News Want to buy an abused photo outfit?

*sigh*

I don't think I'm being clear enough. It's not about ME seeing ads, or anyone else with a Pro account.

It's about them showing ads juxtaposed with my pictures without my control. They have assumed the right to use imagery stored on Flickr as clickbait. That is unacceptable to me and to many others. Use case. You put up a self-portrait of you gurning amusingly for the camera. You post it on Flickr. Someone on the far side of the world searches for "man pulling face" and pulls up your image on Flickr juxtaposed with an ad for haemorrhoid cream.
a. Your image has been monetised at no benefit to you, the copyright owner.
b. The use of your image is out of your control and can be to your detriment.
Ultimately the point is that Yahoo took over Flickr and changed from a subscription-based revenue model to one based upon ad revenue. They thought that they had bought a goldmine and came up with a handful of dirt because they did not understand the customer base or the market. Remember Mayer declaring that there was no such thing as professional photography anymore? Remember the Ken Burns effect rollout? All symptomatic of a deep lack of empathy for what they had acquired. They tried to make Flickr into Instagram but in so doing lost the essence of Flickr and didn't gain enough momentum to challenge Instagram. A bit like an embarrassing uncle dancing at the wedding, they tried to be hip and ended up needing a replacement hip.
Being sold is the best thing that can happen to Flickr now. We can only hope for a buyer with vision and empathy.
 
Bill, I get why you don't like it and don't use it and will completely defend your right to never have YOUR photos used as "click bait" in a way you don't want. But please understand that some of us are MUCH less concerned about these issues than you and really like Flickr for the service it provides, the options it provides, the look of the photos on the page, etc..

I'm personally just not looking for "vision or empathy" from a photo-hosting site - I'm looking for a hosting service that works easily / fast / efficiently / attractively for my needs. Flickr does that really well. If it's failed in its efforts to be more like Instagram, I just don't care - I don't use it that way, I don't use Instagram, so it simply doesn't matter to me. I get that how Flickr does business doesn't meet your preferences, but please understand it fully meets mine and many others'. If you're embarrassed by my uncle, that's a drag but I'm glad he's having fun and if HE'S not embarrassed, should he stop having fun so YOU'RE not?

While being sold may be the best thing that could happen to Flickr from your perspective (and maybe from a business standpoint), it has the potential to leave a lot of happy and satisfied users totally out in the cold. As one of those happy and satisfied users, it only works for me if whoever buys it doesn't mess up the things that work so well about it for me while they're doing whatever they do that may make them more money and/or offend your sensibilities less... Otherwise, I and many other users will be quite disappointed indeed... If that happens, who wins? You and your business and aesthetic sensibilities perhaps, but you're not using Flickr so there's no injury to you if it continues to exist as is. But if it goes away or doesn't meet the needs of me and many other current users, there is very real injury to those of us who like it currently...

And, by the way, as I understand their policies, as a paying member, they never show MY photos with ads, whether the viewer is a paying member, a non paying member, or a non-member, so my stuff isn't used as click bait and they aren't monetizing my photos.

-Ray
 
Last edited:
Y'see, Ray, this is a matter of principle. I don't make a living from my photography and if I never made another penny from the sale of an image it wouldn't bother me but what does bother me is my - or anyone else's - imagery being monetised as Flickr does. You will not be effected because as a Pro account holder they monetise their relationship with you by subscription. I was with Flickr for years - with a Pro account - and I closed the whole thing and moved everything lock stock and barrel to Ipernity (who provided a handy script to do so). They work like Flickr used to and have a similar look and feel to how it used to be when it was good. They host my images with zero fuss and monetise through subscription - just like Flickr used to.

Bottom line - I get your point and the fact that you are happy. Hopefully you get my point and can see that I am happy too. In any event, you are in a win-win as far as I can see; pretty well any new owner - with the exception of Alphabet or Apple - will be an improvement on Yahoo.

I'm done here.
 
I never had any issue with you preferring a different service - I just didn't fully get your objection to Flickr. I get your explanation, but it seems to me I'm getting exactly the same service (no ads seen by me, no ads seen by others with my work) for the same $25/year I was getting with ipernity when I had it for a year. Flickr does give you a free option with ads - ipernity gives you a free option with less capabilities - IIRC there were some functions I wanted that weren't included in the free option, but that was 2-3 years ago now, so it may or may not still be the same.

As noted earlier by Nic, Amin uses largely the same system here on his sites - free with ads and paid without ads. Although if you post something as a paid user, non-paid users still see it with ads - so arguably more click-bait? When one of us writes something that ads value here - a review or posting some good photos, the site is monetizing our content in the same way as far as I can see. Seems a worthy set of options to me. I'm happy to pay Amin a few dollars per year rather than see the ads, but neither bothers me. Same with Flickr.

In any case, I understand your objection as well as I'm ever gonna - I'm glad you're happy with ipernity. I'm glad I'm happy with Flickr and HOPE that any new owner doesn't make it either worse or dead. That wouldn't be a win-win, but anything that keeps it as good or makes it better is okey-dokey with me... And hey, if it somehow makes you happier too, well that can't be a bad thing! ;)

-Ray
 
*sigh*

I don't think I'm being clear enough. It's not about ME seeing ads, or anyone else with a Pro account.

It's about them showing ads juxtaposed with my pictures without my control.

;) I'm going to have to "sigh" back, since both me and Luckypenguin have already replied to this:

If you have a Pro account, no ads are added into your flickr stream. No matter who views it!

Nobody needs an adblocker for this. My parents have no flickr account at all and can view my PRO-flickr stream without ads. My wife has a free account and can view my PRO-flickr stream without ads.

Having said that...

They have assumed the right to use imagery stored on Flickr as clickbait. That is unacceptable to me and to many others. Use case. You put up a self-portrait of you gurning amusingly for the camera. You post it on Flickr. Someone on the far side of the world searches for "man pulling face" and pulls up your image on Flickr juxtaposed with an ad for haemorrhoid cream.
a. Your image has been monetised at no benefit to you, the copyright owner.
b. The use of your image is out of your control and can be to your detriment.
Ultimately the point is that Yahoo took over Flickr and changed from a subscription-based revenue model to one based upon ad revenue. They thought that they had bought a goldmine and came up with a handful of dirt because they did not understand the customer base or the market. Remember Mayer declaring that there was no such thing as professional photography anymore? Remember the Ken Burns effect rollout? All symptomatic of a deep lack of empathy for what they had acquired. They tried to make Flickr into Instagram but in so doing lost the essence of Flickr and didn't gain enough momentum to challenge Instagram. A bit like an embarrassing uncle dancing at the wedding, they tried to be hip and ended up needing a replacement hip.
Being sold is the best thing that can happen to Flickr now. We can only hope for a buyer with vision and empathy.

... I agree with most of your points... e.g. the Ken Burns slideshow thing was horrible.
But at least they didn't force a square crop on all your photos on the overview page like 500px did...

As many problems as flickr might have, for some people (probably those with grandfathered PRO-accounts) it's still the "best" solution out there to store photos online and share them with family and friends. That doesn't really mean that flickr is unbelievably fantastic, it just means the alternatives suck even more :)
And it doesn't mean, that flickr can't be improved :) Here's hoping that the new owner won't mess it up even more!
 
...
If you have a Pro account, no ads are added into your flickr stream. No matter who views it!
...

This is the point that I seem to be struggling to get across. I answered it above and embolden here for emphasis: "...what does bother me is my - or anyone else's - imagery being monetised as Flickr does. You will not be effected because as a Pro account holder they monetise their relationship with you by subscription. "

It is a point of principle. I get that Pro account holders don't see or get infested by ads. The point is that before Yahoo Flickr didn't even try to monetise through ads.
 
Must admit I like Flickr especially as its free and I have the free account
The Ads don't bother me one iota - in fact until this thread I could have sworn I didn't get them - just passed me by without registering at all.
Perhaps i will notice them from now on - in which case thanks for the eye worm Bill. ;)
 
Must admit I like Flickr especially as its free and I have the free account
The Ads don't bother me one iota - in fact until this thread I could have sworn I didn't get them - just passed me by without registering at all.
Perhaps i will notice them from now on - in which case thanks for the eye worm Bill. ;)

And this is why Internet ads are becoming more intrusive in general. Most people don't even see them. The entire business model with Internet ads is somewhat suspect... and those ads don't bring in nearly as much money as those in traditonal media: print, tv, radio, etc. That's a huge problem for newspapers, magazines and tv and radio stations trying to make up for lost revenue in their core businesses by operating online platforms. The math doesn't work out.
 
Last edited:
And this is why Internet ads are becoming more intrusive in general. Most people don't even see them. The entire business model with Internet ads is somewhat suspect... and those ads don't bring in nearly as much money as those in traditonal media: print, tv, radio, etc. That's a huge problem for newspapers, magazines and tv and radio stations trying to make up for lost revenue in their core businesses by operating online platforms. The math doesn't work out.

Yup, the "dollars to dimes" problem-for every dollar a print publication used to charge an advertiser they can now only charge a dime for a banner ad buy. So revenue has dropped precipitously, causing newsrooms (including staff photographers) to shrink, making it harder for pubs to provide in-depth journalism so it's affecting the quality of the product.

2017 is predicted to be the first year where digital ad revenue will exceed tv ad revenue. There is so much online ad inventory though, and that's what keeps digital ad rates down. Not only that, but the CPM (Cost Per Thousand Impressions) pricing model doesn't take into account that nearly half of all internet traffic is non-human (bots) and encourages clickbait journalism; why spend weeks researching and writing a serious article of importance to a community when you can make more money on a silly "listicle" about bacon or what actresses wore to the Oscars?

The whole system is broken and no one has figured out the way forward yet...
 
Back
Top