The Phoblographer wrote a lot about photo-sharing sites that can cause serious damage to photographers. Unsplash is a prime example of. They steal the work of a photographer, take all their rights and then don’t pay a penny. In their eyes, payment is exposure. It’s not surprising that we don’t like them. Clickasnap is the answer. Although it is a company that wants photographers paid, its execution has some flaws.
HOW DOES CLICKASNAP WORK
Before I go into the issues with Clickasnap let me explain how it works to those who don’t know.
It’s simple. Photographers upload images and depending on the subscription they have, they may earn money. There are two ways to make money. Views are the first. Clicksnap will pay 0.25C per view. Your images can be sold as digital downloads or, in certain cases, as physical products such as prints. Photographers cannot withdraw funds until they have earned $15.
CLICKASNAP – THE ISSUES
CEO Tom Oswald says that Clickasnap “is the first and only paid per view, still image hosting website in the world.” This statement is not incorrect in any way. It is misleading, however.
Photographers who use a free account are not paid. If they want to make money, they can upload photos but will need to sign up for a paid account. The problem with the quote above is that it doesn’t provide full transparency. While I understand that companies must do persuasive PR, it is important to show more respect for the photographer. This doesn’t mean they are able to make money without investing their own money.
THE LANDING PAGES
You’ll find a variety of images uploaded by photographers when you arrive at the website. Unfortunately, the website contains a lot more photography than my grandmother who is blind could do – and she’s gone!
This is the problem. The first impression is crucial when a company searches for stock photos. If the first page of a stock photography website is filled with amateur work, then why would I want to spend my time looking for quality photos? Clickasnap must implement a quality control system for its homepage. And it needs to do so quickly!
Although this issue may seem minor, it could cause companies to revert to the rights grab websites to obtain images for free. Although we don’t like Unspalsh, the website offers a clean design with high-quality photographs on its home page. This makes it more appealing to users. Clickasnap and other stock photography sites need to be attractive to anyone who wants to take them out of business.
We are now on to the next issue.
THE WEBSITE
Although I don’t know the budget of the company, it is not difficult to build a website in 2021. The website looks much better in the 2000s. It doesn’t necessarily look retro or hip, but it does make it visually unpleasing.
There are typos in the text on several pages. This makes the site appear unprofessional and can put off visitors. Many of the links at bottom of the homepage don’t work. Some links seem to take you to a different website even though they are the same.
Branding and image are everywhere. It is not user-friendly.
DO PHOTOGRAPHERS GET JUSTICE?
The concept is very appealing to me. Clickasnap is keen to pay photographers. However, Clickasnap must make sure it provides a platform that supports the photographer. These issues will deter any serious company from paying for stock photography.
It’s as simple as this. Let’s suppose I go to a photographic gallery to purchase prints. The first thing that I see when I enter the gallery is terrible work. I decide to continue, but the staff doesn’t give me an honest answer when I ask them a question. The text underneath the prints is full of spelling mistakes. It’s easy for people to get lost in the gallery’s confusing layout. Do I want to open my wallet and invest in work? No.
Design and execution are equally important. User experience is key. Clickasnap is a great tool for photographers. It needs to clean up its “digital galleries” before that can happen.
