MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Newbie Discussion => Topic started by: Toms45 on October 19, 2013, 18:02
-
I'm relatively new to stock. I've done a bunch of digging around though at many sites, industry analysis, etc. I came across this interesting article, that argues that the licensing market is actually much greater than anyone ever though of: http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/total-size-of-licensing-market.html. (http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/total-size-of-licensing-market.html.) It argues that the licensing market could be as large as 20 billion dollars if a company just accepted most photographers that tried to sell. I tried to sell at several agencies and was rejected. While I know that some of my work is not that great, I think it does hold some commercial value. Does anyone think that if a large social network company like Flickr made a marketplace, that they could make a billion plus dollar company, by just accepting everyone?
-
No. The buyer that pays for licensing, pays also for security and legality; releases, images owned by the people who is selling them (as opposed to images maybe previously stolen) and easiness of search. Nothing of this is possible in a Flirck-like scheme.
-
I mean, all those points , loop, you mention licensing, releases, etc. could be made with a Flickr like website. As well as search. I would say that Flickr could even do better on search, as it could include social, geotagging, etc.
Any other thoughts? For or against?
-
iStock is accepting just abut everything these days, but most people are experiencing rapidly declining sales.
OTOH, if you had all the licences etc and legal issues correctly worked out, and you sold for 10c a time, the world might, or might not, be your oyster.
The problem being that if everything was accepted:
1. the buyers would find it incredibly difficult to find what they wanted at the quality they wanted among all the dross.
2. The pie would be incredibly thinly sliced among all the contributors.
All the existing problems of spammy and ignorant keywording would remain.
Are you saying that there are loads of subjects that buyers want that they can't currently get? If you can find out what these are and legally supply them, that will be good for you for a while, until the copycats get wind of it.
-
@ShadySue
I think iStock accepts far less than 50% of photos. At least, my friends and I were rejected. I was just thinking about the possibility for the company. I do think that it may spread it thin amongst contributors, but it would give many more photographers the chance to sell their work, ie, it would open the floodgates.
I'm just saying that I think that if you made a site like Flickr, with a marketplace. You would get a lot more contributors. You would also get a lot, *a lot* of buyers, just because of how much traffic the site would get.
So, I think it would be useful to have a Flickr/eBay type entity for photography. The users would set their own prices.
-
"It argues that the licensing market could be as large as 20 billion dollars if a company just accepted most photographers that tried to sell."
Nope. Buyers are tired of looking through tons and tons of useless images to find one good one.
-
@Sean Locke,
Most searching comes through Google Images first though, no? So, buyers first find the image in google and then go from there.
Doesn't this defeat your argument? thoughts?
-
Why not try it and see what happens?
-
@Sean Locke,
Most searching comes through Google Images first though, no? So, buyers first find the image in google and then go from there.
Doesn't this defeat your argument? thoughts?
Nope and nope.
-
@Sean Locke Photography
I've read a lot that this is true. Most buyers go to google and then follow an image from there.
-
@Sean Locke Photography
I've read a lot that this is true. Most buyers go to google and then follow an image from there.
That may be true for some, initially, but once they are at an agency, they tend to stay there, unless something bigger than a missing image sways them. IMO. Google is more a source for people to steal content. :)
-
@Sean Locke Photography
I've read a lot that this is true. Most buyers go to google and then follow an image from there.
I've never, ever read that.
Where is the hard evidence that "most buyers" first go to Google?
That would be even more frustrating, because the Google search is a nightmare and a huge number of images found there are not for sale.
Probably most people who want to steal images go to Google first.
Whoops, Sean beat me to it.
-
61% of image buyers go to google when they go to buy images. See below.
http://blog.johnlund.com/2011/04/art-directorsbuyers-searching-google.html (http://blog.johnlund.com/2011/04/art-directorsbuyers-searching-google.html) [nofollow]
http://www.photoshelter.com/mkt/research/photo-buyer-survey (http://www.photoshelter.com/mkt/research/photo-buyer-survey) [nofollow]
Modify message
-
61% of image buyers go to google when they go to buy images. See below.
[url]http://blog.johnlund.com/2011/04/art-directorsbuyers-searching-google.html[/url] ([url]http://blog.johnlund.com/2011/04/art-directorsbuyers-searching-google.html[/url]) [nofollow]
[url]http://www.photoshelter.com/mkt/research/photo-buyer-survey[/url] ([url]http://www.photoshelter.com/mkt/research/photo-buyer-survey[/url]) [nofollow]
Modify message
I doubt it. That would be a huge time suck.
-
That was 61% of only 500. How were the 500 chosen? How representative are they?
We got a pseudo-newspaper in last week from the Yes campaign with the big headline something like, "68% of Scots want independence". When the small print was read, fewer than 200 people were sampled and the question was something like, "Do you think it would be feasible for Scotland to operate as an independent country?", which is not at all the same thing.
Beware of vaunted statistics.
-
I've read this elsewhere. I'll try to dig up the sources later on.
It may be a time sink, but it's true. Is it that hard to imagine? If some random person needs an image, their first thought is to "google" it.
-
I'm relatively new to stock. I've done a bunch of digging around though at many sites, industry analysis, etc. I came across this interesting article, that argues that the licensing market is actually much greater than anyone ever though of: [url]http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/total-size-of-licensing-market.html.[/url] ([url]http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/total-size-of-licensing-market.html.[/url]) It argues that the licensing market could be as large as 20 billion dollars if a company just accepted most photographers that tried to sell. I tried to sell at several agencies and was rejected. While I know that some of my work is not that great, I think it does hold some commercial value. Does anyone think that if a large social network company like Flickr made a marketplace, that they could make a billion plus dollar company, by just accepting everyone?
This BLOG you are talking about was written in 2007.
-
@BD.
I realize this. There are several other articles later on that support this.
Do you agree/disagree? How do you think things have changed?
-
I've read this elsewhere. I'll try to dig up the sources later on.
It may be a time sink, but it's true. Is it that hard to imagine? If some random person needs an image, their first thought is to "google" it.
That's totally different then a legitimate buyer looking to pay money to license an image legally.
-
Which other articles support that the licensing market is greater than what people think? Or could be if a company simply accepted most photographers selling?
-
That was 61% of only 500. How were the 500 chosen? How representative are they?
We got a pseudo-newspaper in last week from the Yes campaign with the big headline something like, "68% of Scots want independence". When the small print was read, fewer than 200 people were sampled and the question was something like, "Do you think it would be feasible for Scotland to operate as an independent country?", which is not at all the same thing.
Beware of vaunted statistics.
I saw Braveheart. They all want freedom.
Seriously though, I think Google buyers are the majority for smaller or new agencies, but once you establish a contributor base those frequent and repeat buyers are the real money makers.
On the original point, I'd say that if there is anything holding back the market from achieving higher earnings potential it would be price. I think there is enough content or content providers, but the prices are still too low. Too much content is devalued.
-
It argues that the licensing market could be as large as 20 billion dollars if a company just accepted most photographers that tried to sell.
I am too lazy to read the article but this is something I'd typically expect to hear from a photographer. And it is pure crap if you just leave it at that sentence. Making the available offer bigger never increases the amount of money in a market. If you could grow the image licensing market, I doubt you would need anymore images than available at agencies right now. It's about finding new customers and that doesn't happen by adding more images.
You would need to discuss about things like image pricing, availability, ease of use, understanding of the legal situation if you want to grow the market size.
-
It argues that the licensing market could be as large as 20 billion dollars if a company just accepted most photographers that tried to sell.
There are some agencies that accept everyone and everything. A good example is MostPhotos. But however, this is not a model for success, how you quickly will notice when you offer your pictures there.
-
The size of any market is not determined by supply, it is determined by demand.
Everyone in the world could become a supplier but the demand to buy those images would not change.
-
Mostphotos accept anything with no reviews. Just look how far down the earnings list they are. Alamy only look at the technical quality of an image and they aren't one of the best selling sites for most people here.
Anyone can now sell whatever they like with their own Symbiostock site.
The problem is that most buyers do seem to like low commercial value images and those that don't reach a fairly low technical standard to be rejected. Then they know that when they do a search, they have a better chance of finding something they can use. It's better for us too. It's not difficult to get in to the big microstock sites, I think anyone that can't do that is never going to make much money from stock images.
-
The problem is that most buyers do seem to like low commercial value images and those that don't reach a fairly low technical standard to be rejected. Then they know that when they do a search, they have a better chance of finding something they can use. It's better for us too. It's not difficult to get in to the big microstock sites, I think anyone that can't do that is never going to make much money from stock images.
I don't agree about LCV. Weeding out everything that is "lcv" would simply ensure that there are subjects that the buyer can't get. I'd say most of my stuff is "lcv" and does OK because the competition isn't too severe. The "high commercial value" stuff is an oversaturated market, with everybody chasing to get the next pretty-girl-in-charge-of-mixed-ethnicity-team shot online. The resulting sales dilution means that many photographers are not getting enormous returns from these photos, in fact they may be worth as little as lcv shots - or less.
If you are at the forefront of the first rank then hcv is probably great for you, but if your name isn't Yuri or Andres or Sean then you may find the competition for that part of the market is a bit too fierce and it might be a good move to find niches they don't pay much attention to - better still, niches that nobody has paid attention to.
-
By LCV I mean the sort of images that will get zero downloads over a long period of time. The sites aren't great at defining what LCV is but if you look through MostPhotos, there's lots of it there. I don't mind one site like that but I wouldn't want more. I think istock moving in that direction is yet another big mistake.
-
Ah! Zero commercial value. Yes, there's some pointless stuff about. To a degree, zero dls is an artifact of the search engines. It's interesting to see files with no sales on iS becoming hot sellers on PP. I've got one file with 179 sales on PP and zero on iS.
I agree that quality control is important. With so much high quality stuff available there's no need to pack the collections with technically bad material.
-
On the original point, I'd say that if there is anything holding back the market from achieving higher earnings potential it would be price. I think there is enough content or content providers, but the prices are still too low. Too much content is devalued.
I'd say it's knowledge. All these people out there need content, but you tell them about stock images and legalities, and they're like "what?".
-
@Sean Locke Photography
I've read a lot that this is true. Most buyers go to google and then follow an image from there.
Then go do it. Every piece of input provided by this group you seem rebutt, so if you have the magic formula, have at it.
-
@Mantis,
I'm just stating my opinion. I asked because I value other's opinions here. Any other thoughts?
-
@ShadySue
I think iStock accepts far less than 50% of photos. At least, my friends and I were rejected. I was just thinking about the possibility for the company. I do think that it may spread it thin amongst contributors, but it would give many more photographers the chance to sell their work, ie, it would open the floodgates.
you must be doing something very wrong, having only 50% approval at iStock? looking at some new contributions I wonder about your work, I can show you a few examples of very bad pictures accepted recently, iStock have open their gates a few months or even years ago!
-
@ShadySue
I think iStock accepts far less than 50% of photos. At least, my friends and I were rejected. I was just thinking about the possibility for the company. I do think that it may spread it thin amongst contributors, but it would give many more photographers the chance to sell their work, ie, it would open the floodgates.
you must be doing something very wrong, having only 50% approval at iStock? looking at some new contributions I wonder about your work, I can show you a few examples of very bad pictures accepted recently, iStock have open their gates a few months or even years ago!
The way I read it, Toms has not got past the entrance exam at iStock or other sites. I'm sure the rejection rate for initial applications is way above 50% in most places. Once you were in iStock, they used to accept roughly half of submissions, according to what Bruce said a few years back. I suspect that taking the best 50% probably remained the policy until this year.
-
@ShadySue
I think iStock accepts far less than 50% of photos. At least, my friends and I were rejected. I was just thinking about the possibility for the company. I do think that it may spread it thin amongst contributors, but it would give many more photographers the chance to sell their work, ie, it would open the floodgates.
you must be doing something very wrong, having only 50% approval at iStock? looking at some new contributions I wonder about your work, I can show you a few examples of very bad pictures accepted recently, iStock have open their gates a few months or even years ago!
I don't think the OP was saying they have 50% approval. He said he and his friends were rejected from iS.
I was just coming on here to say that if they can't get onto iS nowadays, they really should spend some time working on their skills.
Back in the day, I believe it was once said that iS rejected half of the files submitted. I've heard that the video rules haven't slackened, but as you say, the photo standards are much, much laxer nowadays.
-
@ShadySue
I think iStock accepts far less than 50% of photos. At least, my friends and I were rejected. I was just thinking about the possibility for the company. I do think that it may spread it thin amongst contributors, but it would give many more photographers the chance to sell their work, ie, it would open the floodgates.
you must be doing something very wrong, having only 50% approval at iStock? looking at some new contributions I wonder about your work, I can show you a few examples of very bad pictures accepted recently, iStock have open their gates a few months or even years ago!
I don't think the OP was saying they have 50% approval. He said he and his friends were rejected from iS.
I was just coming on here to say that if they can't get onto iS nowadays, they really should spend some time working on their skills.
Back in the day, I believe it was once said that iS rejected half of the files submitted. I've heard that the video rules haven't slackened, but as you say, the photo standards are much, much laxer nowadays.
well said!
-
@BD.
I realize this. There are several other articles later on that support this.
Do you agree/disagree? How do you think things have changed?
What was their testing methodology? Remember, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
-
I can show you a few examples of very bad pictures accepted recently,
The port which was discussed here previously had 999 pics uploaded during late May, 803 of which were accepted. At a generous estimate, 775 at least of these would not have been accepted before May.
Result, 6 sales out of the 803, at least two of which were used on blogs to illustrate falling standards on iStock.
So I'm afraid the argument that if agencies accepted everything there would be more sales is not very strong.
(Even allowing for the fact that almost all of the 803 are appallingly badly keyworded and new files are disappearing instantly from best match search.)
Significantly, that contributor, who indicated in an iS forum post that he had thousands more files to upload, has not uploaded (or at least, has not had accepted) even one file since.
Tentative but unproven conclusion: he decided that it wasn't worth his while.
-
yep.. again well said!
-
I've read this elsewhere. I'll try to dig up the sources later on.
It may be a time sink, but it's true. Is it that hard to imagine? If some random person needs an image, their first thought is to "google" it.
That's totally different then a legitimate buyer looking to pay money to license an image legally.
I have bought countless images over the years and have never used Google to find images. We do spend time up front before purchase to find sites that offer a wide selection of content that will fit the demographic we serve.
The only people I have known to use the Google search to find images were non professional users, who were looking for free images.
Sean is right professionals work on tight schedules and do not have time to mess with Google to find images.
-
I don't know really. I think the article above also discusses that there's a very large consumer market (not art director/agency, etc. driven) that most people dont' know about. Maybe this is where all search through Google is coming?
Anyone else have any thoughts on this or the size of licensing market?
-
I don't know really. I think the article above also discusses that there's a very large consumer market (not art director/agency, etc. driven) that most people dont' know about. Maybe this is where all search through Google is coming?
Anyone else have any thoughts on this or the size of licensing market?
Even if there is such a hidden market (we all know that non-designers buy stock), of actual paying customers, why are they not finding what they want on the existing agencies? For a lot of occasional small users with tiny budgets, stock is far too expensive, as they don't need subs or big credit bundles.
-
Here's my advice; take it for what it's worth. If iStock rejected your work, try to improve your work. People won't pay for a product that has no value. If I can shoot something with my iPhone that's comparable to what you shoot, why would I pay for your shot? The photographers accepted by the stock sites have work that I'm incapable of producing myself. Therefore, it has value worth paying for.
-
Anyone else have any thoughts on this or the size of licensing market?
The article you have referenced is from a completely different era. It was published 17 days after the very first iPhone was released and less than year after Facebook was opened up for public membership. Today most businesses are on Facebook and most of those pages use iPhone images.
In those days the international economy was booming and there was a huge demand for cheap 'professional' content.
Those days are never coming back and microstock is in gradual and inevitable decline (ditto 'web design' FWIW). The mass market for cheap content is dying. Today buyers are increasingly looking either for free content or else for curated content.
Also - if the entry bar for microstock was any lower people would trip over it.
-
I mean, I agree with you that the article is old. There are also a lot of updated articles, with similar information, from not too long ago.
I'm just asking for people's opinions. I'm not sure it's true or not. My initial thought is that making a site like Flickr, but with a marketplace could be huge. Why did Flickr abandon their marketplace plans and make a plan with Getty anyways?
When I stroll through Flickr, I see so much content that is so good. If there was a way to sort through all of it, and license it, I think it could make a lot of money.
These are just my thoughts of course.
-
When I stroll through Flickr, I see so much content that is so good. If there was a way to sort through all of it, and license it, I think it could make a lot of money.
There is a lot of fantastic content on Flickr, and other stuff too.
I'm sure they're planning something; they didn't just decide to give all-comers tons of storage space out of the goodness of their hearts. The fact that they positively encouraged people to put up full-res images was surely also indicative.
How they could get the masses to check their work for IP issues, get MRs and keyword better, all months or years later, I can't imagine. They'd have to have a strong and believable incentive. Most of us who've been round the block know that 80% of 0 sales is £0. A lot of excellent photographers on Flickr have no interest in selling stock, and a lot of the stuff I put up there is for fun and is relevant only to friends, or is practising technique specifically for peer review. All that stuff from everyone would need to be weeded out.
-
Nothing personal. I read this: http://www.microstockgroup.com/members-only-discussion/shutterstock-rejections-20579/msg0/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/members-only-discussion/shutterstock-rejections-20579/msg0/?topicseen#new)
And it seems there are a lot of images rejected, that are good.
Any one else have any thoughts?
-
" Any one else have any thoughts?"
You keep asking this here and in other threads. Why? Are you writing a book, a blog, doing research because you want to start a new site, are you trying to figure out why some are making money and you aren't, looking for a get rich quick scheme, a spy from Google? It seems that you are picking our brains for some words to justify your thoughts and hoping that people will agree with your theories which are not quite clear. Whassup?
-
@cuppacoffee
I'm thinking of starting the company. I wanted to hear people's feedback. What do you think of the idea? It's not a get-rich scheme. It would be a long-term open platform for people to sell their work, and make a fair price.
-
right!
-
@cuppacoffee
I'm thinking of starting the company. I wanted to hear people's feedback. What do you think of the idea? It's not a get-rich scheme. It would be a long-term open platform for people to sell their work, and make a fair price.
If we had $10 for everyone who's come on here with the same, or very similar, idea, we could all stop selling and live off the money.
-
@cuppacoffee
I'm thinking of starting the company. I wanted to hear people's feedback. What do you think of the idea? It's not a get-rich scheme. It would be a long-term open platform for people to sell their work, and make a fair price.
Don't waste your time.
-
I don't understand. Why is everyone here so pessimistic about trying to do something innovative in this industry?
Is there anything innovative that can be done in this industry?
-
Symbiostock seems to be working well for those who are involved.
Otherwise, go ahead and do your own thing.
-
I don't understand. Why is everyone here so pessimistic about trying to do something innovative in this industry?
Is there anything innovative that can be done in this industry?
Maybe, but having a site anyone can upload anything to without controls isn't it. Besides, this obviously isn't something you're passionate about since you're just 'thinking about it'. People with more drive than that have failed.
-
It's not a get-rich scheme.
Thank God - the get rich slow scheme will have certain success!
-
I mean, maybe you guys are right. Still, when I look at a site like Fiickr, I see so much potential.
-
I don't understand. Why is everyone here so pessimistic about trying to do something innovative in this industry?
Is there anything innovative that can be done in this industry?
I don't think you have to make anything innovative. You just have to make something that attracts contributors and offers something that buyers want. I know that is overly simple, but it seems incredibly complex at the same time.
-
You just have to make something that attracts contributors and offers something that buyers want.
This would seem to suggest something innovative...
-
You just have to make something that attracts contributors and offers something that buyers want.
This would seem to suggest something innovative...
Not for me. Innovation would be actually creating something worthwhile. Sadly, I have trouble saying that about more than a few sites (and they are not the ones on the top of the list to the right). It's rare that I get interested in a new site because all the deals are so poor.
-
You just have to make something that attracts contributors and offers something that buyers want.
This would seem to suggest something innovative...
pretty words are just pretty words, I recommend you less talk and more attitude, work it out and then show us, don't tell us Flickr and other have potential, you trying to see the size of the stock market? its BIG, guess that is all you need to know, you better ask yourself how much size you can/want to get? I love dreaming also but that doesn't pay the bills ;D
-
It's exactly 10 years too late to start another microstock company. If you could have thought of it before Dreamstime and Canstock were launched in the summer of '04 you could have done very nicely indeed.
-
@cuppacoffee
I'm thinking of starting the company. I wanted to hear people's feedback. What do you think of the idea? It's not a get-rich scheme. It would be a long-term open platform for people to sell their work, and make a fair price.
I haven't had a rejection with Pond5 yet. They let me set my own prices. They sell lots of video clips but hardly any stills. Anyone can start their own symbiostock site and upload whatever they want and set their own prices. There's been several sites that have accepted everything I've uploaded, let me set my own prices and have sold very little or nothing at all.
So you want to start something that's already available? You need a lot more than that. Starting a site now is like burning money. Come up with some better ideas and you might be on to something but this doesn't look like it has a chance to me.
-
There are so many hurdles, and if you have zero stock experience you probably haven't a clue. Start with expert legal advice. That is, find a lawyer with international IP training. And another to advise on international trading (rules are different in different countries, and if you are trading internationally, you'd better know about that). I could go on all day.
What's your unique selling proposition: "Come here and buy the images no agency wanted". You could call your site Photographic Leftovers.
-
From what you've written above, you'd probably be surprised at the number of Flickr contributors who are producing excellent work there, who are not currently selling, and have made a positive decision not to offer work for sale. They're just not interested, for a variety of perfectly good reasons.
-
s BIG, guess that is all you need to know, you better ask yourself how much size you can/want to get?
Seems like there's a fair number of you here who think it's actually a good idea, just one that's hard to pull off and would take a long time to succeed, in a crowded space. If Dreamstime did it, it took them years, but they're fairly big now. I'm not sure why it's different now.
-
Seems like there's a fair number of you here who think it's actually a good idea,
Apart from those who already made the move to Symbiostock, I can't see why you'd think that.
What on earth is your USP?
-
Combination of social network and marketplace.
-
Seems like there's a fair number of you here who think it's actually a good idea,
Apart from those who already made the move to Symbiostock, I can't see why you'd think that.
What on earth is your USP?
Yeah, I must be reading another thread, lol.
-
s BIG, guess that is all you need to know, you better ask yourself how much size you can/want to get?
Seems like there's a fair number of you here who think it's actually a good idea, just one that's hard to pull off and would take a long time to succeed, in a crowded space. If Dreamstime did it, it took them years, but they're fairly big now. I'm not sure why it's different now.
Well, now it seems that you don't know what are you talking about. It didn't take years to Dreamstime to suceed. It took weeks. Istock, shutterstock and dreamstime succeed very fast, it was a matter to be there at the right moment, that's all. Now it's years late.
-
USP: Social network + marketplace.
-
s BIG, guess that is all you need to know, you better ask yourself how much size you can/want to get?
Seems like there's a fair number of you here who think it's actually a good idea, just one that's hard to pull off and would take a long time to succeed, in a crowded space. If Dreamstime did it, it took them years, but they're fairly big now. I'm not sure why it's different now.
I don't know how many new sites have failed to make contributors any money in the past 5 years. It must be hundreds. Most of them didn't understand why they couldn't do it either. It seems blindingly obvious to me. I used to support every new site that came along but that was a big waste of time. Now they have to have something genuinely different to offer. Your idea has already failed for other sites, do some research on ClusterShot for one example.
-
USP: Social network + marketplace.
I don't even know what you mean in this context by "social network".
-
I mean, build something like Zoomr, that never came to fruition: http://rising.blackstar.com/an-interview-with-thomas-hawk.html (http://rising.blackstar.com/an-interview-with-thomas-hawk.html)
What every happened to that?
-
So you want to copy what is already out there but dont have the know how on how to best copy it. That means you also dont have a USP. Offering what is already out there and try and do it better then the establishment is almost impossible without millions of financial backing. Flickr has Yahoo, Instagram has Facebook, etc. Do you have financial backing?
Then, consider this, from Wiki:
The Verge reported in March 2013 that Flickr had a total of 87 million registered members and more than 3.5 million new images uploaded daily.[3] In August 2011 the site reported that it was hosting more than 6 billion images and this number continues to grow steadily according to reporting sources.
Yes there is great work on Flickr, but Flickr probably also has 5.99 billion holiday phonecam snapshots. If you want a high quality library with social network, take a look at 1X.com
Your idea is not unique, has stiff competition and needs a couple of million dollars to get it noticed. Unless it as a USP, but it doesnt.
-
I mean, build something like Zoomr, that never came to fruition: [url]http://rising.blackstar.com/an-interview-with-thomas-hawk.html[/url] ([url]http://rising.blackstar.com/an-interview-with-thomas-hawk.html[/url])
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.
-
I mean, build something like Zoomr, that never came to fruition: [url]http://rising.blackstar.com/an-interview-with-thomas-hawk.html[/url] ([url]http://rising.blackstar.com/an-interview-with-thomas-hawk.html[/url])
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 mean, build something like Zoomr, that never came to fruition: [url]http://rising.blackstar.com/an-interview-with-thomas-hawk.html[/url] ([url]http://rising.blackstar.com/an-interview-with-thomas-hawk.html[/url])
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.
The social networking aspect is not necessarily about having somewhere for buyers to hang out. It's about having something interesting that attracts potential buyers in.
-
I was thinking the social networking side would attract the suppliers.
-
I was thinking the social networking side would attract the suppliers.
How would your social networking be better for suppliers than what already exists e.g. on the sites, here on msg, on Flickr etc etc etc?
-
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.
-
My thought is that if I build a large enough number of content providers and had a lot of supply, the demand would come eventually.
I see a lot of ways to make money. In stock photography, in selling prints, in possibly making a hiring a photographer directory, etc.
I think the key is to just get the photographers on board.
-
That is backwards thinking
-
My thought is that if I build a large enough number of content providers and had a lot of supply, the demand would come eventually.
That's the very thought that has already cost a lot of people a lot of money.
-
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.
Not at all. But it wouldn't be easy; the successful players are well entrenched and there are plenty of failures that are still around to compete with a new entry. And just trying to attract suppliers on the "If you build it, he (the buyer) will come" model won't succeed any more than that list of also-rans on the right. Figure out something that attracts a new group of buyers. That might change the game. But more of the same certainly won't, and you haven't suggested that you have any ideas that haven't already been tried and found wanting way too many times.
-
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/ (http://www.pixoto.com/)
They sort content.
-
Figure out something that attracts a new group of buyers.
Do you guys think that what pixoto is doing is innovative for buyers? [url]http://www.pixoto.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.pixoto.com/[/url])
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 (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.
-
@Sean Locke
I think this is why: http://www.slideshare.net/JasonKiefer1/why-is-pixoto-better-for-stock (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?
-
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.
-
There is the real reason for this thread! Pixoto. LOL. Are you the sales rep?
-
@Sean Locke
I think this is why: [url]http://www.slideshare.net/JasonKiefer1/why-is-pixoto-better-for-stock[/url] ([url]http://www.slideshare.net/JasonKiefer1/why-is-pixoto-better-for-stock[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (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.
-
According to this: [url]http://barwickphoto.wordpress.com/tag/getty-images/[/url] ([url]http://barwickphoto.wordpress.com/tag/getty-images/[/url])
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.
-
You have no idea of what this business is about (neither do I) but you want to start up a platform in this market. Its just silly even considering it. Sorry.
-
@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.
-
I know remotely something about taking a photo. I know nothing of starting up a platform to sell images. I can barely manage selling photos from my own site.
-
I mean that's also why I reached out to photographers. I wanted their opinion.
-
Well, if no one likes the idea of a new marketplace. What about making a platform for photographers to make educational videos. I saw Shutterstock do this: https://www.skillfeed.com/. (https://www.skillfeed.com/.) I could make a similar platform, as I have the technical skills. Sorry, I really want to do something innovative in photography.
-
I mean that's also why I reached out to photographers. I wanted their opinion.
You got lots of opinions, but you keep hoping someone will agree with you, which isn't the same thing. Just the same way as you are desperately quoting old internet blogs and articles which happen to support your opinion.
Honestly, you'd need to have plenty of experience yourself first. That fact that you don't even know what 'creative' means in a stock context says it all.
Ha, but goodness only knows what 'creative' means on Alamy. ::)
-
Well, if no one likes the idea of a new marketplace. What about making a platform for photographers to make educational videos. I saw Shutterstock do this: https://www.skillfeed.com/. (https://www.skillfeed.com/.) I could make a similar platform, as I have the technical skills. Sorry, I really want to do something innovative in photography.
If SS have done it already, it's now, by definition, not 'innovative'.
Adobe has a huge educational video collection free of charge; Lynda has a pay-for site with a rapidly growing offering, and CreativeLIVE has a free/pay for model.
Again, you'd need a lot of money and material to even begin to compete against these. Lynda and CreativeLIVE have industry experts on board, and that's what you'd be competing against, and their quality is extremely high. (I make no comment about the SS ones, as I've never seen them.)
-
Well, if no one likes the idea of a new marketplace. What about making a platform for photographers to make educational videos. I saw Shutterstock do this: https://www.skillfeed.com/. (https://www.skillfeed.com/.) I could make a similar platform, as I have the technical skills. Sorry, I really want to do something innovative in photography.
Is Skillfeed successful with millions of backing from Shutterstock? I dont think Skillfeed is a success. Why copy that idea? You are not being innovative, you are looking for other's ideas. Come up with something new with the prospect of potential and people will jump in.
-
I'm not trying to copy the ideas.
I had this idea, along with my social network + marketplace idea, and then noticed there were some competitors, even after I did a lot of research on landscape.
I'm not looking for people to agree by any means. I'm just looking for people's feedback.
My initial thought was making a social network + marketplace, and letting contributors keep 70+ percent and branding it sort of like an Apple model, would resonate will in some regards, to the community.
-
I'm not trying to copy the ideas.
I had this idea, along with my social network + marketplace idea, and then noticed there were some competitors, even after I did a lot of research on landscape.
I'm not looking for people to agree by any means. I'm just looking for people's feedback.
My initial thought was making a social network + marketplace, and letting contributors keep 70+ percent and branding it sort of like an Apple model, would resonate will in some regards, to the community.
You are too late, its already out there, Symbiostock, and we get to keep 100%.
There is nothing innovative about what you are coming up with. You need to think outside the box.
-
I don't really understand Symbiostock. Do photographers like it? Why? Do they think it will succeed? How much do the websites cost per year for the photographer?
I'm just asking around, b/c I do have the technical background to make a very complicated product and I want to do something in photography. You guys should want me to try something, as I actually have the background.
-
I don't really understand Symbiostock. Do photographers like it? Why? Do they think it will succeed? How much do the websites cost per year for the photographer?
I'm just asking around, b/c I do have the technical background to make a very complicated product and I want to do something in photography. You guys should want me to try something, as I actually have the background.
I think you are taking the piss reading the parts in bold. This is where I go in lurker mode.
-
I think you are taking the piss reading the parts in bold. This is where I go in lurker mode.
I have no idea what you mean by this, honestly.
-
Bottom line is you have to offer the contributors something to make it worthwhile for them to join you in your new venture.
The top four or so microstock agencies offer a customer base. This is what they offer in exchange for their cut.
Symbiostock offers the chance to keep all of the profit at the expense of not having an established customer base.
What would this new company offer?
-
I don't really understand Symbiostock. Do photographers like it? Why? Do they think it will succeed? How much do the websites cost per year for the photographer?
I'm just asking around, b/c I do have the technical background to make a very complicated product and I want to do something in photography. You guys should want me to try something, as I actually have the background.
If you really have the skills to do something like this you should really explore the symbiostock network. Leo has outlined a number of ways someone might make money by improving how the networks interacts and I am sure there are some options for circles of similar artists and the like. I don't need 100% and I would be willing to work with other illustrators in a co-op type of situation. For example developing a management system for multiple symbio content under one pay system. I believe this has more potential than a new agency. Just a thought.
-
How does symbiostock make money then?
@chromaco,
So you're suggesting making Stocksy or something similar?
I have several years of making web apps, I have the skills to make this.
-
To be honest with you, I could make something like SymbioStock in less than a week, to give you an idea of where my skills are.
-
To be honest with you, I could make something like SymbioStock in less than a week, to give you an idea of where my skills are.
Pity you came late to the party, then.
-
How does symbiostock make money then?
@chromaco,
So you're suggesting making Stocksy or something similar?
I have several years of making web apps, I have the skills to make this.
It was more about creating a community and platform for artists to sell their own work than making money. That doesn't mean that you can't make paid plugins or even build a better mousetrap. I'd mentioned Picture Engine earlier. It's hard to say how big the market is for artist run sites though. It may be too niche to be profitable.
-
To be honest with you, I could make something like SymbioStock in less than a week, to give you an idea of where my skills are.
I haven't read this entire thread but I think I got the idea. You want to build something innovative and feel you have the skills.
A lot of people here are pessimistic because every week someone comes here with an idea to build a site. They have no funding, no buyer base, no unique selling proposition, nothing attractive for contributors, and on and on. There's a whole laundry list of startup sites that contributors have invested time in that have failed so maybe you can understand the pushback.
The microstock distribution model is mature and in decline. To compete with the existing model you will need business experience in this industry, a massive amount of money, and a technical background. You have one of those which is a good start. I believe Shutterstock's financial report said their annual sales and marketing costs are $33 million.
I think the opportunity is beyond just building a site. The next big thing will be a disruptive change in licensing and distribution.
-
@PaulieWalnuts
I think the opportunity is beyond just building a site. The next big thing will be a disruptive change in licensing and distribution.
Care to elaborate on this point? What do you mean by this? I don't know. I mean Thomas Hawk has argued that individual licensing could be huge: http://petapixel.com/2012/10/22/the-next-big-thing-in-the-photo-world-is-individual-licensing/ (http://petapixel.com/2012/10/22/the-next-big-thing-in-the-photo-world-is-individual-licensing/)
No one here seems to agree though?
-
@PaulieWalnuts
I think the opportunity is beyond just building a site. The next big thing will be a disruptive change in licensing and distribution.
Care to elaborate on this point? What do you mean by this? I don't know. I mean Thomas Hawk has argued that individual licensing could be huge: [url]http://petapixel.com/2012/10/22/the-next-big-thing-in-the-photo-world-is-individual-licensing/[/url] ([url]http://petapixel.com/2012/10/22/the-next-big-thing-in-the-photo-world-is-individual-licensing/[/url])
No one here seems to agree though?
You can already do that via many sites. I've had an individual person and a magazine licence photos I have on Flickr, and I'm not in any way touting them as being for sale.
-
This thread is making me dizzy. :o
-
5 pages of nonsense
-
@noodle
I don't understand why you think it's nonsense. I'm just trying to get feedback on some existing ideas and some of my own ideas, before I waste time doing them. Why would you call this nonsense? I should of course ask photographers what they think; this is like common sense. I had one guy PM me on here, discussing his agreement with me. He told me he was scared to agree with me, as others in this community would vehemently disagree, just to disagree. Not that I agree with him. But still, we should be allowed to discuss ideas, openly, etc. on here. And I don't think I've been obtrusive or offensive in anyways. Just gave my thoughts, context, research, etc. If the conclusion from this, is that I shouldn't make a social network and marketplace, then I've learned something valuable.
Anyways, anyone have any other thoughts or ideas?
-
To be honest with you, I could make something like SymbioStock in less than a week, to give you an idea of where my skills are.
No one here knows you, your name is anonymous on here (mine is for a reason), people are giving you advice based on their experience, you do not seem to be offering anything innovative or unique. You keep quoting other companies that have tried and/or failed previously. You offer no credentials or supporting evidence of your abilites.
Whilst this forum can be negative and very clique based, the responses you have had have come from a wide variety of people and experience. It seems as though you are not saying "I have a great idea...." but more "What would be best for me to copy....."
Present an idea and then canvas opinions or support, even funding.
Leo brought Symbiostock to this forum, others have brought different reporting/submitting tools or other tools to make life easier for photographers, and received voluntary funding from the people using the services/tools.
Offer something different or substantative and the responses will be different.
Good luck anyway.
-
@PaulieWalnuts
I think the opportunity is beyond just building a site. The next big thing will be a disruptive change in licensing and distribution.
Care to elaborate on this point? What do you mean by this? I don't know. I mean Thomas Hawk has argued that individual licensing could be huge: [url]http://petapixel.com/2012/10/22/the-next-big-thing-in-the-photo-world-is-individual-licensing/[/url] ([url]http://petapixel.com/2012/10/22/the-next-big-thing-in-the-photo-world-is-individual-licensing/[/url])
No one here seems to agree though?
I was interested in Stipple when it first started. Getty Connect is another one to look at. Quite a different way of making money from images. The problem is, I haven't seen anyone mention they make any money with Stipple. There must be a better way to make money from images than microstock but so far nobody has found it. There's a huge market for free images but how can we make money from that? So if you want a project, perhaps finding a way to make a Stipple type model to work for stock contributors would be a good idea? I'm not sure it's possible but it's better than wasting time on yet another microstock site.
-
Make a Symbiostock that looks great and appeals to designers.
Make it use the photographers connecting together to form sympathetic groups whilst retaining control of their own content idea, but provide them with a seamless secure client payment pathway whilst still giving them 100% royalties.
Make it completely idiot proof with a frictionless set up and uploading.
Make the search perfect.
Make it infinitely customisable.
Make it affordable for a one off payment, not endlessly expensive like PhotoShelter.
Make it next week.
-
Make a Symbiostock that looks great and appeals to designers.
Make it use the photographers connecting together to form sympathetic groups whilst retaining control of their own content idea, but provide them with a seamless secure client payment pathway whilst still giving them 100% royalties.
Make it completely idiot proof with a frictionless set up and uploading.
Make the search perfect.
Make it infinitely customisable.
Make it affordable for a one off payment, not endlessly expensive like PhotoShelter.
Make it next week.
The development of Symbiostock is relentless and much of what you are suggesting is already being worked on by Leo. The latest version 2.8.9 is seriously cool.
-
Make a Symbiostock that looks great and appeals to designers.
Make it use the photographers connecting together to form sympathetic groups whilst retaining control of their own content idea, but provide them with a seamless secure client payment pathway whilst still giving them 100% royalties.
Make it completely idiot proof with a frictionless set up and uploading.
Make the search perfect.
Make it infinitely customisable.
Make it affordable for a one off payment, not endlessly expensive like PhotoShelter.
Make it next week.
I'm not sure there's a way to make Symbiostock look great in everyone' opinion across the board, because people are free to design their own sites. There 's a lot of flexibility in it now, so if you have design talent you can certainly create a site that appeals to designers. I'm sure if I asked my art director or designer friends for help my site would look fabulous. Or you can pay a designer to create a look for you.
-
To be honest with you, I could make something like SymbioStock in less than a week, to give you an idea of where my skills are.
I haven't read this entire thread but I think I got the idea. You want to build something innovative and feel you have the skills.
A lot of people here are pessimistic because every week someone comes here with an idea to build a site. They have no funding, no buyer base, no unique selling proposition, nothing attractive for contributors, and on and on. There's a whole laundry list of startup sites that contributors have invested time in that have failed so maybe you can understand the pushback.
The microstock distribution model is mature and in decline. To compete with the existing model you will need business experience in this industry, a massive amount of money, and a technical background. You have one of those which is a good start. I believe Shutterstock's financial report said their annual sales and marketing costs are $33 million.
I think the opportunity is beyond just building a site. The next big thing will be a disruptive change in licensing and distribution.
Spot on!
-
The development of Symbiostock is relentless and much of what you are suggesting is already being worked on by Leo. The latest version 2.8.9 is seriously cool.
You're right, it does look much better with the Bootswatch themes.
-
I don't really understand SymbioStock.
Do photographers think this will be a success? How does it compare to Stocksy? Do photographers like Stocksy more or SymbioStock more?
I don't really understand. How does SymbioStock make money? To do well, as someone mentioned above, you need to raise a lot of marketing dollars. I don't understand how such a platform could do well, as if it can't be monetized, why is someone invest in it?
I mean this in a nice way, just as you guys are giving me advice. It's a cool project and concept, I'm just not sure.
-
I don't really understand SymbioStock.
<snip> I don't understand how such a platform could do well, as if it can't be monetized, why is someone invest in it?
I "invest" in my site in time and effort because I am the one who will reap the rewards. I don't expect my site to reach the level of sales of SS, but, I hope in time, it will generate some cash for me.
-
I don't really understand SymbioStock.
Well, are you sure then that you can do something like it in a week?
In any case, even if you're only half as good technically as you claim Symbiostock needs you. Leo has done an amazing job. However there is a hell of a bunch of loose ends and unsolved questions, such as the current tedious registration process.
Chip in discussions on symbiostock.org (http://symbiostock.org) to learn what Symbiostock is all about and where your technical expertise can fill the gaps and/or add amazing new features. You're definitely welcome!
You can't compare Stocksy and Symbiostock beyond that they are both this year's news. Stocksy is backed by Bruce (founder of iStock), good ideas addressing both buyers and contributors, his in-depth industry knowledge and excellent contacts and assumingly quite a pile of money as well.
Symbiostock on the other hand is nothing more than a clever wordpress theme that is open source and free for us. Currently, 123 artists have live SYS sites with a total of 150000 images online (see symbiostock.info (http://symbiostock.info)). All these sites are interconnected (linked) by the network and along with some build-in SEO this results in a lot of images showing up on first google page. That's how we hope our SYS sites will pay off.
I have been spending a small fortune on Photoshelter during three years. After just six month traffic (and sales) on my SYS site is already 10 times of what it was last on Photoshelter (and I have only 1/3 of my port up, yet).
While that is promising, nobody still knows if this will be sufficient in the end to justify hosting cost and much more so time spent working on our sites, uploading, SEO etc. We are going to find out (the hard way, as there is no other way).
Also, I think even Leo struggles monetizing the tremendous work he put into this project.
Time will tell.
So, if you are serious about this, learn Symbiostock, talk to us Symbiotes and then discuss with Leo how you can be best part of this effort. That's lot of work and won't be a get-rich-quick-scheme. I can guarantee you that much.
Good luck!
-
I have been spending a small fortune on Photoshelter during three years. After just six month traffic (and sales) on my SYS site is already 10 times of what it was last on Photoshelter (and I have only 1/3 of my port up, yet).
@Pilens,
Why is this? What make SYS have better traffic than Photoshelter? Is it something different that just having a large collection of images?
My social network + marketplace idea, would show up much higher than SYS in google, I'm sure, if that's the only basis.
-
My social network + marketplace idea, would show up much higher than SYS in google, I'm sure, if that's the only basis.
Well, then I call [lays poker hand on table]. :)
-
I have been spending a small fortune on Photoshelter during three years. After just six month traffic (and sales) on my SYS site is already 10 times of what it was last on Photoshelter (and I have only 1/3 of my port up, yet).
@Pilens,
Why is this? What make SYS have better traffic than Photoshelter? Is it something different that just having a large collection of images?
My social network + marketplace idea, would show up much higher than SYS in google, I'm sure, if that's the only basis.
Tom,
it is build-in SEO and the design of the SYS network that provides "backlinking". When I look-up google analytics for my site I find more than 100,000 (!) backlinks.
I doubt your social network + marketplace idea would show better results for every single image online. And that is what SYS excells in, that's where the traffic comes from. Yet, as I said, it still far from clear if that's good enough to be worthwhile.
In any case, I'd love to see whatever contributor friendly solution that beats SYS and at least the middle tier agencies. Did you see BTW where "self-hosted" is placed in the list on the right? A good deal of "self-hosted" actually means "Symbiostock". So here you go, take your pick: either compete with SYS (and all of the agencies) if you're sure you can develop something much better or join the community effort that SYS actually is.
-
.....
I'm just asking around, b/c I do have the technical background to make a very complicated product and I want to do something in photography. You guys should want me to try something, as I actually have the background.
repeated unsupported claims to authority - classic trollisms -- how about a bit of actual information -- what HAVE you done?
To be honest with you, I could make something like SymbioStock in less than a week, to give you an idea of where my skills are.
I think by now, we know where your skills are -- NO competent software developer would ever make such a ridiculously silly claim!
-
He is taking the piss or extremely naive, either way, nothing good will come out of this.
-
I don't really understand SymbioStock.
Do photographers think this will be a success? How does it compare to Stocksy? Do photographers like Stocksy more or SymbioStock more?
I don't really understand. How does SymbioStock make money? To do well, as someone mentioned above, you need to raise a lot of marketing dollars. I don't understand how such a platform could do well, as if it can't be monetized, why is someone invest in it?
I mean this in a nice way, just as you guys are giving me advice. It's a cool project and concept, I'm just not sure.
I am not in Symbio YET but your statement is absurd like most coming from you, curiously you have been trying to get anything (everything) from us here at MSG (for free) and know you are saying it is all about marketing, wow that is a big surprise LOL do you have plenty of money to invest? why don't you do it yourself? stop messing with everybody and everything, if it looks so easy what are you waiting for? GO! ;D
-
In case you still dont know what Symbiostock is
http://semmickphoto.com/symbiostock/ (http://semmickphoto.com/symbiostock/)
http://semmickphoto.com/2013/06/10/symbiostock-fair-trade-image-licenses/ (http://semmickphoto.com/2013/06/10/symbiostock-fair-trade-image-licenses/)