MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Scoopshot secures $1.2 million in funding from Yuri  (Read 14331 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2013, 06:17 »
+1
But anyways:
"The birth of on-demand photography could sound the death knell for the stock industry as we know it, says Scoopshot CEO, Niko Ruokosuo:  "Buyers are tired of wading through page after page of stale and over-used photography, before having to compromise. For the first time, they can request exactly what they want and receive it within minutes and without spending a fortune. "

"I'll have a business team, 7 to 8 people between 20-30 years, mixed genders and ethnicities, of course. Modern office space, but nothing too fancy - should have a great skyline in the background, though..."

"Coming right up, sir, would you need a girl with a headset with that?"

"Yeah, why the heck not - how much is that?"

"Together that will be $9.89,- sir."

*Hands over a tenner* - "Keep the change..."

"Much obliged, sir..."


« Reply #26 on: July 17, 2013, 06:26 »
0
Brilliant concept. Shift of paradigmes.

And we have just heard that press photographers were fired and replaced by iPhones. The journalists are next, then the editors.
News and images are moving out to the public and become peer to peer.

maybe I should throw out my d 600 and get one of them nokia mega camera phones, and begin to photograph accidents and burning wheatfields in the neighbourhood..
There is a fat ugly cat in my garden, I could photograph it, the cat people would like such news.
I could also shoot it, litterally, and such create real news that would really get attention and clicks and affiliates and commercials.
Endless possibilities.

What I try to say is that with news shifting to peer to peer, they are also at high risk of being strangely manipulated.
But well ok, thats nothing new. Its just more unpredictable.

EmberMike

« Reply #27 on: July 17, 2013, 07:12 »
0
...And we have just heard that press photographers were fired and replaced by iPhones. The journalists are next, then the editors.
News and images are moving out to the public and become peer to peer...

Are people really gullible enough to do the job of journalists and photographers for free? I hope at some point they realize that they are doing work that someone previously was paid for.

« Reply #28 on: July 17, 2013, 08:20 »
0
true true, imho Yuri probably invested in an upcoming 'magic IPO' or something similar. But the sucker is more likely to be a poor sucker... these magic IPOs are avoided by institutional investors (except the insiders of course).

everything is saleable today, even crap like Wikitravel was sold for 1.7 millions and now it's worthless and the same company also bought Route66, another disgrace.

and these were not even e-commerce sites, they just were content farms with wiki volunteers producing the content for free and the site showing ads.

a site like yuri's it's a full fledge social e-commerce site and therefore it can easily be perceived as worth 5-10 million $ if we use the crazy VC's metric system.

how's that any different from cr-ap like Fiverr ?


« Reply #29 on: July 17, 2013, 10:15 »
+2
I can see a concept like this being very useful for people who need pictures of a certain thing, like the telephone directory.  There is an army of photographers that are spread out literally everywhere around the world so if it became as popular as instagram, someone is probably only a few hundred meters away from the location you need.  So, if a message could pop-up ... you are within 100m of a needed photo shoot.. it might be worth your trouble to snap the pic.  Making an effort and going out of my way to create an image that will probably only be purchased one time for $2.50 is certainly not worth my while.

« Reply #30 on: July 17, 2013, 10:53 »
0
I can see a concept like this being very useful for people who need pictures of a certain thing, like the telephone directory.  There is an army of photographers that are spread out literally everywhere around the world so if it became as popular as instagram, someone is probably only a few hundred meters away from the location you need.  So, if a message could pop-up ... you are within 100m of a needed photo shoot.. it might be worth your trouble to snap the pic.  Making an effort and going out of my way to create an image that will probably only be purchased one time for $2.50 is certainly not worth my while.


The price appears to set by the buyer and therefore they could choose to offer more (or less) than the 'standard' $5.

Over on Istock there are always plenty of gushing contributors willing to do custom shoots, at their own expense, for magazine editor 'ecsc', with only a remote possibility of getting paid anything at all. It's very sad but it is true;

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354071&page=1

« Reply #31 on: July 17, 2013, 11:48 »
0
https://www.scoopshot.com/v2/task/lrsthgcmswnzx

this can't be true, look at the those pictures :o

even a man on the collection ;D

« Reply #32 on: July 17, 2013, 12:38 »
0
I can see a concept like this being very useful for people who need pictures of a certain thing, like the telephone directory.  There is an army of photographers that are spread out literally everywhere around the world so if it became as popular as instagram, someone is probably only a few hundred meters away from the location you need.  So, if a message could pop-up ... you are within 100m of a needed photo shoot.. it might be worth your trouble to snap the pic.  Making an effort and going out of my way to create an image that will probably only be purchased one time for $2.50 is certainly not worth my while.

It will probably not even get purchased one time. There will be competing images.

« Reply #33 on: July 17, 2013, 13:08 »
0
https://www.scoopshot.com/v2/task/lrsthgcmswnzx

this can't be true, look at the those pictures :o

even a man on the collection ;D

Are those your feet in the flip flops Luis?

« Reply #34 on: July 17, 2013, 15:58 »
0
"For the first time, they can request exactly what they want..."
They can request what they want but this task shows that they don't have to necessarily get it.
It looks like 75% of Scoopshot contributors a) don't read briefs b) cannot read at all

Send us a picture where and how ( paper or digital ) you read our Tagesspiegel
https://www.scoopshot.com/v2/task/ktfthscdbfnfl

« Reply #35 on: July 17, 2013, 16:11 »
0
"For the first time, they can request exactly what they want..."
They can request what they want but this task shows that they don't have to necessarily get it.
It looks like 75% of Scoopshot contributors a) don't read briefs b) cannot read at all

Send us a picture where and how ( paper or digital ) you read our Tagesspiegel
https://www.scoopshot.com/v2/task/ktfthscdbfnfl

I wonder if they ban you if you post too many unrelated photos in projects?

« Reply #36 on: July 17, 2013, 18:21 »
0
https://www.scoopshot.com/v2/task/lrsthgcmswnzx

this can't be true, look at the those pictures :o

even a man on the collection ;D

Are those your feet in the flip flops Luis?

mine are cute ;D

Ron

« Reply #37 on: July 18, 2013, 01:24 »
0
I wish I had 1.2 million to chuck out the door just for laughs.... seriously, he must be doing extremely well.

ShadySue

« Reply #38 on: July 18, 2013, 05:49 »
0
You think Yuri is the just throwing $1.2mill out the window?
He spent a fortune on peoplestock, then ended up throwing in his hat with iStock/Getty (though he still gets to keep PS).
Now he's starting another 'rival' agency! Apparently.

But yes, where is the huge difference over FOAP?
Wasn't there an ill-fated Getty project called Scoop a few years back?

« Reply #39 on: July 18, 2013, 05:51 »
0
Scoopt.  I put the link to their failure story somewhere.  'Citizen journalism' doesn't work and 'request stock' doesn't work.  Because, well, if you request it and people shoot it, it isn't stock.

« Reply #40 on: July 18, 2013, 07:06 »
0
Scoopt wasn't a failure for the people who started and invested in it before it was sold to Getty for big bucks.

ShadySue

« Reply #41 on: July 18, 2013, 07:09 »
0
Scoopt wasn't a failure for the people who started and invested in it before it was sold to Getty for big bucks.
Oh! Same old, same old, then.  :(

« Reply #42 on: July 18, 2013, 12:33 »
+1
Scoopt wasn't a failure for the people who started and invested in it before it was sold to Getty for big bucks.

exactly ! as a startup it was a success.
their goal is to find a buyer, not to make actual money, it's like a Ponzi.

« Reply #43 on: July 18, 2013, 17:15 »
0
http://venturevillage.eu/eyeem-raises-6m
"EyeEm claims it is the worlds first mobile photography community and marketplace. The company will use the funding to internationalise and build a mobile photography marketplace for users to sell their images to clients, marketers and brands beginning to turn the still-free service into a business."

Who will get bought first? Lol...

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #44 on: July 18, 2013, 17:34 »
+1
https://www.scoopshot.com/v2/task/lrsthgcmswnzx

this can't be true, look at the those pictures :o

even a man on the collection ;D

Darn, I sent the wrong picture. My toenails are painted.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #45 on: July 18, 2013, 17:46 »
0
I can see a concept like this being very useful for people who need pictures of a certain thing, like the telephone directory.  There is an army of photographers that are spread out literally everywhere around the world so if it became as popular as instagram, someone is probably only a few hundred meters away from the location you need.  So, if a message could pop-up ... you are within 100m of a needed photo shoot.. it might be worth your trouble to snap the pic.  Making an effort and going out of my way to create an image that will probably only be purchased one time for $2.50 is certainly not worth my while.

I'd agree.

Plus there are a lot of good mobile phone shooters out there. This will probably take some revenue away from stock sales but I can't see it being significant. Who would use this to buy? Professional media buyers already complain about sifting through garbage. Bloggers? Teachers?

And I have a hard time seeing long term sustainability. No recurring revenue? You get $2.50 once, IF, the buyer buys. And the buyer may not buy anything. I wonder how many people will submit a few dozen pics, not get a penny, and give up.


« Reply #46 on: July 19, 2013, 00:12 »
0
Who would use this to buy? Professional media buyers already complain about sifting through garbage. Bloggers? Teachers?

forget about bloggers, even the top ones never paid a dime, see the crooks at BoingBoing or TechCrunch.

years ago i even wrote to a Tech Crunch editor, 100% of their images were stolen from google images, i sent them a list with links to the original images, they wrote me with a funny tone that they were thinking it was "public domain" or "fair use" and thanks for all the chips !


« Reply #47 on: July 19, 2013, 00:20 »
0
Bloggers here, in DK sometimes pay for photos, and many are quite observant of where they get them from.

There has been a few copyright claims and the knowledge has spread in the environment.

A commonly spread misunderstanding is that its free to use photos if your blog is not commercial, but you have to pay if you earn money.

« Reply #48 on: July 19, 2013, 00:35 »
0
what Scoopshot is doing is to take a few steps up the ladder and bring order to chaos.
And moneyterize on this new order.
There are billions of photos flowing around in the net, noone knows how and if they are copyrighted and many dont care or understand.
Now Scoopshot qualifies this bulk of information, by location and by standardizing the copyright.
To Scoopshot of course, so they can resell and all that, but als there is a compensation to the producer, and however small, random or unlikely, the insention is there, and its better than nothing.

Just like back in the "empty your harddis days".
This a new concept, an new microstock equivalent being born, a new attempt, and yuri knows exactly that.
It is not meant to challenge the image agencies, but more likely the news agencies. The steps up the ladder come from selling real goods, in form of images, to selling metadata in form of guaranteed location, time and copyright.
Smart move.
The emerging peer to peer news bloggers will love this.
The good old newspapers and tv stations will hate it although they will use it, and even encourage it and such facilitate their own demise. Just like some photographers did, when they encouraged microstock. Yuri was one. How ironical.
History repeats.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 00:50 by JPSDK »

« Reply #49 on: July 19, 2013, 08:28 »
0
Bloggers here, in DK sometimes pay for photos, and many are quite observant of where they get them from.

There has been a few copyright claims and the knowledge has spread in the environment.

A commonly spread misunderstanding is that its free to use photos if your blog is not commercial, but you have to pay if you earn money.

yeah because they've read about the so called "Fair Use" but they fail to realize it only applies to the USA.
it's a disgrace that people is allowed to blog, i love the chinese model where you need a licence by the state.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Closing in on the million

Started by Dreamstime News Microstock News

0 Replies
1673 Views
Last post February 15, 2007, 08:10
by Dreamstime News
1.5 million files !

Started by Istock News Microstock News

2 Replies
2413 Views
Last post March 04, 2007, 17:13
by GeoPappas
1 Replies
2089 Views
Last post July 28, 2009, 13:31
by travismanley
70 Replies
15212 Views
Last post July 19, 2012, 00:08
by antistock
0 Replies
1070 Views
Last post July 27, 2015, 14:46
by stock-will-eat-itself

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results