Possibilities for Change - Keeping you Informed

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by Sandy Vongries, Oct 7, 2021.

  1. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    William Michael and NHSN like this.
  2. Speaking of Creativelive …
    Lean sounds so healthy and functional, doesn’t it? Makes for good copy. :rolleyes:
  3. WJT

    WJT Moderator

    I've got a bad feeling about this.
    za33photo and Sanford like this.
  4. I am only a recent joiner , but should we not start thinking of where we will migrate to , if the unthinkable happens ?.
  5. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Wait and see. I have no more information that you, and certainly have never been classed as an optimist, but there could well be a positive outcome.
  6. Sometime change is good, sometimes it is not. I don't have many photo forums I'm on.

    Where else do you frequent for photo discussion?
  7. It can hardly get any worse.
    Photo.net has been neglected in the hands of CreativeLive. With money changing hands, someone will likely look at Photo.net and either conclude that it fits the portfolio or it doesn't.
    In the former scenario, it is hard to imagine that they wouldn't see the need for urgent attention, in the latter, we could hope it is sold off to someone who would see and nourish Photo.net's potential.
    It is unlikely someone just switch off the servers.
  8. luminous-landscape.com for me
  9. Just a wild hair thought: Are there enough of us interested folks that we might form a group to buy and operate PNet? I'm not even sure this is feasible, but just wondering our loud.
  10. I think they should pay us for all the free content.
    q.g._de_bakker, ericphelps and Jochen like this.
  11. Whatever happens I hope this community can be kept together.
  12. Hmm. We shall see..
  13. I’d hate to see it disappear, this the only place I’ve come to regularly in many years. If new ownership isn’t interested in keeping it going maybe they can sell it off to someone that is. I have no idea what it costs to keep something like this running month to month.

    Rick H.
  14. I've been here a long time and would very sad to see it fold. I guess we'll find out eventually what the future holds.
  15. It's early yet, but the thought is not so wild, although it could be difficult. A great deal depends on whether the new owners consider photo.net a valuable asset to develop or one to discard.I saw something similar a while back. I participated in a writer's conference whose owner decided to retire, and turned it over to someone who had difficulty running it. It was suspended for several years, and then one of the participants, who is very rich, bought it for what was reported to be very little money. It could as easily have been purchased by a group of participants. It would help to have someone with superb organizing skills work on this. PN's founder Philip Greenspun?

    It would help if we had contacts outside of photo.net, because the site might be down before it can be "rescued."

    I would be sad to see PN die.
  16. Can someone break this down in a few words?
  17. Although I frequent and participate in only a few of the forums here, I would feel a loss in several ways if the site were to disappear. If I was involved in the decision making process to either keep the site or not, I'd first try to get a handle on how much (if any) income is generated from sources other than the members. I can't remember that last time any type of membership fee was asked for (from me anyway) so the next suggestion would be to get a message to the site members asking each if they want to continue their memberships at whatever level they were paying. Tally it all up, compare it with current expenses, and if it was at least break-even it would seem to make sense to keep the site running for now. If a shortfall results, they could ask what we'd be willing to pay to see the site continue.
    ericphelps likes this.
  18. Perhapes Philip has a few extra $$$ hanging around and will buy PN back from the new owners.
  19. I haven't done a full analysis of PN but in my IMHO it generally breaks down into 3 basic functions:
    - a moderated discussion forum (where people can post with attachments, respond (like/disagree/...) and/or reply) and in which posts can be grouped into forum (and subforum) categories
    - a space where people can upload and 'host' their own photos online, create albums, portfolios, etc. and post links to these via the internet
    - a mechanism for paid and unpaid membership administration

    These are all things that are done on many other forums that run on established forum 'platforms' and on servers that are provided as part of a 'hosting service'.
    Yes, keeping a forum up and running does cost money (though not more than could be earned through optional membership fees and relevant advertising).

    For example, I'm a member of a vibrant saxophone forum that it not owned by any company but is funded through membership and advertising and is maintained by volunteers.

    I'm not a technician so I have no insight into the way PN has been built (except through Builtwith.com) or whether this would still be appropriate. But somehow, I don't agree with the premise that PN is dependent on 'the new owner' or with the premise that members need a new 'Angel Investor' to buy PN. Both of these premises are from the perspective of 'dependence and powerlessness'. There's nothing stopping a group of motivated members from setting up a new 'skeleton' PN site somewhere else just as a fall-back. Preferably with technologies that would allow content to be imported from the current PN site if need be.
    Sanford likes this.

Share This Page