MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: StockFresh - from Peter Hamza and Andras Pfaff  (Read 275790 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #450 on: September 13, 2010, 08:29 »
0
Peter, I'm not taking sjlocke's bait because he/she/it is obviously a troll.


« Reply #451 on: September 13, 2010, 08:35 »
0
Peter, I'm not taking sjlocke's bait because he/she/it is obviously a troll.

Yeah, that's me.  I'm a troll.  I've never posted here before.  Just started today to respond to your posts.

By the way, any info on your NPO registration?

« Reply #452 on: September 13, 2010, 08:39 »
0
cclapper - I really don't appreciate all of the sarcasm and the intonation that I am stupid.

You were the one who brought up the "s" word.  I don't think you are stupid but I do think you are obfuscatory.

« Reply #453 on: September 13, 2010, 08:41 »
0
Peter, I'm not taking sjlocke's bait because he/she/it is obviously a troll.

Yeah, that's me.  I'm a troll.  I've never posted here before.  Just started today to respond to your posts.

By the way, any info on your NPO registration?

You seem well boned on the subject.  I'm sure you know where you can go.  To find out that is...

« Reply #454 on: September 13, 2010, 08:46 »
0
You seem well boned on the subject.  I'm sure you know where you can go.  To find out that is...

One would think if you were really a "not for profit", you'd have that legal information on your about page.  So, you're not really an NPO.  You just say that because it's currently convenient. 

« Reply #455 on: September 13, 2010, 08:53 »
0
Peter, you have your work cut out...   ::)

I really don't appreciate all of the sarcasm and the intonation that I am stupid.


+1 ...kind of schoolyardish and silly

« Reply #456 on: September 13, 2010, 09:00 »
0
+1 ...kind of schoolyardish and silly

This whole thread's been taken over by nothingness. Can we not just let Peter & Co get on with building us a place to sell our work at a much fairer commission than Istock?

« Reply #457 on: September 13, 2010, 09:13 »
0
I thought this was solely about Stockfresh anyway...  ???

« Reply #458 on: September 13, 2010, 09:15 »
0
How do you control customer loss to "free"?  Does rgb screen the incoming work to make sure it is not as good as anything on its partner sites?  Where's the gain/loss line fall?

This is like the old music industry argument: free downloads killing the business... I don't think so. You should think about free content as an opportunity, not as lost revenues. Thousands of people learn about your services. You can hate free sites all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they will never go away. People will always want free stuff. There are many potential customers among them though, and I'm sure you'd rather send potential customers to your site than to the competition. The quality of work is not an issue, although there are some pretty amazing images on SXC and RGB, they don't match the pay sites and they never will.

« Reply #459 on: September 13, 2010, 09:15 »
0
Free sites to redirect traffic are good in my opinion as long as:
1. contribution to free site is completely voluntary;
2. there aren't too many good pictures for free to distract buyers from paying for pictures;

StockFresh has now explained point 1 perfectly, so no concerns for me.

Point 2 is partly up to contributors (not to upload their best pictures for free), and partly up to buyers (how much time they can lose to search for good pictures among many not so good, and how much quality they're going to sacrifice in order to use a free picture). We must be careful about this.

E.g., if a certain amount of potential buyers are intercepted through a free site, some will be transferred to the linked payed for site, and some will just be happy with the free offer. This is completely positive for the linked site (more buyers) but possibily negative for contributors (less buyers on other sites).

I wouldn't like sites using their free counterpart to damage competitors more than to advantage contributors.


Good post but may I point out a flaw in your Point 2 reasoning?  Sites like RGB need to host good quality images otherwise people would not use the site.  No people means no traffic.  A bit of a Catch 22 situation from your point of view I'm sure you agree.  However, the system works which is why SXC still exists.  iStock would probably have destroyed the site if SXC was a threat rather than an asset.  There has been a contraction in the size of SXC's database which iStock is in no hurry to reverse.  They don't need to because SXC enjoys annual seven figure visitors/downloads which produces the traffic.   A lot of RGBers, myself included, have galleries on pay sites other than Stockfresh.  Quite a few of us have also been accepted as Stockfresh contributors (I'm not listed as weirdvis so please don't bother looking) so, with one possible exception (I don't mean you, cclapper), we are all Stockfreshers here.  

« Reply #460 on: September 13, 2010, 09:19 »
0
+1 ...kind of schoolyardish and silly

This whole thread's been taken over by nothingness. Can we not just let Peter & Co get on with building us a place to sell our work at a much fairer commission than Istock?

Sorry about that.  Just a little chatty this morning. (chat mode off)

« Reply #461 on: September 13, 2010, 09:21 »
0
+1 ...kind of schoolyardish and silly

This whole thread's been taken over by nothingness. Can we not just let Peter & Co get on with building us a place to sell our work at a much fairer commission than Istock?

Sorry about that.  Just a little chatty this morning. (chat mode off)
wasn't referring to you  ;)


lisafx

« Reply #463 on: September 13, 2010, 09:42 »
0

Thanks for choosing to link to a site that supports its contributors with a fair commission. I for one wish both RGB and Stockfresh both every success.

Likewise.  ^^ :)

I do have a question about RGB.  Maybe it has been answered above and I missed it?

If someone donates an image to RGB, would it have visible links to images in that same person's SF portfolio?  In other words could donated images directly impact sales for the donating contributor, in addition to general sales for the SF site? 

« Reply #464 on: September 13, 2010, 09:43 »
0
I just want to comment on one more thing. I have my photos on Flickr and Behance and both companies sell advertising right next to my pictures, which means they are making money off me. I don't think this is in any way different from RGB owners making some money to cover operating costs. Sites like that can become an expensive hobby if traffic starts to grow.

You mean like iStock 2002 ? ;)

« Reply #465 on: September 13, 2010, 10:02 »
0
You seem well boned on the subject.  I'm sure you know where you can go.  To find out that is...

One would think if you were really a "not for profit", you'd have that legal information on your about page.  So, you're not really an NPO.  You just say that because it's currently convenient. 

RGB is an organisation of graphic designers, photographers and programmers that operates on a voluntary, non-profit basis.  That makes us a not for profit organisation but not one of those official, government funded fake charities.  We will be feeding traffic to Stockfresh.  If that worries certain people (not you cclapper) then I won't be losing sleep over it.

« Reply #466 on: September 13, 2010, 10:07 »
0

Thanks for choosing to link to a site that supports its contributors with a fair commission. I for one wish both RGB and Stockfresh both every success.

Likewise.  ^^ :)

I do have a question about RGB.  Maybe it has been answered above and I missed it?

If someone donates an image to RGB, would it have visible links to images in that same person's SF portfolio?  In other words could donated images directly impact sales for the donating contributor, in addition to general sales for the SF site? 

Lisa, if you have a gallery at RGB there are no problems with using the accompanying profile or image information to link back to Stockfresh.  SXCers with images on paying sites linked back to those sites routinely.  :0)

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #467 on: September 13, 2010, 10:08 »
0
Ive just read through the second half of this thread and emotions seem to be running high over nothing.  Let me recap...

Cclappers question to weirdvis came across a little hostile and almost as if it was an accusation.  Shes probably paranoid over the IS caning and it seems she has lost trust in management on all agencies altogether.

Weirdvis, who has diligently been explaining RGBs relationship to SF became frustrated and took offence to cclappers paranoia worrying that her question will instil unnecessary fear into contributors who currently have confidence in, or high hopes for SF.  Cclappers paranoia went a step further and falsly accused weirdvis if calling her stupid which he did not.

Sean then stepped in and made a mountain out of a molehill over the term not-for-profit.  Perhaps that term should not have been used but what weirdvis meant is that they are not making a profit from RGB, not that theyre registered as an NPO.  Having said that though, even NPOs need money to operate their organisation, regardless if no or a marginal profit is made.  Id say Sean is feeling the effects of IS and is a little touchy at the moment.  Im also sure that he'd prefer IS exclusives to remain put for the time-being rather than taking their business away and heading towards SF, because lets face it, SF sure sounds appealing, doesnt it?  

I think everyone should take a deep breath in and remember who the bad guy is here.  Its not SF, its IS.

As for my opinion on free sites, I think they are necessary.  Without them, people will be downloading your images illegally from other websites anyway.  A free site gives these types somewhere to go without hurting those who opt to make money from their images.  The other bonus is that RGB will direct traffic to SF so its a win:win situation.  There are many reasons why some contributors want their photos on free sites.  Portfolio exposure is one of them. Many times a photographer will submit their best images from a group and submit the rest for free.  Theres no real loss here because those images wouldnt have made him money anyway and theres a chance his revenue-generating images will sell if a buyer is directed from the free site.

Who knows why RGB is interested in running the free site for peanuts while advertising for SF.  Perhaps management at RGB has some personal vested interest in SF, perhaps they too are gaining exposure and experience?  Who knows?  Does it matter really?  The animal were all interested here is SF and if RGB helps them succeed in anyway, they have my thumbs up!

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #468 on: September 13, 2010, 10:09 »
0
Good post but may I point out a flaw in your Point 2 reasoning?  Sites like RGB need to host good quality images otherwise people would not use the site.  No people means no traffic.

Basically agree. I think the key is balance: a free site must have good pictures but still take care not to completely replace pay sites.

« Reply #469 on: September 13, 2010, 10:09 »
0
I just want to comment on one more thing. I have my photos on Flickr and Behance and both companies sell advertising right next to my pictures, which means they are making money off me. I don't think this is in any way different from RGB owners making some money to cover operating costs. Sites like that can become an expensive hobby if traffic starts to grow.

You mean like iStock 2002 ? ;)

Yes, that's the only site in the universe that started out as a hobby and became huge...  ;D

« Reply #470 on: September 13, 2010, 10:13 »
0
Ive just read through the second half of this thread and emotions seem to be running high over nothing.  Let me recap...

Cclappers question to weirdvis came across a little hostile and almost as if it was an accusation.  Shes probably paranoid over the IS caning and it seems she has lost trust in management on all agencies altogether.

Weirdvis, who has diligently been explaining RGBs relationship to SF became frustrated and took offence to cclappers paranoia worrying that her question will instil unnecessary fear into contributors who currently have confidence in, or high hopes for SF.  Cclappers paranoia went a step further and falsly accused weirdvis if calling her stupid which he did not.

Sean then stepped in and made a mountain out of a molehill over the term not-for-profit.  Perhaps that term should not have been used but what weirdvis meant is that they are not making a profit from RGB, not that theyre registered as an NPO.  Having said that though, even NPOs need money to operate their organisation, regardless if no or a marginal profit is made.  Id say Sean is feeling the effects of IS and is a little touchy at the moment.  Im also sure that he'd prefer IS exclusives to remain put for the time-being rather than taking their business away and heading towards SF, because lets face it, SF sure sounds appealing, doesnt it?  

I think everyone should take a deep breath in and remember who the bad guy is here.  Its not SF, its IS.

As for my opinion on free sites, I think they are necessary.  Without them, people will be downloading your images illegally from other websites anyway.  A free site gives these types somewhere to go without hurting those who opt to make money from their images.  The other bonus is that RGB will direct traffic to SF so its a win:win situation.  There are many reasons why some contributors want their photos on free sites.  Portfolio exposure is one of them. Many times a photographer will submit their best images from a group and submit the rest for free.  Theres no real loss here because those images wouldnt have made him money anyway and theres a chance his revenue-generating images will sell if a buyer is directed from the free site.

Who knows why RGB is interested in running the free site for peanuts while advertising for SF.  Perhaps management at RGB has some personal vested interest in SF, perhaps they too are gaining exposure and experience?  Who knows?  Does it matter really?  The animal were all interested here is SF and if RGB helps them succeed in anyway, they have my thumbs up!

What you said with knobs on, pseudonymous!  And thank you for understanding my frustration.  :)

« Reply #471 on: September 13, 2010, 10:14 »
0
Yes, that's the only site in the universe that started out as a hobby and became huge...  ;D

More that Bruce had to start charging to cover operating costs, and here we are today.  Seems like a new "hobby" site will just end up traveling the same path.  So, why go backward?

« Reply #472 on: September 13, 2010, 10:16 »
0
Good post but may I point out a flaw in your Point 2 reasoning?  Sites like RGB need to host good quality images otherwise people would not use the site.  No people means no traffic.

Basically agree. I think the key is balance: a free site must have good pictures but still take care not to completely replace pay sites.

I don't think that will ever happen.  Talent should be rewarded.  :)

« Reply #473 on: September 13, 2010, 10:16 »
0
Yes, that's the only site in the universe that started out as a hobby and became huge...  ;D

More that Bruce had to start charging to cover operating costs, and here we are today.  Seems like a new "hobby" site will just end up traveling the same path.  So, why go backward?

What are you trying to say?

« Reply #474 on: September 13, 2010, 10:31 »
0
That the histories are similar.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
17476 Views
Last post July 27, 2010, 20:26
by a.k.a.-tom
13 Replies
18439 Views
Last post December 30, 2010, 04:17
by alfonsodetomas
8 Replies
11281 Views
Last post February 18, 2012, 17:41
by Fran
74 Replies
36148 Views
Last post December 20, 2014, 02:26
by Hobostocker
52 Replies
58304 Views
Last post March 02, 2015, 01:13
by Hobostocker

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors