| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/30/2004 12:19:30 PM · #1 |
With all the talk about stock web sites as a method to make some money would it be possible to add dpc stock as a sideline for members to make files available for $$$.
What do you think the pros and cons are?
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 01:44:24 PM · #2 |
| Like the idea as an opt-in option (i.e. member would have to designate photo as "stock.") Have to think about pricing ... |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 02:02:28 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Like the idea as an opt-in option (i.e. member would have to designate photo as "stock.") Have to think about pricing ... |
each member chooses like dpc prints because I remeber there was a heated debate that some people that Istock was ok to sell your photos for a dollar and some thought that was ridiculous and wanted 50,000 for an image or something like that.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 02:43:53 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by hsteg:
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Like the idea as an opt-in option (i.e. member would have to designate photo as "stock.") Have to think about pricing ... |
each member chooses like dpc prints because I remeber there was a heated debate that some people that Istock was ok to sell your photos for a dollar and some thought that was ridiculous and wanted 50,000 for an image or something like that. |
I guess my point of view would be from a buyer's perspective. A dpcstock offering ought to have a rational consistent pricing structure. Possibly divided into zones with a relevant pricing structure for each. Zones might have differing quality, or offer differing rights to use the photos, and therefore sustain differing prices. Just my thoughts. |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 03:11:39 PM · #5 |
I just think that there is a large band of fine photograhers on dpc and it seems like a shame that they have to go elseware to sell. It could be a great money spinner for dpc and the photographer and in doing that would help to maintain the site, storage and membership fees.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 03:51:54 PM · #6 |
I like this idea a lot, myself. I'm not saying that we should abandon shutterstock and others if DPC decides to do such a venture but it would be just one more way for us to get our work out in the public. Not only would we get our work out there, DPC might see a boost in new paying members once they see this sister site.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 08:54:55 PM · #7 |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 09:01:30 PM · #8 |
I think that the biggest impediment to a DPC Stock photography site at this point is Drew and Langdon's time. As we all knows, the DPC Prints update has taken much longer than anticipated.
I think a stock site is a great idea in principle, I'm just not sure we have the resources (programmer-hours, mostly) available right now to make it happen.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-10-31 01:03:11.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:40:42 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
I like this idea a lot, myself. I'm not saying that we should abandon shutterstock and others if DPC decides to do such a venture but it would be just one more way for us to get our work out in the public. Not only would we get our work out there, DPC might see a boost in new paying members once they see this sister site. |
This is the only way to make any serious money in royalty-free (R-F) stock photography -- by placing or distributing your stock images with as many agencies or outlets as possible. No one R-F agency can cover ALL of the Internet. This is covered in an article my husband recently wrote, where he goes over the history and recent changes in marketing stock photos.
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
I'm just not sure we have the resources (programmer-hours, mostly) available right now to make it happen. |
That could be the big issue. However, Shutterpoint.com has made it work. Their model is different though than the 3 micro-payment agencies (iStock, Dreamstime and CanStock) --they spinelessly just let the photographers set their own stock prices. That initially keeps photographers very happy --until they realize that hardly anyone at Shutterpoint is selling any stock! I like CanStock's pricing and royalty schedule (in case Drew and Langdon are listening). It's a good compromise between iStock and the non-micro-payment agencies. iStock is successful because they have been around for over 3 years and have a huge amount of designer traffic --despite their low, low prices. CanStock's model is better (for photographers, and a good compromise for even the buyers), but its traffic is very low. DPCstock (with its higher traffic) might make a good combination.
In defense of CanStock's miserable sales: remember, that they are very new (June 2004) and their focus has been to built content first, not go after buyers (you can't put the cart before the horse). I think you'll see management start pushing for sales now that they are almost to 10,000 images.
Linda
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 02:48:52 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
I think a stock site is a great idea in principle, I'm just not sure we have the resources (programmer-hours, mostly) available right now to make it happen. |
My apologies to Terry --I had originally said this quote was from "MrAkamai"! Sorry. I got a little too cute in my own forum message programming ;)
Linda |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 05:10:16 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by ironrodart:
...the 3 micro-payment agencies (iStock, Dreamstime and CanStock).... |
Hadn't heard that terminology - micro-payment - before but I like it. It describes well the price a buyer pays the agency for images. But with the set up of not paying the photographer until they amass hundreds of downloads should we call the agengies's payouts macro-payments? I said in an earlier post I think most photographers will never receive a penny for the images they upload while the agency profits from there work. Wouldn't it be more equitable to the photographers if the agencies paid out at a lower minimum level, something like a check every quarter if you had accumulated $10 or more? I always get the idea that these agencies are depending on aspiring photographers to capitalize their venture while taking little risk themselves. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 10:14:16 PM EDT.
