos? It's not a keyword gem! By contrast type in "apple web site"; you know where you'll end up...

That said - I'm a hopeless businessman... Good luck to you with your domain name. You'll need to make "stockphotos.com" a distinctive brand to succeed.

« Reply #50 on: December 18, 2013, 07:49 »
+1
Speaking of google rankings. Why does canstock feature at the top of most google image searches? IStock only turns up on obscure searches. What is canstock doing that the others aren't?

stocked

« Reply #51 on: December 18, 2013, 07:52 »
0
Respect Jon for the reply ! :)

Uncle Pete

« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2013, 20:44 »
+3
And I do respect him for that. Cheers back at him, this will be interesting to watch.


Humor Alert  ;)

Respect Jon for the reply ! :)

50%

« Reply #53 on: March 01, 2016, 12:34 »
0
Old thread alert but this is the way they look in 2016 and most of their content seems to come from Deposit.
http://stockphoto.com

« Reply #54 on: March 01, 2016, 17:46 »
0
Old thread alert but this is the way they look in 2016 and most of their content seems to come from Deposit.
http://stockphoto.com


Many of the subscription photos come from 123RF.

Anybody see how much they pay?

Apply to be a Contributor
Stockphoto.com needs you!

If you are an experienced stock photographer with at least 5000 images at either Shutterstock, iStock, Dreamstime or Fotolia then we'd love to hear from you.

Just enter the link to your portfolio using the form below and we'll get back to you within 48 hours.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
38 Replies
8552 Views
Last post January 20, 2010, 20:38
by a.k.a.-tom
2 Replies
2791 Views
Last post February 22, 2007, 07:06
by epixx
26 Replies
5356 Views
Last post July 17, 2013, 18:21
by cascoly
5 Replies
1971 Views
Last post November 17, 2013, 19:00
by Uncle Pete
3 Replies
2521 Views
Last post April 22, 2014, 14:04
by cascoly

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results