|
|
Post by Roger on Jul 15, 2017 6:06:17 GMT
I took a quick look at their blog yesterday which had an email for advertisers to approach them on. I couldn't resist emailing them to ask why anyone would want to advertise with them when their name is now associated with destroying thousands of Forums.
|
|
|
|
Post by NSWGR Steambuff on Jul 18, 2017 0:20:02 GMT
Likewise, I got the accusing email today from this mob. I have only ever posted about 20 pics, the last one being over a year ago.
I WILL NEVER pay the ransom these web parasites are demanding.
I used to subscribe to RCScalebuilder in the US for a few years. They had no restrictions in posting photos to their forums. To actively participate and post photos, we paid US$20 per year, which was well worth it for the value I received in advice, knowledge and enjoyment of seeing what others are doing. I would gladly do the same here if it came to that, rather than this ransom.
Cheers,
Ned
|
|
|
|
Post by chris vine on Jul 18, 2017 9:22:51 GMT
I think that is the point, Ned. If they had asked for $20 per year, nearly everyone would have been happy.
Chris.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 9:41:21 GMT
I think the whole point for PB was to ditch its free customers, their business model was unsustainable with so many free subscribers.....I think that the others will follow suit as they get swamped by ex PB users..the cost of running the servers for so many images is too great..
Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jul 18, 2017 19:47:16 GMT
I think the whole point for PB was to ditch its free customers, their business model was unsustainable with so many free subscribers.....I think that the others will follow suit as they get swamped by ex PB users..the cost of running the servers for so many images is too great.. Pete I thought the business model what that they accrue a vast library of pictures of every kind that are in the public domain. People searching for pictures land on the Photobucket site. That attracts advertisers. All of our photos are on that site, it's not as if they are only visible on this Forum. Ok, some of our pictures aren't going to draw people in to the Photobucket site, but many will. To be honest, I'm staggered that any of these sites can attract enough traffic to convince advertisers to buy space there. Personally, I think they've miscalculated. They're destroying the reason that a great many images are on their site, and they've destroyed their reputation. There are probably too many of these free hosting sites, and that's probably a more likely reason why it's not viable as a business. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 20:08:14 GMT
I read an article about this, afraid I can't remember where now, perhaps on FB, could be on the PB page...it went into detail of the new CEO's reasons for doing this, it's not just about making money, it's about staying afloat....they need to offload most if not all free users and their photo's...what we are seeing now is this plan in action......it's about survival and I doubt that it will stop with PB....
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jul 18, 2017 20:50:04 GMT
Hopefully Photobucket will go under, leaving more advertisers willing to switch to the other hosting sites.
|
|
|
|
Post by runner42 on Jul 19, 2017 1:51:15 GMT
I read an article about this, afraid I can't remember where now, perhaps on FB, could be on the PB page...it went into detail of the new CEO's reasons for doing this, it's not just about making money, it's about staying afloat....they need to offload most if not all free users and their photo's...what we are seeing now is this plan in action......it's about survival and I doubt that it will stop with PB.... I would have hoped that PB was cognisant of the legacy issue, that is all the existing users that were encouraged to join PB because of mainly the hosting of photos for third party use. Now they are left high and dry and forced to pay the money or make alternative arrangements. I think that PB has done a considerable disservice to the community and I think that this action will come back and bite them on the backside. A more conciliatory approach would be to retain the third party hosting of existing photos and advise users that future hosting will be costed, but not on a fixed annual fee but by user pays scheme, ie the more you use the more you pay
Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by 92220 on Jul 19, 2017 8:12:22 GMT
If they had asked for $20.00 per annum from everybody, that would have brought in $millions, maybe $billions, and kept their business viable, and everyone would have been happy with that. They have wrecked their reputation all over the world. Advertisers are bound to hear of the public backlash and not risk their own reputation by advertising on PB. Commercial suicide!!
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 8:44:47 GMT
I agree that their current business model is a complete failure, god knows what moron thought this one up, PB will pay dearly for it with their standing within the online image storage business. I suspect the only question that the current CEO is concerned with is the bottom dollar, will he make or lose money? now that's the big question..... he's already lost all credibility within the online community and rightly so..
Pete
|
|
SteveW
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,456
|
Post by SteveW on Jul 21, 2017 10:43:04 GMT
Guys,
Just back off my hols, catching up and found this thread...
It occurs to suggest, if no one has already (couldn't read it all), a number of these photo hosting web sites have a clause that gives them ownership of the photos posted. Meaning I guess, once you've posted your photos there you no longer own the copyright and perhaps if you subsequently use one of YOUR photos in a publication or maybe another site it could trigger a shitstorm of litigation although I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by bambuko on Jul 21, 2017 13:54:43 GMT
... That attracts advertisers... and this is the problem (of Photobucket and others operating similar business model). Advertising revenues are declining rapidly, everybody is using content filtering and blocking extensions. Bandwith and server costs, must have been astronomical (definitely not paid by advertising revenue generated by "free" content users). Photobucket was dead and bankrupt even before this latest stunt. They had to do something to either generate some income out of "free" users, or get rid of them... Now, the way they did it was stupid and clumsy, but this doesn't change the fact that they had to do it! |
|
|
|
Post by 92220 on Jul 21, 2017 15:18:18 GMT
Yes, but if they had just charged $20.00 per annum, that would have brought them in $20,000,000,000 from their 100,000,000 (PB's figure), users, who would not have turned a hair at that amount!!
|
|
|
|
Post by springcrocus on Jul 21, 2017 17:33:14 GMT
Yes, but if they had just charged $20.00 per annum, that would have brought them in $20,000,000,000 from their 100,000,000 (PB's figure), users, who would not have turned a hair at that amount!! I'm not sure that the majority of users would have accepted a $20 a year charge, I certainly wouldn't. I bet they wouldn't stop their obtrusive advertising which wastes loads of your time when you try to upload pictures to your albums or organise them because PB would always be looking for that quick extra buck. I have my own website with 10GB of storage and this costs me about £ 36.00 a year VAT-inclusive, including the domain. I'm currently using 2.1% of my webspace and I think you will agree that my blog is not light on pictures which are all stored on the hosting server. I have total control of my content and it takes me less than a couple of minutes to upload my latest pictures and page updates, all without a bunch of annoying adverts popping up everywhere. I appreciate the concerns of Roger and others who worry that when someone dies (or just gets the hump) the content could vanish overnight, but it's no different to the situation that many find themselves in now. For me, the cost of complete independence is perfectly acceptable. For the casual user, maybe shared hosting of some description would work. Twenty subscribers join together and pay £2 each per year for 1GB of space - thats still a heck of a lot of photos. There are lots of possible scenarios here, but I wouldn't count on any of them that had zero cost attached. All the others will follow PB eventually. Regards, Steve |
|
|
|
Post by 92220 on Jul 22, 2017 7:55:58 GMT
That sounds good Steve, but surely not just anyone could do this. Don't you need some knowledge to be able to set up the web pages to provide the links to the photos, or do you pay someone to do it? Maybe the answer really is, as you suggest, for someone to set up a website just for this forum members and each member pays a contribution towards the annual cost of the site. Anyone fancy doing this.............Steve?  Bob. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Clarke on Jul 22, 2017 8:17:58 GMT
Maybe the answer really is, as you suggest, for someone to set up a website just for this forum members and each member pays a contribution towards the annual cost of the site. Anyone fancy doing this.............Steve? Bob. I did just this a few years ago. Set up a website purely for buildthreads at zero cost to contributors. A major reason for doing this was a period of disharmony on here where many members said they would leave and never return. They did return and abondoned my effort at providing what I'd hoped would become a really good site purely featuring build logs. It had promise I reckon. Doubletop on here really tried to help by providing constant updates to the new site, but other than him people drifted back to here.......I can only assume because they wanted more clicks on their threads. I'm still regretful about dashing Doubletop's efforts to try and make the site a success.......but other than him promised support (in terms of contribution) never materialised. Shame. Cheers, Mike. |
|
|
|
Post by 92220 on Jul 22, 2017 10:52:59 GMT
Yes that did sound promising Mike, but I was thinking more about a site for storing photos and getting a link to them for embedding in a post on here, in just the same way as PB did before they tried to blackmail us.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by springcrocus on Jul 22, 2017 14:13:33 GMT
That sounds good Steve, but surely not just anyone could do this. Don't you need some knowledge to be able to set up the web pages to provide the links to the photos, or do you pay someone to do it? Maybe the answer really is, as you suggest, for someone to set up a website just for this forum members and each member pays a contribution towards the annual cost of the site. Anyone fancy doing this.............Steve? Bob. Nice one Bob. However, given my knack of upsetting all and sundry at the drop of a hat, I'm sure there are others better suited to the role of webmaster.  Seriously, though, I don't believe that this could be set up by a forum member, or anyone else with a personal interest in the subject. On-line storage has to be done on a strictly business basis to ensure that all decisions are taken without emotion being involved. It doesn't need to be an active website, just a parking place for pictures. Scenario: Alice sets up a web storage space and Bob (not you, just traditional naming convention) rents 1GB for a year. Colin also rents a similar space at the same time. Alice, Bob and Colin all run popular blogs on the forum. Two years later, Bob and Colin disagree over some matter and Colin storms off, refusing to pay further for his space. What does Alice, the webmaster, do now? If Alice blocks access to Colin's photos, the blog effectively dies and forumites complain. But who gets the blame? Colin for refusing to pay? Alice for blocking the photos? Bob for upsetting Colin, causing him to leave? If Alice decides to let the photos stay accessible, Bob asks why he should pay when someone else's photos get hosted for free and another row develops. As can be seen, a can of worms can be opened very easily and, I would suggest, not worth members getting involved with. Regards, Steve |
|
|
|
Post by 92220 on Jul 22, 2017 17:55:02 GMT
Point taken Steve. Yes I can see the problems and agree that it couldn't be run by a member or members, just for that one reason you give..................and I thought we'd cracked it!!
Bob.
|
|
|
|
Post by doubletop on Jul 24, 2017 10:44:04 GMT
Doubletop on here really tried to help by providing constant updates to the new site, but other than him people drifted back to here.......I can only assume because they wanted more clicks on their threads. I'm still regretful about dashing Doubletop's efforts to try and make the site a success.......but other than him promised support (in terms of contribution) never materialised. Shame. Cheers, Mike. Mike Senior moment on my part but it may well have been somebody else. Many of us do contribute to more than one forum. The fact is you don't get something for nothing. These forums need to be completely self sufficient to ensure their long term survival and sombody needs to pay. Usually thats through advertising revenue or marketing statistics, demagraphics information or whatever else can be gleaned from the information innocently supplied by the subscribers. The assumed primary purpose of a website is of no consequence to the owners they just want the profit from the revenue. For example, Facebook is not about people keeping in touch with each other. Pete |
|
