Quote from: Toms45 on October 21, 2013, 09:22

I mean, build something like Zoomr, that never came to fruition: http://rising.blackstar.com/an-interview-with-thomas-hawk.html

What every happened to that?

Buyers aren't interested in socializing on a photo sharing site.  They're looking to buy an image and get back to work.

Agreed.

Growing the market needs more customers, not more suppliers.  Figure out what will attract those customers and maybe you can build a business.  But it won't be social networking, unless somehow you can find some way that it lets those customers get their work done faster or better or ideally both.  The problem is that social networking is anti-productivity, and business is the opposite.

I was thinking the social networking side would attract the suppliers.

I was thinking the social networking side would attract the suppliers.

And that's where we disagree, both about whether that would work and whether there's any value.  There's no trick to attracting suppliers, at least initially.  Many of us will try uploading to a new site, or at least we did until we realized how little the site thought about what comes next.  That's attracting buyers, and then getting them to buy.  I may upload some work to a site, but I won't keep doing it if there aren't some incentives.  And the only incentives that matter are measured in dollars and cents.  Social networking doesn't interest me at all; I spend little time on the forums of sites that have them, and certainly wouldn't bother to upload thousands of images somewhere just for a chance to interact with other suppliers.

Bring me buyers and we can talk.  Otherwise there's nothing to say.

That is backwards thinking

So, according to everyone here, there's nothing innovative that can be done in the stock photography industry? This is kind of sad.

So, according to everyone here, there's nothing innovative that can be done in the stock photography industry? This is kind of sad.

No, you're suggesting one thing, which isn't particularly innovative, from the short description.

Figure out something that attracts a new group of buyers.


Do you guys think that what pixoto is doing is innovative for buyers? http://www.pixoto.com/

They sort content.

This:"Submitted images are matched against each other in the ImageDuel system and voted on by other community members. The winners advance on the Image Leaderboards and vie for the coveted top spot. By surfacing the best images to the top of the Leaderboard, Pixoto hopes to be the place to find the highest-quality photographs in any given subject."

Combined with this:
"Our ImageDuel� feature allows the community to decide which images are the best. Pixoto Stock search results list the highest ranked images first!"

is concerning.  Why would I want other contributors ranking my images and determining where they show up in a sort?

They certainly need to work on their keywording - images have one or two tags, for all I found.

Oh, and this, lol (although I guess they just haven't updated it in a year: http://www.pixoto.com/become-a-stock-contributor):
When will my images be available for purchase?
    In October 2012. We are currently collecting from our members photos that will be available for the launch of our stock photography service in October. Make sure your photos get seen at launch � submit them now.

So, according to everyone here, there's nothing innovative that can be done in the stock photography industry? This is kind of sad.

You could always start a coop. People are always clamoring for that. It will be interesting to see how Stocksy does and if others copy that model. There was a lot of interest in Picture Engine, but the site never really got off the ground. Symbiostock has stolen some of that thunder too.

@Sean Locke

I think this is why: http://www.slideshare.net/JasonKiefer1/why-is-pixoto-better-for-stock

They have several appealing points for buyer. I was wondering if people agree or disagree?

None of the alleged links on that page work in FF, and I see no 'appealing points' for the buyer.
And as a contributor you have to 'spend ten credits for every upload'? H*ll, I refuse to be a member of any Flickr group that says, "Post one, award three" or similar.

No, I'm not from Pixoto. I have no idea why would draw the conclusion, looking at my posts.

I was thinking about starting a similar site, before I discovered pixoto, 500px, photorankr, etc.

I was wondering from photographers if they think any of these sites will have successful marketplaces.

Eg, 500px just launched a commercial marketplace, with a 5 year plan.

I'd bet against them if I was going to bet. New sites tend to do low volume, so cheap prices don't tend to make them profitable.

That would be sad. They have so much good content on there. They have millions of great images. I imagine there would be some demand for it.

"some demand" isn't a business proposition.
They do have great content, but it's much more 'Fine Art' than 'stock' - a totally different market.

FWIW, I'd "imagine" there's some market for 'Fine Art' at total prices more acceptable furth of the US than those at FAA. But I wouldn't mortgage my house to finance my imagination. Better the house I have than the mansion I imagine.

According to this: http://barwickphoto.wordpress.com/tag/getty-images/

The largest market in stock, is creative stock, by far. Which would be in line with that marketplace.

No, in the Getty world,  'creative' stock means only 'anything that has or doesn't need releases'. It could be an apple isolated on white or a group of people grinning in front of a big window.

@Ron,

You maybe right, but several successful founders say being naive in a market is a strength, b/c your not entrenched with old ways of thinking.

Your photography is very good btw Ron. You know something.