Author Topic: Most photos - new "midstock" site! (Read 78657 times)

swedstock · « **on:** August 28, 2007, 15:49 »

Here is a tip on a new site for you guys who likes to find new places to sell your pictures!

--> www.mostphotos.com
Feel free to use my referral link ;-)

I posted this thread in the "new microstock" section but I guess this Swedish site is really somewhere in between micro and macro if you look at the price structure of the pictures.

Now you will probably think, why bother with another one?
Well, all I can tell you is that I have a good feeling about this one.
I am not affiliated with the owners in any way, but I have been there for some time now, giving tips on improvement in their forum and helped them bugtest some functions. The site was in Swedish to begin with, aimed at a Scandinavian market. (Im Swedish so thats why I joined them in the first place) I am however really impressed with the work they have done with the site in a short period of time, but even more importantly, the changes and new functions they have added are most a result of interaction with the contributors.
The people in charge are active in their forums and they really listen to the photographers requests.

The site has been in Beta for some time and in swedish until recently, but they have now started to translate the whole site into english and are just about ready to launch it aimed for a worldwide market. Some texts are not yet translated and most of the discussions in the forums are in Swedish but that will change in the days to come.

This is what they offer as of now:

1. FTP upload and automatic ITPC reading. They just released this function but it works really well as far as I can see. I would compare the "upload smoothness" similar to featurepics and StockXpert, which means it's pretty effortless. You just have to choose one category and the system is fast. Once you get the hang of their system it is easy to upload bigger batches.

2. RF-pictures sells for 25 Euro and 50 % goes to the photographer. You can also sell pictures exclusive and set your own price.

3. The site has a kind of community based structure where fellow photographers can rate and comment on others photos. Based on comments and rating the pictures end up higher or lower in searches. Google loves content and it is fun to get comments on your work. =)

4. No review/quality control on uploaded pictures. Yes, you read correctly. None what so ever. I was very sceptical to this at first but I am starting to maybe change my mind about it. "Bad pictures" get low ratings anyway and end up last in searches. What I like about this policy is that the buyers can chose if a picture is right for them or not, It is not based on one reviewers taste. It remains to be seen if this is sucessful or not.

5. Referral program. You get 1 euro for every picture sold if you referred the photographer or the buyer.

6. I am not sure about Paypal/Moneyb. They have said they are working on it so I guess it shouldn't be too far away.

Feel free to use my referral link ;-)

--> www.mostphotos.com

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** August 28, 2007, 18:14 »

My first impression was - wow nice front page maybe this site is not too bad.

my second impression was - why on earth do they have google ads on their image pages. Seems a little unprofessional and cheap.

swedstock · « **Reply #2 on:** August 28, 2007, 18:51 »

Quote from: leaf on August 28, 2007, 18:14

My first impression was - wow nice front page maybe this site is not too bad.

my second impression was - why on earth do they have google ads on their image pages. Seems a little unprofessional and cheap.

I agree. That issue has been raised in their forum as well, and I got the impression from there that the google ads was just something temporary under the beta period. I think more "professional ads" will replace it when the site is officially lanched over the next weeks.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #3 on:** August 29, 2007, 00:38 »

Quote from: moori on August 28, 2007, 15:49

4. No review/quality control on uploaded pictures. Yes, you read correctly. None what so ever. I was very sceptical to this at first but I am starting to maybe change my mind about it. "Bad pictures" get low ratings anyway and end up last in searches. What I like about this policy is that the buyers can chose if a picture is right for them or not, It is not based on one reviewers taste. It remains to be seen if this is sucessful or not.

Don't they even check for model/property releases and copyright/logo infringements? If they don't, they're treading on very dangerous ground.

leaf · « **Reply #4 on:** August 29, 2007, 02:24 »

Quote from: moori on August 28, 2007, 18:51

Quote from: leaf on August 28, 2007, 18:14
My first impression was - wow nice front page maybe this site is not too bad.

my second impression was - why on earth do they have google ads on their image pages. Seems a little unprofessional and cheap.

I think more "professional ads" will replace it when the site is officially lanched over the next weeks.

How about no ads at all.

bjorn · « **Reply #5 on:** August 29, 2007, 03:21 »

what about sales?

ErickN · « **Reply #6 on:** August 29, 2007, 04:55 »

How about watermarking ALL the images ?
When you browse through the collection, some of them are watermarked, but many aren't.
Even easier than with FT's watermark, and in 640x480 size !

swedstock · « **Reply #7 on:** August 29, 2007, 05:04 »

Quote

Don't they even check for model/property releases and copyright/logo infringements? If they don't, they're treading on very dangerous ground.

Not really. They are doing it the same way Alamy and many other macros are doing it. They inform the photographers clearly in the terms that model release has to exist for recognizable people and that copyright/logos are not allowed. Then it is up to the photographer to follow these rules. They don't babysit us. After all it is the photographer that has to face the legal concequences. It also depends on what country the buyer is from and where the picture is to be used. Swedish and European copyright laws are also somewhat different from the American. In Sweden I believe, it is ok to publish a picture that have a logo in it as long as it is not the main focus of the picture. That is just a parantese however, since the site clearly state that they not allow photographers to upload pictures with these kind of copryright issues.

swedstock · « **Reply #8 on:** August 29, 2007, 05:10 »

Quote from: ErickN on August 29, 2007, 04:55

How about watermarking ALL the images ?
When you browse through the collection, some of them are watermarked, but many aren't.
Even easier than with FT's watermark, and in 640x480 size !

Watermarking is optional to the photographer. You choose in your control panel by clicking a box wheather you want all your pictures watermarked or not. Some of the photographers did not want watermarking since they believed it ruined their pictures.

Quote from: bjorn on August 29, 2007, 03:21

what about sales?

The site is not officially released yet so I don't think these have been much sales yet. I know some people have sold some pictures but it is not much. I think the marketing campaign will begin over the next weeks.

Suvakov · « **Reply #9 on:** August 29, 2007, 07:32 »

Hi my name is Radde and i work together with the creators of Mostphotos and i hope to give you a answer on your comment regarding the Google ads. The beta period for the site is now over and we are launching the site right now. We hope to replace the Google ads soon when we can find companies that want to advertise products and services to semi- and professional photographers who takes their work seriously. Not everybody feels that google ads are "cheap" - myself for example, i don't relay care - in fact i have come across some interesting services (freewebs.com) and great bargains ( a Canon 400D for a reasonable price ) thru the google ads. I also noticed that microstockgroup.com use google ads and so does hundred and thousends of small business. I don't feel that is something bad. I hope that a small insignificant detail like this will prevent you from joining if there is a lot of other positive things and fun functions on the site.

Best regards

//R

Suvakov · « **Reply #10 on:** August 29, 2007, 07:37 »

"I hope that a small insignificant detail like this will NOT prevent you from joining if there is a lot of other positive things and fun functions on the site."

Please forgive my bad English - remember I'm Swedish

Best regards

//R

leaf · « **Reply #11 on:** August 29, 2007, 07:53 »

Hi there Suvakov - and welcome to the site. I hope you stick around the site to give your opinion on microstock in general and on your site specifically.

To elaborate on what I was meaning with ads...

I don't think there is anything wrong with google ads or other ads in general. In fact they are great - they keep much of the internet free.

However, sites that are selling services or products generally don't run adds on their site - such as dreamstime, getty, istock, shutterstock, B&H photo, or any series business website.

Sites that don't sell anything often do have ads to pay for the costs behind the site. Forums, info sites, free newspaper websites...

In my opinion, when i look at a website that is selling something and it has ads (such as google) - to me that means they are not making enough off of their product to make any sort of a profit and have to rely on google ads to make things go around. which in turn tells me that the site isn't very serious about what they are doing (not that that is neccesarily true, it is just how i feel)

So the question in the end is - Why would you have ads on the site? To earn money? If the images are getting sales, would that be enough. Getty bought Istock for $50,000,000 so it must have been turning somewhat of a profit - It doesn't seem a succesful microstock agency would have to rely on advertising (and directing customers away from their site as well as distracting from the images) to pay the bills.

Pixart · « **Reply #12 on:** August 29, 2007, 09:50 »

Also, why would you want someone leaving your site when they click an ad? They may never come back.

Suvakov · « **Reply #13 on:** August 29, 2007, 10:25 »

You are right leaf.
We are not making significant money yet, nore from selling pics or ads. But we are just launching the site this week, i hope you will give us a chance. We will need the ad revenues later especially when we share the pics revenue 50/50 with the photographers. And your price is not 1 USD it is almost 30 USD. We also implemented a referral system that pays 1,20 USD for every pics sold by a referred photographer and another 1,20 USD for every referred customer that buys a image.
I also believe and hope that we will be restrictive with which ads are going to be accepted. They must have a value for our photographers e.g. news, discounts etc. Nore do we decide what pics you may upload or not as long as you follow the User Agreement. If you break the agreement the pics will certainly be reported by our members (reporting system for offensive images) We do not believe in restrictions as a rule, we like to believe in artistic freedom and own responsibility. Its no wonder the members call it "the democratic imagebank". We did not come up with that slogan, but we feel a responsibility to live up to it.

Pixart:
I'm not afraid that a visitor or a member clicks on a ad that interest him or her. If the visitor clicks away and never returns its not his or her fault it is only ours - because then we have failed to make the ultimate site for photographers and we just have to work even harder! And there is another reason to

Our members are extremely loyal to the site - we often joke about the fact that it quickly becomes addict - i just love hanging around there with many creative and fun members and i allways learn something new almost every day.

swedstock · « **Reply #14 on:** August 30, 2007, 06:04 »

Another thing that i like with Mostphotos is the personal page you get there.
When a client ask to see some work of mine I usually give them the link to my portfolio there.
http://www.mostphotos.com/moori
You get a fairly good overview and I rather direct buyers to Mostphotos or some other midstock agency than any of my microlinks simply because I get payed more.
Buyers don't have to register either just to buy one photo.

There are still some issues that need to be resolved at Mostphotos but at the speed the site has developing since i joined, I am pretty confident that it soon will be ready to take some marketshares, especially in northern Europe. I think that many designers and adpeople in these regions still are pretty much unaware of the micro-/midstock buisness and I think that this site have the potetiontial to change this.

null · « **Reply #15 on:** August 30, 2007, 08:14 »

Quote from: Suvakov on August 29, 2007, 07:32

Not everybody feels that google ads are "cheap" - myself for example, i don't relay care - in fact i have come across some interesting services (freewebs.com) and great bargains ( a Canon 400D for a reasonable price ) thru the google ads.

As for me, I'm just allergic to ads. That's why I threw my TV out 4 years ago. Adblocking is on the rise. Many people use the Firefox adblocker plugin with daily updated lists. I use it. It makes surfing ligther and faster. I don't see Google ads or any other ads -ever-. So for me it's new there are even Google ads on this forum site.

No ads is the best policy, but quod licet Iovi, non licet Bovi ;-)

null · « **Reply #16 on:** August 30, 2007, 08:35 »

Quote from: leaf on August 28, 2007, 18:14

My first impression was - wow nice front page maybe this site is not too bad.

I don't know what type of connection you're on but the site took many seconds to reach from here, and then 3 minutes to load the front/landing page. I found out why, they have a huge set of full-screen background photos on their landing page, worth 327KB.

It's bad for them since they will lose a lot of bandwidth, and bad for business since most people click away after 5 seconds maximum. A landing page should be blazing fast, with essential info, no flash or other gimmicks, just plain optimized HTML. See Dreamstime, see Flickr. These guys should really read some manuals on basic webdesign and human interfacing. Nobody sticks around waiting for a 327KB landing page to load.

Gives a very amateurish impression. Whatever, just my 2 cents. Don't expect me to click on that link ever again. I'm on limited bandwidth.

leaf · « **Reply #17 on:** August 30, 2007, 08:42 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on August 30, 2007, 08:14

Quote from: Suvakov on August 29, 2007, 07:32
Not everybody feels that google ads are "cheap" - myself for example, i don't relay care - in fact i have come across some interesting services (freewebs.com) and great bargains ( a Canon 400D for a reasonable price ) thru the google ads.

As for me, I'm just allergic to ads. That's why I threw my TV out 4 years ago. Adblocking is on the rise. Many people use the Firefox adblocker plugin with daily updated lists. I use it. It makes surfing ligther and faster. I don't see Google ads or any other ads -ever-. So for me it's new there are even Google ads on this forum site.

No ads is the best policy, but quod licet Iovi, non licet Bovi ;-)

there are google ads on this site only when you are not logged in.

swedstock · « **Reply #18 on:** August 30, 2007, 09:08 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on August 30, 2007, 08:35

I don't know what type of connection you're on but the site took many seconds to reach from here, and then 3 minutes to load the front/landing page. I found out why, they have a huge set of full-screen background photos on their landing page, worth 327KB.

3 minutes?? Takes like 2-3 seconds for me, tops.
What kind of internet connection do you use?
I know there has been discussions about that frontpage in the site's forums. The staff wanted opinions whether they should take it away or not.
I think they even took it away for some time but put it back when a lot of us photographers requested it. I myself, think it looks new and fresh and different from what other sites have. It is an eyecatcher that raises interest.
However, if it is so slow to many users as you describe, it is not good at all. Do the rest of you guys that has checked of the site feel the same slowness regarding the front page? I will forward your concerns to the admins.

Pixart · « **Reply #19 on:** August 30, 2007, 09:09 »

To be honest, I've tried to view that site 3 times and was too impatient for it to load so I have still not viewed. I've got high speed cable.

leaf · « **Reply #20 on:** August 30, 2007, 09:24 »

the site loaded quick for me, but then again i am in norway so it doesn't have far to travel (if the site is hosted in sweden) .... if that makes a difference.

Suvakov · « **Reply #21 on:** August 30, 2007, 14:15 »

Hi all, thanks for all comments about the Mostphoto site, i hear you all.
Let me start with the frontpage of Mostphotos: Personally i agree with the criticism. For a while i had my way and the page was removed. But pretty soon members stated to complain, the webdesigners and the programmers join in, and the first time visitors - photographers started to mail us about how the site lacked "something"

Then the bouncerate results came in. We had a bounce rate at 10,8% with the flash-frontpage. The week after we (i) removed it, we was up to 23,6%. So in a true democratic way we put it back again. The same day mails was comming in, congratulating us for the great frontpage(?!!!) Member thanked us in the forum and praised us in the chat(

??) I am really sorry that some of you guys have a hard time loading it, as a matter of fact, thats why i disliked it the most, but it seems that some webclients have trouble with it ans some don't. Let me dig in to the this again tomorrow first thing and i will See what i can do about it? OK?

The ads.
I know ad blocking is on the rise, but so is microstockbusting to. I know it because i was verbally attacked by two Californians artists in a discussion, when they found out that i worked with member submitted images. Essentially i wounder why the resistant against ads? What would the world look like without advertising. Well, the stock market would certainly be a lot smaller that is for sure. Suddenly its a matter of biting the hand that feed us all? But here is a suggestion, what about if i could fix a "ad-free-zone" for top image submitters. Lets say that the top 100 photographers will never see a ad on the site, would that be a token of my respect for you? Then i will do it. As a matter of fact we already discussed it this morning.

The bottom line is: the ads must be our bred and butter until the sales start picking up and starts generating revenue.

But listen guys, lets leave the ad (and it is not such a big one i assure you) and the front page (we can allways optimize it one way or another) please let us talk about essentials now:
What about the 50/50 split on RF, the 30/70 split on EXL and the referral program that pays almost 4 times more than the average micro stock sites pay you guys for every personal download???
I had to fight the brass hard , especially regarding the referrals - so do you like it or not?

swedstock · « **Reply #22 on:** August 30, 2007, 15:07 »

I'd like to add one more thing to your list of essentials Suvakov. It's 50/50 on 25 Euro not 50/50 on a dollar. THAT'S essential in my book (and my wallet)

I sure like it, hopefully the buyers find their way to the site soon too.

leaf · « **Reply #23 on:** August 31, 2007, 03:45 »

Does the referral program ever 'time out' or if i have a referred photographer do I earn money as long as that photographer is signed up? if that is the case then yes, it is a super deal. Right now i think shutterstock has by far the best deal because referred photographers don't 'disappear' after 1 or 3 years like dreamstime or fotolia.

As far as the ads go. I don't mind looking at the ads personally, and so I don't really care if there was a 'preferred' photographers status where' i didn't have to look at ads or not. My point was, that when buyers come and see that the site has to rely on ads to make their payments they may think to themselves... wow, don't they make enough selling images?? there must be something wrong with this site if they need to have ads on it to make any money - or to make things go around. This is also the same things possible contributing photographers may also feel. If they need to have ads on their site, they are obviously not going to be able to sell my images. This is how I felt anyhow.

So perhaps if that wasn't clear my main point is. I don't mind looking at ads at all, what I don't like is the impression they give - that the site is relying on ads to survive (instead of image sales).

Suvakov · « **Reply #24 on:** August 31, 2007, 05:56 »

Yes, leaf - it never times out.
Sure, the top brass wanted a time limit but i insisted on no limit or no deal at all.
Further more, not do we only keep track on who referred who - we also ask new members to submit who referred them to the site, when they register for the first time. I mean , mabye you referred someone you just met on the bus when going to work. And this person could not register instantly the same day, nor did he remember your referral link, but he rememgered your name and the site name mostphotos.com. Then we can still link the new member to you so you can get your commision.

Was i clear about the fact that you also get commission if you refer customers to the site? We added this because we wanted to make sure that even if the customer dont find anything in your gallery but find a god pic in some other members gallery, you still get comission for the marketing. In that way all members gets to be less competitors and more partners - how about that?

//Radoslav

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Most photos - new "midstock" site! (Read 78657 times)

swedstock

leaf

swedstock

HughStoneIan

leaf

bjorn

ErickN

swedstock

swedstock

Suvakov

Suvakov

leaf

Pixart

Suvakov

swedstock

null

null

leaf

swedstock

Pixart

leaf

Suvakov

swedstock

leaf

Suvakov

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors