Rob Haggard of aphotoeditor.com points us to a new company that is providing a new model for licensing images for web use. It has loads of potential, I think, with the photographer getting paid based on CPM, that is, the number of impression of the image. The site for gumgum.com is terrible–they really need to get more info out there, like how one gets paid (check? PayPal?), etc.–but the basic concept is intriguing and, I think, hopeful for the future.
*****
As if spec wasn’t bad enough, along comes a site that offers “prizes” to its content-provider winners (that would be you creatives, btw). Pixish (I won’t put a link to them…why should I help?) is the name of this den of thieves and, luckily, the low-life nature of their business is getting out there. I first heard of it from Åsk who had a post on her Adland site (good news that advertising folks think it sucks too). Soon I saw blurbs about it on ASMP’s Pro/Student forum and APAnet. John Harrington has a particularly scathing (and accurate) post about it as well.
Let’s hope these bastards go under faster than you can say Pets.com.
*****
Lastly, it’s Valentine’s Day and though I don’t celebrate it personally, I do want to use it as a reminder to thank all of you who write me and post comments and, of course, work with me. I hope you all have a life filled with love and, if you want it, chocolates and/or lingerie. 🙂
My take on it was that it’s a demo for the technology and not a finished product. Perhaps I’m missing something; I looked at it very quickly. I love the idea – it answers my long time complaint that photography for the internet was the lowest price but potentially had the highest viewership.
I haven’t looked at gumgum yet – I certainly will.
As for Pixi.., I agree. I put a few comments on my blog here.
http://stmarc.livejournal.com/138836.html
M