MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: StockFresh - from Peter Hamza and Andras Pfaff  (Read 275793 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



lisafx

« Reply #476 on: September 13, 2010, 10:38 »
0

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)

Makes sense.  Thanks for the explanation.  :)

alias

« Reply #477 on: September 13, 2010, 10:38 »
0
Getty will either buy or attempt to eliminate any site or alternative model which has significant market share. Back to the 90s.

« Reply #478 on: September 13, 2010, 10:39 »
0
Amateur (well, non-"pro") content for free.  Which, to me, is going backwards from getting paid real money for content.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #479 on: September 13, 2010, 10:41 »
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?

It's not going backwards at all.  Even if SF ends up in the same position as IS is today, what made you a decent living was the time between 2002 and 2011.  If you knew IS would end up being as greedy (or inefficient) as it is today, would you, if you could, turn back time and not join IS and make all the money you've made?  If money goes to Peter's head in 8 years time and he then cuts our lunch, who cares, everyone will bail and go to the next hero who's willing to accommodate us and pay us a fair commission.  For the time being though, Peter and SF are the hero and what they're offering is worth considering.

« Reply #480 on: September 13, 2010, 10:43 »
0
Not SF.  RGB.  I have no problem with Peter trying to make a go of it with paid for content (although he's still a competitor ;)).

rubyroo

« Reply #481 on: September 13, 2010, 10:49 »
0
Surely if - as Peter says - all the agencies (including iStock since fairly recent acquisition of SXC) are using some kind of free model to bring traffic to their sites, then it's not so much 'going backwards' as 'the way things are done'.  (?)

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #482 on: September 13, 2010, 10:55 »
0
Not SF.  RGB.  I have no problem with Peter trying to make a go of it with paid for content (although he's still a competitor ;)).

I still don't get how operating free sites are going backwards when they're in existence today.  RGB shouldn't effect anyone who doesn't want to give away their content for free but it'll help sell content on SF and will help their SEO.

I think sitting at IS next year accepting a pay cut while image prices have gone up is going backwards.  Kelly's speech about any business becoming more profitable over time was correct, but any business should also become more efficient over time as well so a contributor's profit margin, as well as IS's should go up as well.

I feel for you Sean, and other exclusive there at the minute.  It's a tough decision to make but eventually you're going to have to make it and I have a feeling you'll be crossing over to other avenues sooner rather than later.

« Reply #483 on: September 13, 2010, 10:58 »
0
cclapper,

I remember that SXC showed some results for free images (2 rows of 4 images or something like that), and below these a few results from StockXpert saying something about looking for more images, if the person clicked on it they would be transfered to StockXpert.

On a side note, I think RGB images should be limited to a very small res, no more than 800x600, which would already suffice for most applications, not only web but folders and flyers.  In fact. I don't know why give good images for free anyway, but...

« Reply #484 on: September 13, 2010, 11:43 »
0
Free sites (at least free sites with a semi-decent content database) don't really exist. "Free" mean that contributors give away their work for free, and that's the only free part of the business. Owners get rewarded with income coming from ads, links etc. Customers get the product for free exposing themselves to the ads, etc.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 12:14 by loop »

« Reply #485 on: September 13, 2010, 12:12 »
0
Surely if - as Peter says - all the agencies (including iStock since fairly recent acquisition of SXC) are using some kind of free model to bring traffic to their sites, then it's not so much 'going backwards' as 'the way things are done'.  (?)

Perhaps.  The "going backwards" bit, is more a comment on the assumption that creators of said "free" sites have greater ambitions than providing pro bono coding and other people's content for no charge, and that it would end up being a stepping stone to something fairly profitable for both parties.  Thus, "going backwards" to start in the first steps of IS and progress forwards.

« Reply #486 on: September 13, 2010, 13:24 »
0
cclapper,

On a side note, I think RGB images should be limited to a very small res, no more than 800x600, which would already suffice for most applications, not only web but folders and flyers.  In fact. I don't know why give good images for free anyway, but...

Sigh...

Why should RGB limit image resolution to 800x600?  Because RGB contributors owe you a living?  Why give away good images at all? Because not everyone shoots photos or creates graphics for profit.  A lot of people give back to the free community they have benefitted from, uploading images of their own to share.  The bulk do it for the kudos, to see their images working and helping people all over the world  It's called magnanimity and co-operation.  Flikr and SXC are bigger than RGB by several magnitudes yet neither site have put any successful microstock site out of business, nor will they.  Human nature and vested interest will ensure that pay sites will always prevail.   Will you be raising concerns if an RGB referral buys one of your images?  Paying and free stock sites are not mutually exclusive.  A lot of stock contributors have their feet in both camps.  I'm one of them, having my images hosted on several pay sites as well as the freebies available via RGB.  Perhaps you should try it and then maybe you'll understand?

« Reply #487 on: September 13, 2010, 13:26 »
0
Perhaps.  The "going backwards" bit, is more a comment on the assumption that creators of said "free" sites have greater ambitions than providing pro bono coding and other people's content for no charge, and that it would end up being a stepping stone to something fairly profitable for both parties.  Thus, "going backwards" to start in the first steps of IS and progress forwards.

Oh I see what you mean. It was a brave decision from the IS guys to start charging for the images, but it was a completely different world back then and it worked. I wonder if anyone could pull that off nowadays. Most likely not.

RT


« Reply #488 on: September 13, 2010, 13:37 »
0
 Will you be raising concerns if an RGB referral buys one of your images? 

I'd probably be left wondering whether they'd had bought more if free sites like RGB didn't exist.

« Reply #489 on: September 13, 2010, 14:02 »
0
Surely if - as Peter says - all the agencies (including iStock since fairly recent acquisition of SXC) are using some kind of free model to bring traffic to their sites, then it's not so much 'going backwards' as 'the way things are done'.  (?)

Perhaps.  The "going backwards" bit, is more a comment on the assumption that creators of said "free" sites have greater ambitions than providing pro bono coding and other people's content for no charge, and that it would end up being a stepping stone to something fairly profitable for both parties.  Thus, "going backwards" to start in the first steps of IS and progress forwards.

Maybe it's time you quit judging people by iStock standards. Even if RGB harnesses the Dark Forces and grows bigger than a demonically enhanced Stay Puft Marshmallow Man and actually turns a profit whereby RGB Towers relocates to it's own tropical island, what business is it of yours?  Your speculation and scare tactics seem designed to drive a wedge between Stockfresh and RGB.   It's strange that you appear to see RGB as a threat but not Stockfresh.  How come?  

« Reply #490 on: September 13, 2010, 14:06 »
0
 Will you be raising concerns if an RGB referral buys one of your images? 

I'd probably be left wondering whether they'd had bought more if free sites like RGB didn't exist.

Well apparently the likes of iStock and StockXpert wouldn't have come into being for you to sell your images.   ;)

RT


« Reply #491 on: September 13, 2010, 14:44 »
0
 Will you be raising concerns if an RGB referral buys one of your images? 

I'd probably be left wondering whether they'd had bought more if free sites like RGB didn't exist.

Well apparently the likes of iStock and StockXpert wouldn't have come into being for you to sell your images.   ;)

That's right I'd still be earning $300 for each download  ;) ;)

lisafx

« Reply #492 on: September 13, 2010, 17:18 »
0
FWIW I got 3 downloads on Stockfresh today, more than doubling my total $ with them.  That is completely out of the ordinary.  Would not be surprised if that was a buyer who was referred by one of the folks that's driving traffic there.  If so, hope it continues :)

rubyroo

« Reply #493 on: September 13, 2010, 17:38 »
0
Oh that's great news Lisa  :)

I'm so happy to hear that sales are starting to come through.  Still waiting for my first, but I'm sure it'll all take off once the marketing starts  :) 

« Reply #494 on: September 13, 2010, 17:44 »
0
Peter, you have your work cut out...   ::)

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

You need to check around a little. Currently, my images, after they reach a certain age, automatically go into the FREE section at IS. There used to be an opt-out for that, but it magically disappeared a while back. I only found out about this after checking the FREE section on my own. Then I had to delete them all. Now, I have to check periodically to make sure there are none there.

You should be ashamed of yourself for making me look like a total idiot for asking those questions after what just happened at IS. If you think I am going to blindly trust ANY agency right now, you're the ignorant ones.

I gotta agree, you didn't understand how things worked and instead of trying to give an explanation of the relationship, he had to be a total ass.

« Reply #495 on: September 13, 2010, 18:49 »
0
FWIW I got 3 downloads on Stockfresh today, more than doubling my total $ with them.  That is completely out of the ordinary.  Would not be surprised if that was a buyer who was referred by one of the folks that's driving traffic there.  If so, hope it continues :)

congrats Lisa, still waiting but honestly no problem once if top contributors have just a few, I imagine my humble pictures :P

« Reply #496 on: September 13, 2010, 18:53 »
0
FWIW I got 3 downloads on Stockfresh today, more than doubling my total $ with them.  That is completely out of the ordinary.  Would not be surprised if that was a buyer who was referred by one of the folks that's driving traffic there.  If so, hope it continues :)

That would be great if it's starting to do damage already. Congrats. I just started uploading, so I haven't seen any sales as of yet.

« Reply #497 on: September 13, 2010, 21:03 »
0
It's a big diversion from the topic, but since we moved to this area:

Why should RGB limit image resolution to 800x600?  Because RGB contributors owe you a living? 
No, but because I know the value of a good photo/image, so I don't agree to give it for free just to anyone. I understand your side, having an attractive site will bring you earnings other than the image sales - that's fine, you've invested on the site, but it can be even parasitical if the contributors are not aware of this.

A lot of people give back to the free community they have benefitted from, uploading images of their own to share.  The bulk do it for the kudos, to see their images working and helping people all over the world  It's called magnanimity and co-operation.
They do it for the kudos because they don't realize the value of the images, possibly because they would never think of buying anything at all either. That's why people send photos and videos to online newspapers, they are happy to have their name credited for one day ("Look, Mom, my photo!"), but that may be giving the newspaper a huge traffic and financial return), all from the free and innocent collaboration from their readers.

Listen, I would have no problem letting my church or a NGO I support use one of my images for free, or sharing images with a group of co-workers. We even had a colleague a year ago asking for images to use in support of a friend with cancer and many of us collaborated. This is very different from having IBM or Yahoo or CNN using my images for free.

I posted some small images in Fotopedia and they received low ratings because I added my name unintrusively at the corner of them - what was not prohibited, but still people emailed me to reupload them without my name. I didn't. I would gladly collaborate with them, but not in a way that I may lose control over those images, because people will probably download them without giving any attention to copyright notices.

Even if stock photography is far from being a significant income, I know its value, and it is not because this won't change my financial life that I will simply give images away in a site like SXC or RGB. Sorry, it's a matter of principle.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #498 on: September 13, 2010, 21:38 »
0
madelaide, it is up to you whether you want to submit a free image to RGB.  You might not want to do it yourself, but you should open your mind and see why other's would.  It doesn't devalue that photographer's portfolio as a whole, in fact it probably increases it.  I don't buy images online.  I've only even needed one photograph for my website and it was free from SXC.  I didn't go looking for a free image, I found it on Google.  It wasn't anything spectacular but it was a decent image, it was very fitting and perfect for my website so I downloaded it.  I would have paid for it.  The only request from the photographer was that he'd appreciate anyone who downloads his free images to let them know what we do with those images.  So after placing it on my page, I emailed him with the details and he emailed me back thanking me and complimented the site.  His free image is now embedded on my website reminding me of him and his name is also embedded in my brain and my contact list so if ever I want to buy an image, I will happily go through his extensive portfolios accross many agents.  Imagine if I were a full time buyer and established a good rapport with this photographer?  That one free image could possibly result in many sales on paid sites.

I don't know why everyone is having a go at weirdvis.  He did not come here asking anyone to give away their images for free.  He came here to support StockFresh and to explain RGBs relationship with them.  He even mentioned that RGB will drive traffic to SF without any catch.  I can't see why anyone would have a problem with that or with him and his site.


It's a big diversion from the topic, but since we moved to this area:

Why should RGB limit image resolution to 800x600?  Because RGB contributors owe you a living?
No, but because I know the value of a good photo/image, so I don't agree to give it for free just to anyone. I understand your side, having an attractive site will bring you earnings other than the image sales - that's fine, you've invested on the site, but it can be even parasitical if the contributors are not aware of this.

A lot of people give back to the free community they have benefitted from, uploading images of their own to share.  The bulk do it for the kudos, to see their images working and helping people all over the world  It's called magnanimity and co-operation.
They do it for the kudos because they don't realize the value of the images, possibly because they would never think of buying anything at all either. That's why people send photos and videos to online newspapers, they are happy to have their name credited for one day ("Look, Mom, my photo!"), but that may be giving the newspaper a huge traffic and financial return), all from the free and innocent collaboration from their readers.

Listen, I would have no problem letting my church or a NGO I support use one of my images for free, or sharing images with a group of co-workers. We even had a colleague a year ago asking for images to use in support of a friend with cancer and many of us collaborated. This is very different from having IBM or Yahoo or CNN using my images for free.

I posted some small images in Fotopedia and they received low ratings because I added my name unintrusively at the corner of them - what was not prohibited, but still people emailed me to reupload them without my name. I didn't. I would gladly collaborate with them, but not in a way that I may lose control over those images, because people will probably download them without giving any attention to copyright notices.

Even if stock photography is far from being a significant income, I know its value, and it is not because this won't change my financial life that I will simply give images away in a site like SXC or RGB. Sorry, it's a matter of principle.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 21:40 by pseudonymous »

« Reply #499 on: September 13, 2010, 21:54 »
0
very nice to read all this bla bla about StockFresh but it is more than a month that I applied and didn't receive any answer yet.   I used to be Sxpert before and they seem to be faster at this time to get new contributors.
Should I say "contributor" ? This appellation reminds me IS  :-\

Sorry for my English. Hope you understand me.  ::)


 

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
18440 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
58308 Views
Last post March 02, 2015, 01:13
by Hobostocker

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors