Comments on: Is Flickr Worth $4 Billion? http://thomashawk.com/2008/05/is-flickr-worth-4-billion.html Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:33:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Colin http://thomashawk.com/2008/05/is-flickr-worth-4-billion.html/comment-page-1#comment-2007 Colin Thu, 08 May 2008 18:26:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=382#comment-2007 Yahoo has already annoyed people after they bought Flickr. First the login transfer issue, then the increase in censoring people's entire accounts just for a couple artistic shots with a bit of flesh.<br /><br />Slapping ads on it would probably be a last draw for several people. There's a reason I'm happy to pay for the service: first my friend's are on there; and second I can send people links to flickr and know that they aren't being bombarded with ads -- just photos -- even if they aren't members. <br /><br />I would be just as annoyed if I went to a gallery and it had ads between the paintings. Yahoo has already annoyed people after they bought Flickr. First the login transfer issue, then the increase in censoring people’s entire accounts just for a couple artistic shots with a bit of flesh.

Slapping ads on it would probably be a last draw for several people. There’s a reason I’m happy to pay for the service: first my friend’s are on there; and second I can send people links to flickr and know that they aren’t being bombarded with ads — just photos — even if they aren’t members.

I would be just as annoyed if I went to a gallery and it had ads between the paintings.

]]> By: JeffH http://thomashawk.com/2008/05/is-flickr-worth-4-billion.html/comment-page-1#comment-2008 JeffH Thu, 08 May 2008 13:25:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=382#comment-2008 I do not know what the percentage of users who have paid vs those who have not, but what would be the effect of offering ads only on free accounts and hiding the ads from those who have paid for pro accounts? This would probably not piss off the hard core users who are more likely to be paying customers. I do not know what the percentage of users who have paid vs those who have not, but what would be the effect of offering ads only on free accounts and hiding the ads from those who have paid for pro accounts? This would probably not piss off the hard core users who are more likely to be paying customers.

]]> By: Eric http://thomashawk.com/2008/05/is-flickr-worth-4-billion.html/comment-page-1#comment-2009 Eric Thu, 08 May 2008 11:11:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=382#comment-2009 Bleh; I just left this comment on Mark Evans' site, but I'll repeat it here.<br /><br />If one really thinks that the best way to monetize Flickr is by advertising and counting page views, then they shouldn't be let near any sort of business. Advertising would be Flickr's death knell.<br /><br />Yahoo is sitting on top of one of the biggest and *well-indexed* collections of intellectual property in the world. Intellectual property that has a lot of value in its own right; just ask any of the pro photographers who use Flickr for marketing.<br /><br />Yahoo needs to buy a print shop - Shutterfly comes to mind. Then they can reap all the profit margins from users who want prints, calendars and whatnot of their photos. Then they can also let users *sell* their photos, and again, profit from the transaction. <br /><br />Then they can also let users sell their photos as stock; Getty images sold for $2.4 Billion, and IMHO Flickr would be worth even more.<br /><br />Flickr is so dominant in photo sharing that it would quickly become *the* go to place for image buyers and sellers alike.<br /><br />And to boot, I'd wager most users would be thrilled to have the opportunity to make a little money from their images, rather than having a lot of them pissed off as they would be with advertising.<br /><br />(Of course, to do that, they'd have to be a site focused on photography and photographers rather than introducing random crap like video.) Bleh; I just left this comment on Mark Evans’ site, but I’ll repeat it here.

If one really thinks that the best way to monetize Flickr is by advertising and counting page views, then they shouldn’t be let near any sort of business. Advertising would be Flickr’s death knell.

Yahoo is sitting on top of one of the biggest and *well-indexed* collections of intellectual property in the world. Intellectual property that has a lot of value in its own right; just ask any of the pro photographers who use Flickr for marketing.

Yahoo needs to buy a print shop – Shutterfly comes to mind. Then they can reap all the profit margins from users who want prints, calendars and whatnot of their photos. Then they can also let users *sell* their photos, and again, profit from the transaction.

Then they can also let users sell their photos as stock; Getty images sold for $2.4 Billion, and IMHO Flickr would be worth even more.

Flickr is so dominant in photo sharing that it would quickly become *the* go to place for image buyers and sellers alike.

And to boot, I’d wager most users would be thrilled to have the opportunity to make a little money from their images, rather than having a lot of them pissed off as they would be with advertising.

(Of course, to do that, they’d have to be a site focused on photography and photographers rather than introducing random crap like video.)

]]>