|
Firstly, for us this really isnt a big issue. We have very little content licensed non exclusively and havent shot any since May last year.
But if any of you honestly think that this doesnt damage a content providers chance of recouping their costs on the set, let alone making a profit then you really need to think about it more.
I dont disagree that a gallery submitter has more chance of making money by doing his own gallery than using a hosted gallery.
I dont dispute that there will be gallery submitters who have more of a chance getting a gallery listed than a hosted gallery may have.
But if we are talking hosted galleries you need to talk about both the static hosted type AND the gallery builder type because it would be impossible to differentiate between them.
I also agree that the Gallery Builder type is more damaging than the static type.
But, lets say a program like ARS goes and buys a bunch of $20 sets and puts them into a gallery builder program.
How many times do you think each of those sets is going to get submitted to TGP's - heaps. And TGP software wont pick it up as a duplicate submission as every URL is different.
So they may get listed, heaps of exposure, very soon they will stop getting listed because the content is classified as old. So then customers who guy and buy the set themselves have just wasted the cost because no TGP is going to list it.
Also paysite owners are not going to by the content - if they are doing there job and no whats out there then they are going to think its over exposed too, more customers gone.
Even if it starts not getting listed, or never gets listed. Alot of TGP's dont like sponsor content so people will have less chance of getting that picture set listed because the TGP owners have seen it before. So the same result is the content providers customers cant get any value from the content they bought - do you think they are coming back?
This is not just about exposure to surfers.
|