Wouldn't it be better for global users to know in advance roughly what SMStock is going to cost?
There is so much choice out there (all te way from Alamy to Getty) I think SM really needs to ask what section(s) of the market it intends to aim for (cheap + low, avaerage cost and quality, high cost and quality), what sort of reputation it wants (and will get) i.e. consistancy across te board, what pricing structure and yes, address the quality control question.
IMO it will either become a quality service recognised within the industry or a laughing stock (sorry bout that!)
i.e. SM needs to ask what reputation it wants for stock
Quite true. A general price should be set for all stock. If someone wants more because it's a "special", then it's not stock, and should be sold separetly.
I think this is a great idea, and I applaud SM for going ahead with this. I have sort of prepared for this, with extensive keywords for every photo already in place.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> However, I do think SM should think carefully on how they provide this service. Many issues have been pointed out here, and I have a point or two of my own.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Stock comes in a variety of formats. Royalty Free, Editorial, Rights Managed etc.There are legal reasons for this of cause. On each of my photos, I suggest what the photos can be used for. Photos with no identifiable faces or corporate logos can be sold for pretty much any use (as Royalty Free generally is), photos that have faces I suggest a restriction to editorial or artistic sales. What would be good if there was some check-boxes for each photo to define this. Such as Royalty Free, Full Commercial, Commercial (such as postcards, travel books etc), Editorial, Artistic uses etc. This could solve a few headaches in the future.<o:p></o:p>
I tihnk the idea is great (specially since I was shopping for a stock agency to "lay my eggs").
I couldn't agree more with Mike Werner's comments about creating a new pricing structure for Stock. I also strongly support some sort of quality control and not the popularity of "Thumbs Up". Instead of launching this product right away, I think Smugmug should determine what their niche is in this market and not just a me too!
Great ideas Smugmug! I like the innovation...let's just think this one through instead of launching prematurely. IMHO.
Thanks!!
Thanks,
Jake
Website: www.frozenshutter.com
"Some people hunt with a rifle, I hunt with a Canon" ~ Gary Jacobson
This is certainly an exciting and surprising development.
I would suggest that this be offered only to pro users at this time. Since Smugmug is a latecomer to the stock photo game, the only way to make it work is to distinguish itself with high quality photos which are easy to search and categorize.
If the site is loaded with low quality shots with no commercial application, end users will simply ignore us and move on to the more established sites.
Once again, I am counting on Smugmug to enter this venue with class and distinction.
Another thing to think about with the licensing side is that most stock houses do not have anything in place for television. It doesn't happen often, but I've purchased photos for television from Getty/Corbis/iStock, and it's always a struggle to get the proper licensing in place because all the usual wording is for internet sites or publishing only.
Once up and running, I recommend having in place something that covers "All rights, All media, worldwide in perpetuity, excluding theatrical" for television. Most stock houses don't have a category like this in place and it makes it very difficult for production companies to license stock photography. I know these terms sound scary, but it's only binding for the terms in which your photo is used for that specific television episode. But it needs to be covered because of the nature of episodic television with regard to reruns, dvd sales, international distribution, iTunes downloads, etc... A production company obviously isn't going to give residual cheques for a photo on a wall, so a buyout is necessary.
Just food for thought. I would love to see this type of licensing set up with smugmug, you'd be my first stock house I'd turn to!!
I think this is a great idea, and I applaud SM for going ahead with this. I have sort of prepared for this, with extensive keywords for every photo already in place.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>... Stock comes in a variety of formats. Royalty Free, Editorial, Rights Managed etc.<o:p></o:p>
Agreed on the first point - glad to hear SM is attempting some innovation.
That said, I think it'll be a while for this to shake out to a usable product. For instance, one of the reasons I don't use the Commercial digital downloads option today is because it doesn't take usage into account - the price for a run in a small regional magazine would be far different than the price of, say, an image used in the billboard ads for Spiderman 3.
It sounds like the "new" stock feature is just a branded search of all images available for digital download ranked by popularity. A more full-featured stock offering would include a variety of licensing options (e.g., RF v RM) and I would argue that price brokering should be available, albeit at a steeper commission.
Give me a way to have someone else negotiate a fair price specific to the usage of the image! The search is a great first step, but a flat fee licensing scheme like we have today won't cut it.
My only concern would be the quality control. Many of the stock folk invest heavily in a reviewer system to screen the good stuff from the bad so users don't get a poor experience from saturated snapshots. Any thoughts on this or will you simply let the market control?
First, it costs $150 to even play. So that filters out most of the n00bs anyway.
Second, yes, the existing SmugMug ratings system will be heavily used as a screening and filtering mechanism.
If someone finds your image through the Global stock search engine, if they click on it where will they be taken? To the photographers site or they can just buy it right there? You mentioned it will be like the popular photos so I assume they can buy the photo right there and there will be a link to the photographers site. Or would the link be to the photographers other images available for stock purchase. If it just goes to the photographers site I could see someone only interested in stock images getting confused and wondering why they were not only being shown stock images. This sounds like a great new feature.
Yes, they can buy the photo right there, or follow a link to the photographer's gallery.
We may offer a link to the photographer's personal stock portfolio, too.
A great idea, if you can bring it off with some class. I've been wanting to do this for some time, but just haven't gotten round to doing the necessary research and work.
Since most of my best work is already up on SmugMug, this becomes very tempting. One reason I've stuck with SmugMug is that you guys keep innovating.
I'll be anxious to learn more as info becomes available. I'm wondering whether you'll be publicizing this service to potential stock photo customers in some way. Yes, photographers can make the service known for their own work, mention it on business cards, etc. But marketing is really the key, and it would be great if SmugMug advertised itself as a source of stock photography in general.
I'm about to create some new business cards, but am now thinking of holding off a while, in case there is some special stock photo info for SmugMug I should add. Hopefully more details will be forthcoming soon.
Yes, we plan on devoting real marketing and PR time and money to this effort to drive awareness that there's a new stock sheriff in town.
I tihnk the idea is great (specially since I was shopping for a stock agency to "lay my eggs").
However, as with all sites I've visited, they all have a vetting process for photos submitted to their stock site, and for a reason. I might think I have a great photo, but people/companies that actually buy them think it's for sh*t. If there's a bunch of them, your stick photos will be branded as useless. So my suggestion is to check photos that are being shown as "Stock" (a sort of approval process).
We prefer to let the photography community as a whole do the filtering. It's far more efficient. We'll see how it goes, though.
Secondly, I have for example stored 100's of photos of a motorcycle event, and all have Digital Downlaod prices. This was done to enable individual riders to download a photo of themselves. But 99% of those photos should not be shown in a "Stock" site. Nor should the prices I've set there be used.
That's why it's a two-phase process: Merely setting them to have Digital Download pricing will not place them in the Stock catalog. They must also be flagged as "Stock" too.
Price for a full digital download for special events are not the same for Stock. My normal pricing reflects the sales to magazines, which is higher in value since they are recent events. Stock photos would sell for less, since they're used as backdrops, stories, etc.
I suggest a new category pricing called "Stock" with different sizes. Have an area where we can enter the Stock prices, and then a button in the galleries where we can mark which photos are to be "Stock".
This is an idea we've been bouncing around, but we haven't actually found anyone who wants to offer the same exact photo both ways. Do you? If so, why?
We can see why someone wants to offer part of their portfolio one way and part another, we're having trouble coming to grips with an individual photo needing to be in both, though. Illuminate us.
2) As it has been pointed out, the reputation is the key. Will there be any quality control? Otherwise potential buyers will be sieving through the tons of snapshots and will never get to the picture they actually need in time...
Thanks!
For about the billionth time...
If we do things right, the combination of intelligent searching and browsing with community filtering should take care of this problem. And it costs $150 to even play, acting as a pre-filter. But we'll see.
Wouldn't it be better for global users to know in advance roughly what SMStock is going to cost?
There is so much choice out there (all te way from Alamy to Getty) I think SM really needs to ask what section(s) of the market it intends to aim for (cheap + low, avaerage cost and quality, high cost and quality), what sort of reputation it wants (and will get) i.e. consistancy across te board, what pricing structure and yes, address the quality control question.
IMO it will either become a quality service recognised within the industry or a laughing stock (sorry bout that!)
i.e. SM needs to ask what reputation it wants for stock
SmugMug merely wants to be a marketplace. We don't want to get involved with pricing. We're happy to sell high-priced stock and low-priced stock, and leave the option up to the photographer for what category they'd like to be in.
I suspect, given the general quality of our existing Pros, we'll end up on the higher end, but I wouldn't be surprised if even some of our most talented Pros decide volume is important and price low to drive lots of sales.
Exciting prospect. I have several thousand model released stock ready images here that are all ITPC embeded and ready to go.
I do have a concern, as has been expressed by others when it comes to quality control. SM has a ton of exceptional content but there are also a ton of providers here that could not define stock if you asked them too so this will create a very real problem where quality is concerned if SM simply opens the floodgates.
Also I would strongly discourage SM from waiting beyond the first release of this feature to add model / property release requirements. In a case of a lawsuit over someones face showing up on a print ad for a sensitive subject when the photo had no model release the attornies are going to go after the deeper pockets first and that means SM will be at the top of the list to have to defend themselves because they did not put checks in place to ensure the photo was cleared before allowing it to be sold.
When it comes to legal action you do not have to loose the case to loose your shirt. Simply defending yourself against a serious or for that matter frivolous claim can be hugely expensive. So in the better interest of protecting all of us by way of protecting SM I really hope that model release clearance is a top priority for this release.
This is certainly an exciting and surprising development.
I would suggest that this be offered only to pro users at this time. Since Smugmug is a latecomer to the stock photo game, the only way to make it work is to distinguish itself with high quality photos which are easy to search and categorize.
If the site is loaded with low quality shots with no commercial application, end users will simply ignore us and move on to the more established sites.
Once again, I am counting on Smugmug to enter this venue with class and distinction.
Great idea!
I thought we'd made this clear already, but I guess not. This is a Pro only offering.
I am newcomer here - almost a month - and am impressed daily with what this site offers. I am glad to be in on the ground in this venture and from what I have seen so far, I think SM can do it - especially with all the input that has gone already into this thread. They want to hear what we have to say - couldn't think of a better way to get started on this idea.
Quality control is a VERY important issue if this is to be taken seriously by designers and the stock industry. Too many snapshot images in the established agencies, and they are all stepping up their game and only accepting the quality images these days.
I have been hearing talk of other big "photo-sharing" sites toying with the idea of stock, so this really needs to be done correctly from the start. I like what Mitchell said about "class". I think this site can offer that and stand out above many of the other established agencies.
There are many pros here who have tremedous portfolios, and I like the idea of the photog setting their prices. There is definity room for this type of model in this industry. We, myself included, are selling ourselves short in the micro world.
Taking it slow to do it correctly will pay off for all of us.
Bruce MountRegistered UsersPosts: 1Beginner grinner
edited May 10, 2007
Search by Color Space?
Overall, I LOVE the stock photo idea, thanks for giving us the chance to comment.
I suggest adding the ability to search by color space. My images are exported as RGB for online work and Adobe98 for print work. I would think a buyer would want to be able to choose the color space that best matches their needs.
A Couple of Suggestions....
1. For minimal impact on existing organizations, it would be very,very nice if a physical photo could appear virtually in more than one gallery, where each gallery's "rules", pricing, etc would override individual photo settings. Just a little indirect addressing would work (just joking).
2. For this reason and others, we need an online EXIF IPTC editor!
I can't wait. I will sign up for a PRO account the SECOND this gets off the ground. I've been a stock shooter for 25 years and love the fact that I can control my own archive. I have over 160,000 images and the old stuff really does well-especially scans from medium format and 4x5.
I am with another service that has "Fotoquote" as part of their system for stock pricing. I've been using that program for years and I will not bow down to the 'microstock' stuff when I've been able to get nice licensing fees for my work and keep control of the licenses.
I think it is also important to have watermarked comps. I've had issues in the past where people have taken my comps,used them AND resold them on CD's and as 4x6 prints at art fairs and popular auction sites.
I did file copyright a copyright infringment suit on one seller that I caaught and since I did register all of my images years before the judge ruled in my favor.
With so many free sites,I think it's important to set a standard and educate the public that this is the way many make their living and though some photos may be for free or cheap,many are NOT free!
What a grerat idea
But, this means a LOT of work for me, as all my gallery photos have been lower res. It will be nice to load up what I want instead of passing reviewers. I've already learned the importance of accurate keywords as a designer searching for photos online. It's important to have extended search so you can weed out what you don't want in your search results, as well as narrowing the search among the photos that already showed up in the search. I'm in the habit, already of getting model releases, so that's not a problem.
This is exciting and I look forward to taking part in the digital stock image aspect of SmugMug.
This is the best news that I have had today!
Search engine alway images alway put pbase and Flickr up front. I never see images from smugmug showing in Google search. When I search by my url name it shows 4,000 plus pages. When I search by image name or keywords they do not show in Google search.
Buyers search image type or possible keywords. Search engine tuning is going to the key in a successful stock photography website. Look at how Pbase and Flickr are showing ahead of Smugmug!
0
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited May 11, 2007
Lots of great feedback here. Many thanks. I'm hearing a lot of concerns about keeping the catalog high-quality and model releases. I buy lots of stock photographs from Getty, iStockphoto, etc., and nothing tweaks me more than having to wade through pages of low-quality images and then buying an image I have to color-adjust.
It sounds like in addition to the popularity stuff Don is cooking up, we need someone with a big red button to block bad shots before they ever face the democratic process.
Lots of great feedback here. Many thanks. I'm hearing a lot of concerns about keeping the catalog high-quality and model releases. I buy lots of stock photographs from Getty, iStockphoto, etc., and nothing tweaks me more than having to wade through pages of low-quality images and then buying an image I have to color-adjust.
It sounds like in addition to the popularity stuff Don is cooking up, we need someone with a big red button to block bad shots before they ever face the democratic process.
I have an idea for you. Let the buyers vote. They don't care about the vendors, they need a picture. If they like/don't like what they see I'm positive they'll be eager to express their opinion.
I have an idea for you. Let the buyers vote. They don't care about the vendors, they need a picture. If they like/don't like what they see I'm positive they'll be eager to express their opinion.
I'm all for that. This is certainly an exciting development and like many others on this thread, I've been toying with the idea of trying to get some shots into the stock market.
The main reservation I have from what I've been reading so far is the user popularity contest for filtering what's presented to a potential buyer; it sounds to me like I would have to play the I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-my-back political game that many other sharing/review sites degenerated into (read: lots of :buttkiss). I started out on one of those and got so sick & tired of it I quit. Now there would be an additional pressure of potential monetary loss/gain attached. I'm hoping I am making a mountain out of nothing, but it's a concern. :uhoh
Then, of course, the whole licensing thing, but I have confidence you guys will figure that out. I'll be watching closely, now off to create a gallery for stock images just in case...
There's already a "ranking system" that's millions strong at SmugMug. We want to leverage that to the best of our abilities.
As customers browse through the stock catalog, they'll be thumbing photos up/down, commenting, buying, looking at larger sizes, and otherwise interacting with the photos in ways that we can mine for data on how to best show results that will cause sales.
The "millions" that you refer to I suspect are passive viewers that have no reason to click on a thumbs up or down.
A stock buyer may have more motivation for rating an image but in the end I personally feel the thumbs up and down system is inherently flawed due to the ability to abuse it. Putting a cookie on a computer to stop multiple clicks of a thumb is useless if the person clicking is aware of how they are prevented from double voting.
You mention mining of data; The biggest beef I have with thumbs aside from the potential abuse is: as a pro account holder I cannot view how many thumbs up or down a photo has or if those thumbs are even all from the same IP or at a minimum the same anonymous location. If SmugMug has the ability to mine thumbs input then that ability should be reflected in the current stats page. What good is a rating system that I cannot see the results other than a placement of rank in a gallery?
Other than my concerns about the validity of the ratings system that is currently employed I am very pleased to see this idea moving forward at SmugMug, thank you for continuing to evolve.
This sounds great, and I look forward to taking shots specifically for stock photo!
I think it would be really helpful to have 'Smugmug Stock' pricing, and basic price list that all stock photos 'default' to. This will make it easy for my every day stock photos, and bring some level of consistancy across hundreds (thousands?) of photogs. Otherwise, Smugmug becomes the 'flea market' of stock photo sites, with prices all over the board...previous discussions covered quality.
It would make it very easy for me to price stuff, especially my 'average' photos that don't warrant any special pricing. With Smugmug standard pricing, I can just post and collect money, and for images worth a bit more, I could set my own, overriding price.
Comments
Quite true. A general price should be set for all stock. If someone wants more because it's a "special", then it's not stock, and should be sold separetly.
Paris, France
http://news.motorbiker.org/
<o:p></o:p>
However, I do think SM should think carefully on how they provide this service. Many issues have been pointed out here, and I have a point or two of my own.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Stock comes in a variety of formats. Royalty Free, Editorial, Rights Managed etc.There are legal reasons for this of cause. On each of my photos, I suggest what the photos can be used for. Photos with no identifiable faces or corporate logos can be sold for pretty much any use (as Royalty Free generally is), photos that have faces I suggest a restriction to editorial or artistic sales. What would be good if there was some check-boxes for each photo to define this. Such as Royalty Free, Full Commercial, Commercial (such as postcards, travel books etc), Editorial, Artistic uses etc. This could solve a few headaches in the future.<o:p></o:p>
Jake
Website: www.frozenshutter.com
"Some people hunt with a rifle, I hunt with a Canon" ~ Gary Jacobson
I would suggest that this be offered only to pro users at this time. Since Smugmug is a latecomer to the stock photo game, the only way to make it work is to distinguish itself with high quality photos which are easy to search and categorize.
If the site is loaded with low quality shots with no commercial application, end users will simply ignore us and move on to the more established sites.
Once again, I am counting on Smugmug to enter this venue with class and distinction.
Great idea!
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Me too!
This could be a very nice little earner for all concerned if done right, if not it could end up being just a trickle for one or two
...pics..
Very glad to see this is coming!
Once up and running, I recommend having in place something that covers "All rights, All media, worldwide in perpetuity, excluding theatrical" for television. Most stock houses don't have a category like this in place and it makes it very difficult for production companies to license stock photography. I know these terms sound scary, but it's only binding for the terms in which your photo is used for that specific television episode. But it needs to be covered because of the nature of episodic television with regard to reruns, dvd sales, international distribution, iTunes downloads, etc... A production company obviously isn't going to give residual cheques for a photo on a wall, so a buyout is necessary.
Just food for thought. I would love to see this type of licensing set up with smugmug, you'd be my first stock house I'd turn to!!
Kerry
Agreed on the first point - glad to hear SM is attempting some innovation.
That said, I think it'll be a while for this to shake out to a usable product. For instance, one of the reasons I don't use the Commercial digital downloads option today is because it doesn't take usage into account - the price for a run in a small regional magazine would be far different than the price of, say, an image used in the billboard ads for Spiderman 3.
It sounds like the "new" stock feature is just a branded search of all images available for digital download ranked by popularity. A more full-featured stock offering would include a variety of licensing options (e.g., RF v RM) and I would argue that price brokering should be available, albeit at a steeper commission.
Give me a way to have someone else negotiate a fair price specific to the usage of the image! The search is a great first step, but a flat fee licensing scheme like we have today won't cut it.
First, it costs $150 to even play. So that filters out most of the n00bs anyway.
Second, yes, the existing SmugMug ratings system will be heavily used as a screening and filtering mechanism.
Yes, they can buy the photo right there, or follow a link to the photographer's gallery.
We may offer a link to the photographer's personal stock portfolio, too.
Yes, we plan on devoting real marketing and PR time and money to this effort to drive awareness that there's a new stock sheriff in town.
We prefer to let the photography community as a whole do the filtering. It's far more efficient. We'll see how it goes, though.
That's why it's a two-phase process: Merely setting them to have Digital Download pricing will not place them in the Stock catalog. They must also be flagged as "Stock" too.
This is an idea we've been bouncing around, but we haven't actually found anyone who wants to offer the same exact photo both ways. Do you? If so, why?
We can see why someone wants to offer part of their portfolio one way and part another, we're having trouble coming to grips with an individual photo needing to be in both, though. Illuminate us.
There's not much load-wise that can touch SM performance these days, so I seriously doubt it.
For about the billionth time...
If we do things right, the combination of intelligent searching and browsing with community filtering should take care of this problem. And it costs $150 to even play, acting as a pre-filter. But we'll see.
SmugMug merely wants to be a marketplace. We don't want to get involved with pricing. We're happy to sell high-priced stock and low-priced stock, and leave the option up to the photographer for what category they'd like to be in.
I suspect, given the general quality of our existing Pros, we'll end up on the higher end, but I wouldn't be surprised if even some of our most talented Pros decide volume is important and price low to drive lots of sales.
We'll just have to see.
I do have a concern, as has been expressed by others when it comes to quality control. SM has a ton of exceptional content but there are also a ton of providers here that could not define stock if you asked them too so this will create a very real problem where quality is concerned if SM simply opens the floodgates.
Also I would strongly discourage SM from waiting beyond the first release of this feature to add model / property release requirements. In a case of a lawsuit over someones face showing up on a print ad for a sensitive subject when the photo had no model release the attornies are going to go after the deeper pockets first and that means SM will be at the top of the list to have to defend themselves because they did not put checks in place to ensure the photo was cleared before allowing it to be sold.
When it comes to legal action you do not have to loose the case to loose your shirt. Simply defending yourself against a serious or for that matter frivolous claim can be hugely expensive. So in the better interest of protecting all of us by way of protecting SM I really hope that model release clearance is a top priority for this release.
Studio Photography Lighting and Modeling Workshops For the Discerning Taste
"The only photographer we ought compare ourselves to is the one we used to be"
I thought we'd made this clear already, but I guess not. This is a Pro only offering.
Quality control is a VERY important issue if this is to be taken seriously by designers and the stock industry. Too many snapshot images in the established agencies, and they are all stepping up their game and only accepting the quality images these days.
I have been hearing talk of other big "photo-sharing" sites toying with the idea of stock, so this really needs to be done correctly from the start. I like what Mitchell said about "class". I think this site can offer that and stand out above many of the other established agencies.
There are many pros here who have tremedous portfolios, and I like the idea of the photog setting their prices. There is definity room for this type of model in this industry. We, myself included, are selling ourselves short in the micro world.
Taking it slow to do it correctly will pay off for all of us.
http://photographybykml.com
http://photographybykml.blogspot.com
Overall, I LOVE the stock photo idea, thanks for giving us the chance to comment.
I suggest adding the ability to search by color space. My images are exported as RGB for online work and Adobe98 for print work. I would think a buyer would want to be able to choose the color space that best matches their needs.
--Bruce Mount
1. For minimal impact on existing organizations, it would be very,very nice if a physical photo could appear virtually in more than one gallery, where each gallery's "rules", pricing, etc would override individual photo settings. Just a little indirect addressing would work (just joking).
2. For this reason and others, we need an online EXIF IPTC editor!
http://blue-dog.smugmug.com
http://smile-123.smugmug.com
http://vintage-photos.blogspot.com/
Canon 7D, 100-400L, Mongoose 3.5, hoping for a 500L real soon.
I am with another service that has "Fotoquote" as part of their system for stock pricing. I've been using that program for years and I will not bow down to the 'microstock' stuff when I've been able to get nice licensing fees for my work and keep control of the licenses.
I think it is also important to have watermarked comps. I've had issues in the past where people have taken my comps,used them AND resold them on CD's and as 4x6 prints at art fairs and popular auction sites.
I did file copyright a copyright infringment suit on one seller that I caaught and since I did register all of my images years before the judge ruled in my favor.
With so many free sites,I think it's important to set a standard and educate the public that this is the way many make their living and though some photos may be for free or cheap,many are NOT free!
ItsMe
But, this means a LOT of work for me, as all my gallery photos have been lower res. It will be nice to load up what I want instead of passing reviewers. I've already learned the importance of accurate keywords as a designer searching for photos online. It's important to have extended search so you can weed out what you don't want in your search results, as well as narrowing the search among the photos that already showed up in the search. I'm in the habit, already of getting model releases, so that's not a problem.
This is exciting and I look forward to taking part in the digital stock image aspect of SmugMug.
http://www.twitter.com/deegolden
This is what I love about smugmug - always evolving for the better!
www.photohound.smugmug.com
Search engine alway images alway put pbase and Flickr up front. I never see images from smugmug showing in Google search. When I search by my url name it shows 4,000 plus pages. When I search by image name or keywords they do not show in Google search.
Buyers search image type or possible keywords. Search engine tuning is going to the key in a successful stock photography website. Look at how Pbase and Flickr are showing ahead of Smugmug!
It sounds like in addition to the popularity stuff Don is cooking up, we need someone with a big red button to block bad shots before they ever face the democratic process.
I have an idea for you. Let the buyers vote.
whatever the terms I hope they're easy to understand for the photographers (us) ;-)
...pics..
I'm all for that. This is certainly an exciting development and like many others on this thread, I've been toying with the idea of trying to get some shots into the stock market.
The main reservation I have from what I've been reading so far is the user popularity contest for filtering what's presented to a potential buyer; it sounds to me like I would have to play the I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-my-back political game that many other sharing/review sites degenerated into (read: lots of :buttkiss). I started out on one of those and got so sick & tired of it I quit. Now there would be an additional pressure of potential monetary loss/gain attached. I'm hoping I am making a mountain out of nothing, but it's a concern. :uhoh
Then, of course, the whole licensing thing, but I have confidence you guys will figure that out. I'll be watching closely, now off to create a gallery for stock images just in case...
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
The "millions" that you refer to I suspect are passive viewers that have no reason to click on a thumbs up or down.
A stock buyer may have more motivation for rating an image but in the end I personally feel the thumbs up and down system is inherently flawed due to the ability to abuse it. Putting a cookie on a computer to stop multiple clicks of a thumb is useless if the person clicking is aware of how they are prevented from double voting.
You mention mining of data; The biggest beef I have with thumbs aside from the potential abuse is: as a pro account holder I cannot view how many thumbs up or down a photo has or if those thumbs are even all from the same IP or at a minimum the same anonymous location. If SmugMug has the ability to mine thumbs input then that ability should be reflected in the current stats page. What good is a rating system that I cannot see the results other than a placement of rank in a gallery?
Other than my concerns about the validity of the ratings system that is currently employed I am very pleased to see this idea moving forward at SmugMug, thank you for continuing to evolve.
I think it would be really helpful to have 'Smugmug Stock' pricing, and basic price list that all stock photos 'default' to. This will make it easy for my every day stock photos, and bring some level of consistancy across hundreds (thousands?) of photogs. Otherwise, Smugmug becomes the 'flea market' of stock photo sites, with prices all over the board...previous discussions covered quality.
It would make it very easy for me to price stuff, especially my 'average' photos that don't warrant any special pricing. With Smugmug standard pricing, I can just post and collect money, and for images worth a bit more, I could set my own, overriding price.