login info join!
Forums > General Industry > OMP New Look , Should MM Update as well? Search   Reply
first12
Photographer
GeorgeMann
Posts: 1,048
Orange, California, US


SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Don't forget that omp also has a site (w/a different name) that looks like a direct copy of MM....
                                ... and nobody's using that one either!


By kicking off all of the photographers that helped turn it into a major website, omp shot themselves in the foot and no amount of surgery will make it all OK again.

OMP, like MM, is only one site of many belonging to a much larger corporation.
The site you mentioned that looks like MM, is istudio and you are correct about its use.
As an omp member I was automatically inducted into istudio when omp was bought. I went to istudio once and have not been back that I can think of.
Regarding "all of the photographers kicked off", I know of none, unless it was for posting images or language persistently that is not allowed.
Photographers and models are always notified if something is not allowed and given the option to remove it, long before being "kicked off".
As far as the current surgery, I am inclined to agree with you.
It will be very hard for them to get back anyone, model or photographer, particularly since the whole internet modeling thing appears to be dying.
They will definitely have to offer something those members that left cannot get anyplace else. It is not an inexpensive site to join.

Dec 13 12 10:45 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
William Markey
Posts: 23
Birmingham, Alabama, US


OMP can blow chunks in my opinion!!

Long live MM!
Dec 13 12 11:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GeorgeMann
Posts: 1,048
Orange, California, US


William Markey wrote:
omp can blow chunks in my opinion!!

Long live MM!

Do you really know anything at all about OMP?, or are you just spouting off?

Dec 13 12 11:23 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Glenn Hall - Fine Art
Posts: 431
Townsville, Queensland, Australia


GeorgeMann wrote:

Do you really know anything at all about OMP?, or are you just spouting off?

...he said he was blowing chunks, so yeah...spouting off tongue

Dec 13 12 12:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Darkroom Art
Posts: 621
JOBSTOWN, New Jersey, US


Al Cooley Photography wrote:
You touched on the problem of omp. They leave poeple profiles up that haven,t updated or visit the site in years.  I also checked models in my area... and over half have not been on the sight in over six years.   I hope MM takes this fact and does not fall into the same trap..   greater numbers doesn,t  mean greater service.

100 % Agree. What good are listings that have not been active for years? I wish MM would see that

Dec 13 12 12:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Glenn Hall - Fine Art
Posts: 431
Townsville, Queensland, Australia


...figured I should check out the plug for this omp website...

Nearly 3000 models available in my humble State of Queensland on MM
A fat ZERO models available on omp...

No argument needed here tongue

http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa480/Craziestozzy/1.jpg
http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa480/Craziestozzy/3.jpg
Dec 13 12 01:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GeorgeMann
Posts: 1,048
Orange, California, US


Glenn Hall - Fine Art wrote:
...figured I should check out the plug for this omp website...

Nearly 3000 models available in my humble State of Queensland on MM
A fat ZERO models available on omp...

No argument needed here tongue

http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa480/Craziestozzy/1.jpg
http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa480/Craziestozzy/3.jpg

I just ran the same search on omp and came up with 58 active in Australia in the last 30 days.

Dec 13 12 01:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Glenn Hall - Fine Art
Posts: 431
Townsville, Queensland, Australia


Was my point in that the number of results for QUEENSLAND is self-explanatory...I tried omp with search variables "female" and any status and other variables and returned zero results using Firefox.
Your search was for the entire country of Australia, mine was for the State of Queensland.
If my zero results for omp is due either to a glitch, the fact I am not a member, or I am using Firefox or that there is indeed no results...is beside the point.

Simple fact that is, I am a potential "new" user and before joining, I checked out the relevance of this omp site to my locale and got nothing. Something omp may want to consider.
Dec 13 12 01:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GeorgeMann
Posts: 1,048
Orange, California, US


Glenn Hall - Fine Art wrote:
Was my point in that the number of results for QUEENSLAND is self-explanatory...I tried omp with search variables "female" and any status and other variables and returned zero results using Firefox.
Your search was for the entire country of Australia, mine was for the State of Queensland.
If my zero results for omp is due either to a glitch, the fact I am not a member, or I am using Firefox or that there is indeed no results...is beside the point.

Simple fact that is, I am a potential "new" user and before joining, I checked out the relevance of this omp site to my locale and got nothing. Something omp may want to consider.

As I said, I ran the search for all of Australia, on the "new site", and came up with only the 58 active in the last 30 days.
As you said, for Queensland I got "O"
On the "Old site" search I got 1757 total models for all of Australia.
58 active out of 1757 is not really a very good showing.
Definitely something they should look at.

Dec 13 12 01:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 42,424
Salinas, California, US


SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Don't forget that omp also has a site (w/a different name) that looks like a direct copy of MM....
                                ... and nobody's using that one either!


By kicking off all of the photographers that helped turn it into a major website, omp shot themselves in the foot and no amount of surgery will make it all OK again.

I agree ... I was oon omp for many years.  When they were purchased and became a "paysite" I felt they should have at least given charter members a discount?  Or something ... anything as a show of appreciation.  I paid and paid as it went downhill ... joined MM early on.  Finally let my omp membership slide into the lost server files for a lack of wanting to continue to pay for it.

What could be done to improve MM?  Well that is something worth discussion.

Dec 13 12 01:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AM Photography
Posts: 697
Independence, Oregon, US


I think that you are all missing the point with this whole too many inactive members on omp thing. This is exactly my point, if MM never updates then it is set for a similar fate.

MY view on omp was that it had a decent user base, but was plagued by site function issues(worse than MM experiences now, but along the same lines). They were bought and the new owners changed the site to a paysite, without taking the time to try and fix the site issues. So people left in droves, most ended up here. Now they are finally revamping the site in an attempt to bring people back and fix functionality issues.

Sure MM is more active now, that is not the question I posed. MY point is that if MM doesn't want to end up like omp then maybe they should take a good hard look at fixing issues and upgrading the site. Or else we may all be on some other site in the future after MM dies off as omp did.
Dec 13 12 02:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GeorgeMann
Posts: 1,048
Orange, California, US


Patrick Walberg wrote:
I agree ... I was oon omp for many years.  When they were purchased and became a "paysite" I felt they should have at least given charter members a discount?  Or something ... anything as a show of appreciation.  I paid and paid as it went downhill ... joined MM early on.  Finally let my omp membership slide into the lost server files for a lack of wanting to continue to pay for it.

What could be done to improve MM?  Well that is something worth discussion.

I really think this makes a lot of sense, but it has one major flaw.
Discussion will only make sense if the powers that be are included in the discussion and open to suggestions.
There is a new model site launching soon, ran by photographers, and it just might make the existing sites think a little harder about customer satisfaction.

Dec 13 12 05:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Marc Damon
Posts: 6,562
Biloxi, Mississippi, US


GeorgeMann wrote:
I really think this makes a lot of sense, but it has one major flaw.
Discussion will only make sense if the powers that be are included in the discussion and open to suggestions.
There is a new model site launching soon, ran by photographers, and it just might make the existing sites think a little harder about customer satisfaction.

There always is. Many have tried. Many have failed. Is that because MM or omp is better? No. They seem to fail or at least slip into internet oblivion because they can't build an active member base fast enough.

Dec 13 12 05:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Moore Photo Graphix
Posts: 5,288
Washington, District of Columbia, US


GeorgeMann wrote:
I really think this makes a lot of sense, but it has one major flaw.
Discussion will only make sense if the powers that be are included in the discussion and open to suggestions.
There is a new model site launching soon, ran by photographers, and it just might make the existing sites think a little harder about customer satisfaction.

How will you know this site won't make the same mistakes Musecube and omp did when they try to charge members? Also, many others sites came along to challenge MM, and many of them lasted as long as Brett Favre in Jets jersey. Whoever is running that needs to study Mixed Martial Arts promotion that didn't last (See IFL, Elite XC, Affliction, Bodog Fights). They went after the big Boy (UFC), but they fell apart because their business model wasn't as stable as they thought . It's not that the owners of this site aren't open to suggestion. It's just that some of the suggestions aren't inline with original mission of the website.

Dec 13 12 05:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 9,728
Santa Ana, California, US


MM doesn't need a new UI - a significant part of what made MM so successful is the extreme simplicity of the interface.

What they do need to do, is redo the infrastructure so that it can actually support the user load.
It's not happening anytime soon however and MM is pretty must destined to be the photographer/model myspace as soon as something more desirable comes along. In the meantime IB will milk it along until it dies.
Dec 13 12 05:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GeorgeMann
Posts: 1,048
Orange, California, US


Moore Photo Graphix wrote:
How will you know this site won't make the same mistakes Musecube and omp did when they try to charge members? Also, many others sites came along to challenge MM, and many of them lasted as long as Brett Favre in Jets jersey. Whoever is running that needs to study Mixed Martial Arts promotion that didn't last (See IFL, Elite XC, Affliction, Bodog Fights). They went after the big Boy (UFC), but they fell apart because their business model wasn't as stable as they thought . It's not that the owners of this site aren't open to suggestion. It's just that some of the suggestions aren't inline with original mission of the website.

There seems to be a misconception in this discussion that omp just recently began charging for membership. I joined omp in 2004 and they were charging then for membership.
The major decline in membership began when the current owners purchased omp in 2009, they did not start charging members. Members were already being charged for the premium sites. Not sure, but I think there used to be a free membership much the same as here with only a few images posted.

Dec 13 12 09:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21,320
Seattle, Washington, US


Fascinating.
Dec 13 12 09:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
All Yours Photography
Posts: 2,234
Toledo, Ohio, US


SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Don't forget that omp also has a site (w/a different name) that looks like a direct copy of MM....
                                ... and nobody's using that one either!

That's not true!  I use IStudio (as a place to post some additional photos online).

There's a link to in on my MM profile.

Dec 14 12 11:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SayCheeZ!
Posts: 17,697
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


GeorgeMann wrote:
There seems to be a misconception in this discussion that omp just recently began charging for membership. I joined omp in 2004 and they were charging then for membership.
The major decline in membership began when the current owners purchased omp in 2009, they did not start charging members. Members were already being charged for the premium sites. Not sure, but I think there used to be a free membership much the same as here with only a few images posted.

I was one of with omp waaaaay back when it was model.folios.com

OMP may have been charging photographers since 2004 (I'm not sure when it started, but that sounds like an accurate number), however omp wasn't... and didn't.... charge legacy or 'grandfathered in' members.

Then, after some time they removed ALL non-paying photographers... legacy or not... with little or no warning at all.

When it happened to me, I just thought "oh well".  It really didn't bother me at all.

After a few years when they realized that plan backfired and there were only a handful of photographers left on their site they attempted to recruit us back, I think they were once again offering free accounts to legacy photographers.  To me it wasn't worth the trouble, and I'm pretty confident that almost all the other photographes that were removed felt the same way.  omp became insignificant.

It still is.

Dec 14 12 12:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GeorgeMann
Posts: 1,048
Orange, California, US


SayCheeZ!  wrote:
I was one of with omp waaaaay back when it was model.folios.com

OMP may have been charging photographers since 2004 (I'm not sure when it started, but that sounds like an accurate number), however omp wasn't... and didn't.... charge legacy or 'grandfathered in' members.

Then, after some time they removed ALL non-paying photographers... legacy or not... with little or no warning at all.

When it happened to me, I just thought "oh well".  It really didn't bother me at all.

After a few years when they realized that plan backfired and there were only a handful of photographers left on their site they attempted to recruit us back, I think they were once again offering free accounts to legacy photographers.  To me it wasn't worth the trouble, and I'm pretty confident that almost all the other photographes that were removed felt the same way.  omp became insignificant.

It still is.

I complained yesterday about the "model links" not sticking to new model images I uploaded in the "new site".
I received the answer today, that now, when a model is linked, the model has to approve linking her/his image before the link will be posted.
How can this approval happen if that model has not logged into omp in over a year and obviously just deletes messages received from OMP?
As the photographer we cannot contact the model through the omp system if she/he has not logged in in 180 days.

Dec 14 12 02:23 pm  Link  Quote 
first12   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers