Posted on Behalf of Christ Barton:
Hi Rolf
you have some interesting ideas, but when you say:
"I strongly disagree though with any content rating system that is done at the sales sites"
followed by:
"If we supply raw unedited bad quality images, the site will get less visitor, means less sales. I see too many bad images on some sites."
You seem to be saying opposite things. You say that you see too many bad images on sites, but you disagree with having a content rating system. Surely the only way to weed out bad images is to have a content rating system?
In response to your calculations that:
"The sales site makes the real money, a computer, much less software, storage, and bandwidth are cheap today in comparison."
it is a little more complicated than this. 'Software', or at least software development is not cheap. While it may be true that hardware and bandwidth costs have come down, but the old saying "build it and they will come" no longer holds true on the internet, as many photographers will tell you. Getting the visitors to the site to offer these assignments to photographers is where the hard work comes in. And charging just 10% commission on these earnings seems like a bargain (to me at least).
best regards
Chris
--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, RK <rolf.krohna@...> wrote:
>
> Lots of opinions there. A discussion is often the solution.
>
> I often say that successful people are those who move quickly and reach
> a destination. Those who stand still are just trampled.
>
> I disagree in much with Peter, but I like to see PD as an opportunity,
> not a destination. It has its faults, but nothing in this world is
> final. Nothing in this world is so perfect that it can't be made better,
> and the most positive i see is that someone will stand up and voice his
> opinion, especially sales site owners.
>
> I strongly disagree though with any content rating system that is done
> at the sales sites. This is a global village with too many markets and
> too many needs. Even the most technically crappy photo can have a great
> news value in one place, be banned in another and be useless in a third
> an unusable for anything else than news.
>
> It is also up to us photographers to make a site successful. If we
> supply raw unedited bad quality images, the site will get less visitor,
> means less sales. I see too many bad images on some sites.
>
> As for commission, make the following mental experiment. If ten people
> pay a sales site 10% commission, they all make the same revenue, but as
> most expenses are with the photographer, cameras, lighting, studio,
> travel, computer, software, etc. The sales site makes the real money, a
> computer, much less software, storage, and bandwidth are cheap today in
> comparison.
>
> Now increase the commission to 50% (either way) and consider 1,000
> photographers and go on with 10,000. Now we have another picture, it
> looks at least to me as a real rip-off deal.
>
> Add a common scam that some sites offer some real good photographers to
> sell their photos free as a bait system, even maybe pay them for selling
> their images, and then pushing those images specifically to customers,
> just to make it look like it was successful. (no finger pointing
> intended here)
>
> Could I suggest PD to ask every photographer to choose 15 images they
> think is representative for them, and then let other photographers on
> the site grade the page, maybe also customers, and do a statistics based
> on region (where the photographer is based) and on his/hers own
> background (as new, travel, food, etc.)
>
> It is much up to us photographers to support sits that work for us and
> make them successful, and boycott sites that are not. Photography is not
> really about taking pictures, but more about selling them. At least if
> you want to make a living out of it. Just my view.
0 comments:
Post a Comment