Is it time for PN to become a subscription site with no free content?

Over the last month or so, this site has become increasingly

difficult to use, often being unavaliable, and/or painfully slow.

I'm wondering if it is now time to switch to a subscription based

service.

 

Having a fee based service would drive traffic down to a more

manageable level. I realize that the downside of this is fewer

number of hits, which I pressume affects what PN can charge

advertisers. Of course, the most bencificial system is to have a

free access site with everyone paying! Many of us who don't

subscribe now won't pay until the site becomes subscription based.

I have no interest in paying for something I can get for free. If

the site was to become subscription based, I would be happy to pay

up to $50 a year.

 

I know this has been covered before, I just wanted to toss it out

again.

Let me also answer one of the objections I know is bound to come up: "If we start charging, the site will wither away to nothing with just a handfull of posts."

 

If the product is so poor that most people are not willing to pay for it, maybe it's not worth keeping around at all.

Consider what makes this site valuable to you. Is it access to photo.net's servers or is it

the free advice the community readily gives to anybody that asks for it? Obviously you

need both. But not so obvious is what happens when you close the door to everybody

except subscribers. Over the years I've noticed that a handful of talented and generous

photographers give the lion's share of good answers, ask very few questios and upload no

photos. Do you think these people will pay for the privelege of answering questions--will

pay to contribute their time and make this site valuable. I doubt it. If you make this a

subscription only site, my

guess is that people will no longer feel comfortable giving away their time and

effort for free to help people out. I personally will be uncomfortable contributing to the

wealth of information that is the photo.net forum database if they are only open to those

who can cough up some cash.

 

Also, you must see some irony in your complaining and admitting "the

most bencificial [sic] system is to have a free access site with everyone paying!" while in

the same paragraph stating "I have no interest in paying for something I can get for free."

If I were a photo.net administrator I might institute a one time subscription-only policy

starting with you.

Mark you make a good point. I've noticed the same although there are quite a few people who upload photos that also contribute to the forums. It was suggested that people would only be allowed to upload 10 photos for free. That way the people who make contributions to the forums but don't upload photos would still be allowed for free (they create value by sharing their knowledge) and those with dozens of photo's would have to pony up. Really $25 is not that much money.

I haven't been able to access the site for the past few hours. If this keeps up, the site will be of no use to me.

I think if you want paid membership you have to give someone something to try out. I like the way the site is set up. It gave me the ability to try things out and once I started enjoying the site on a regular basis, I made my contribution. Would I have subscribed not being able to use the site in the capacity as I did? More than likely, no. Maybe the answer lies in reducing (even less than now) certain benefits that the free user gets. To get even more specific, limit the use of the features that tends to slow things down under heavy use.

All easy theory, but photo.net needs a viable and flexible "business model" regardless of what it does. To simply cut off everything except for subscriptions might kill it completely within a few months...What you are theorizing is that somebody will see photo.net, shell out the $$ and start posting pics right away. Coming from the Aerospace business, where "bad business model" appears to be the norm and tradition, I would't want photo.net to go down the same path. As a point of caution I was going through my favorite saved photography-related URL's this morning and many of the netsites had to be purged, because they are no longer.....and that's only 6 months' worth!!

The business model here seems to be; get as much traffic as possible, spend as little as possible to upgrade the system, guilt as many people as you can into giving money but give them no real added benifit.

 

Look, I've been coming to this site since 1998. I like it. But it's become a pain to use in the last few months. Sandy gave them a bunch of money, and the problem still seems to persist. I'm just suggesting it may be time to try something else.

There are those of us that try to constructively contribute to PN, but have held back on financial support due to the way things are sometimes handled here.

 

Yet even when requests for information on advertising are sent to several sources (in this case for my employer), there is deafening silence.

 

Going all subscription will IMHO lead to the death of PN.

The server bogs due to the bandwidth of uploaded and downloaded photos; not the dinky fraction of bandwidth in threads with all text. <BR><BR>Some poor kid with little cash ; wanting to learn and ask questions should not be penalized. The massive uploads of photos is by alot of folks chasing ratings; approvals; etc.<BR><BR>The bandwidth hogs should pay; not the poor student wanting to learn what a PC socket is; or a basic question on loading his garage sale buy; a camera older than himself/herself.....Hundreds of these simple threads can have the same bandwidth a one horrible photo uploaded..<BR><BR>Let the site be free; and limit the massive uploading for non subscribers; and maybe tiers of subscription levels/charges for those who use the actual bandwidth.

I think Kelly Flanigan has a very valid point. PN seems to consider that photo uploads bring in the most visitors, and therefore the photos are the chief salesman - and the salesman is King.<br>But many other sites have clung to this model, with doubtful results. Photopoints for example has very little in the way of forum content, Photosig has a lot of forum content but its strength, such as it is, is measured in quantity rather than quality.<br>By contrast, PN, with its excellent static content, links to other sites and its ability to provide answers to nearly any question, is a real community with real community members. This is its strength and its USP and should be encouraged by continued free access. Personally I gain very little inspiration from looking at other people's photos, mainly because of the huge number I need to view in order to find any that I consider inspirational, and although I accept that other people may not share this view I do feel that those who clog up the system (and the bandwidth) with their photo uploads should bear the major part of the cost of providing the service from which we all benefit.<p>I don't begrudge the $25 I've paid for my subscription - although I answer far more questions than I ask, I get a lot from this site - but I do feel that if shortage of money continues to be a problem then the decision makers should consider drastically reducing the number of photo uploads available to non-subscribers.

I'd agree. Keep the forums and static content articles free. Reduce the gallery bandwidth for those who don't subscribe by limiting the number of uploads and downloads and enforcing image size restrictions. I believe Brian has already said in this forum that non-subscribers gallery space will be reduced from 100 to 10 images sometime in the not too distant future.

 

The gallery has a dual personality. It's very valuable in that it's popular, encourages traffic, encourages subscribers, generates advertising revenue and thus keeps photo.net running. However it also seems to be a major source of technical and social problems on the site and probably gives Brian more headaches than than anything else.

 

This is a personal opinion, I'm not speaking for photo.net.

I can see the end of contributions if the last drive resulted in nothing more than a crowded pathway to an ever larger collection of Spring Dandelion pictures. I've spent fifteen minutes trying to enter this.

I agree that becoming a subscription site does not have to be an all or none proposition. If the larger portion of the expense of administering the site in both technology and maintenance is due to the bandwidth used by photo uploaders, then those people (myself included) should be willing to help defray the costs of the services they consume. Providing some free content to attract eyeballs and to serve as a "teaser" makes sense. If the site does move toward a subscription model, I'd like to see photo rating limited to paying subscribers. There seems to be a subset of non-donor community members who post no photos but get their jollies by down-rating the work of others. Perhaps a rating privilege being granted to only subscribers would minimize that subset.

To Crackers:

 

Well put!

Kelly, you might start by not posting you Bantam 828 shot on every thread where the Sony

F828 is mentioned. It was worth a half-chuckle the first time, now it's just tiresome.

Bob, I like your idea of free forums and reading content while charging for the bandwidth-gobbling photos. If Brian is willing and able to put such a system in place, I think it will help a great deal. I'd also second John's idea to make rating a subscriber-only privilege. Sure, there will be a bunch of people who get upset. But the people who really care about the site, its content and their ability to post/rate photos will cough up the money to use it. To those who don't want to pony up can either get their own Web site or can say good-bye.

 

I'd be interested in what Brian has to say about all this. After all, I believe he is either the decision maker or the one in contact with the person making the decisions.

 

P.S. I'm really, really, really fed up with this silly "The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this server" message. ARGHHH!!!

The site has been changing servers and has had a bunch of problems as a result. Problem distribution seems to be random. Although I've seen some out-and-out down time I've seen overall better performance than I was seeing before Christmas.

 

A lot of the content comes from non-subscribers. And personally I would not have subscribed had I not used the site first.

 

A "Subscribers" server with access to the same database would be a decent Idea if it could be implemented.

Hi folks.<br>

<br>

Very interesting point. I run a small community for the call centre industry - <a href="http://www.callcentrevoice.com" target=_new>www.callcentrevoice.com</a> - which I have created from scratch over the last three years. I too have a similar dilemma, and I thought I'd put across a publisher's point of view.<br>

<br>

For me, the key considerations as I run my community are keeping it alive and fresh and maintaining a useful and persistent resource for my industry. This is a relatively expensive prospect and whilst basic operating costs can be covered by advertising (such as the Google Ads that photo.net employs - remember to click them ads, folks) this normally only goes part of the way into the real effort and costs that keeping a community alive entails.<br><br>

For instance, there are the technical people who need to be paid - and good techies are rarely cheap. I manage by doing the majority of my community myself, and have avoided a lot of ongoing costs by writing my own software - a little like Philip did here. People forget that even a free site requires funding. In my case of a far smaller community, it works out at approximately £1000 per month, which is $2000. That covers licensing, ISP fees, resource depreciation, and can be maintained at that level only by offsetting these costs in some way - and I've tried tiered memberships but once a site is deemed as 'free' it is VERY difficult to break that perception. To help keep my own community going, Google Ads provide the income to cover the basic costs and I can't pay anyone nor pay for advertising. <br><br>

In a nutshell, <b>it is very tough to operate a successful community</b> and people should appreciate the work that is involved.<br><br>

The subscription model would probably be most viable if resricted to those who wish to upload images. Personally, I don't care much for critique - if my images don't suit me then unless someone is genuinely interested in helping me improve, critique is rarely useful to me; I learn by doing and if I can't assess my own work then it will be difficult for me to guide my work in future. That said, I can see that many like critique but images are expensive to serve on this scale so I think photo.net <i>should</i> charge for anyone who wishes to make use of the image-serving/uploadnig capabilities but free for others who don't use it (like me). On the other hand, perhaps some metric to assess contributor worth can be used which allows a certain proportion of 'valuable' contributors to upload images for free - Jeff Spirer is one such candidate whose work inspires, but equally his contributions on the forums show his worth to the community to be far greater than someone like me who probably asks as many questions as he answers. <br><br>

Anyway, I digress. Feel free to visit my community (which has nothing to do with photography but I'd appreciate the traffic) and don't feel afraid to click an occasional ad - Helps keep the little guy going!<br><br>

John

I agree with those that feel picture uploads should be a subscriber privilege, while forum and static contributions provide more value if left open to the general public. Frankly, I think anyone who finds himself/herself accessing the site frequently(even if it's just for entertainment value)would be more than happy to help support it if it's within the budget to do so. But, there are those who regularly use public television/radio without dropping a dime, and those who are happy to simply pass the collection plate at church. If you have no problem with being a freeloader, so be it. You only have to please yourself.

 

Bill

The Bantum 828 photo is not hosted on this server; but on a server that I pay for the bandwidth on each month; out of my own pocket. It is only a html link on the photo.net board. There is a nil bandwidth hit by photo.net; the hit is on my server. One set of photos I posted from my server about 1.5 years ago got 1 gig of bandwidth in less than one day. The photos were ripped off; and used on another site. I killed the link on my server; to avoid a 1 gig bandwidth per day drag and cost. Several years ago; many of the free photo hosting sites burned out; ie died. One was Photopoint. I went thru 3 free sites that burned out; before paying for my own server space. Many Ebayers several years ago used this site for free photo hosting; I didnt and pay for my own server space for my Ebay photos; and many photos that I post here too. The external server space allows one to size one's images and compression; file type; and not load the photo.net server. The majority of photos I place on threads are hosted by my server; and not Photo.net

Bill,

 

I was waiting for someone to call me a freeloader, thanks for not dissapointing! 8*)

 

I like the tiered service idea. To even look at the site you have to sign up, you get 3 months free, to post text only, $5-10 a year, and then multi level options for picture upload. I think it's a great idea.

 

One problem though, everything I've ever read from Brian and the other PN powers to be says it won't happen. I hope I'm wrong, but I think they are slaves to traffic and hits.

 

Cheers,

Brian and the Powers to be,

 

Do you truley believe that people who use this site value it so little that they won't pay a nominal fee to for use? If you really have so little faith in your products worth, maybe it's time to pack it in.

Jeff,

 

By "you," I was referring to anyone who saw themselves in the particular situation I described, not you personally. For all I know, you may access this site infrequently, and do not fall into the category of a frequent user. However, if you personally enjoy the site, and know that it depends on contributions to survive/improve, why not just become a contributing member if you can afford it. What is the logic in waiting until you are forced to do so? As has already been stated, some of the seemingly more knowledgeable posters would probably not visit here if there was a cost involved, lessening its value for those of us who frequent it for photo knowledge and interesting conversation. That certainly wouldn't help its cause.

 

Bill

As always there are many interesting and valid points being raised here.

 

As has already been touched upon I'm sure there are many of us that would like to subscribe but cannot. Not everyone has credit cards and/or cheque books or live in the States. The reasons can vary from being students; "starving artists"; location on the planet and/or have crap credit ratings that prevent the "privileges" of being able to pay for things where cash cannot be physically handed over.

 

As for myself yep you guessed it I fall into one of the above categories, I have the funds available but do not have the means to get them to PN.

 

Maybe limiting the number of pictures I can post would be an answer which I would be quite happy with, but please don't assume that all of us who have not subscribed are freeloading - because not all of us are.