Comments on: Should Yahoo’s Flickr.com Buy Flicker.com?

By: chandan

chandan — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:16:09 +0000

one day they will buy for sure

By: MHB

MHB — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:55:41 +0000

John

I understand what your saying but I just don’t agree with the idea of screwing by re-branding something that is working, in which case I think they need to buy Flicker.com, not so much for the traffic value, as its only fraction of flickr, but so that they can continue to build the brand

By: john andrews

john andrews — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:52:13 +0000

BTW, I think you have to consider that Flickr (the service) is well known by a very small percentage of the population that is expected to be using web for photosharing over the next 10 years. They needed that Flickr brand following so they could grow to be stable/entrenched. Do they still need it? Is Picassa known because of Picassa branding or Google affiliation?

My Dad started with Kodak Online because of an ad on the envelope from the last set of prints he got from the camera store. He’s still never heard of “Flicker”, but knows (and has used) Picassa because he uses Google.

Yahoo! has far greater reach than Flickr, and ambition.

By: john andrews

john andrews — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:40:00 +0000

no no no I don’t presume to do their branding but yes, I would not be surprised if they rebranded things around the Yahoo! media brand. Hopefully, they do it better than that suggestion!

By: MHB

MHB — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:24:36 +0000

John

You really suggest that Yahoo should rebrand the 31st busiest site on the net from Flickr to Yahoo photo/image?

Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue does it?

By: john andrews

john andrews — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:14:59 +0000

I don’t have any insider info on what Yahoo! is planning, but they screwed up for years by acquiring these great web apps and NOT integrating them into Yahoo!

The longer you wait to integrate a successful web app into your brand, the harder it is to swallow the pain of re-branding that service. Google made the same mistake with YouTube and Google Video, although that would have been a very painful pill to swallow at the time (YouTube having grown so virally on such a great, “essential” domain name).

Now that Yahoo! is seriously reconsidering its existence, I would not be surprised to see them rebrand Flickr as a Yahoo! photo/image property. The same thinking could explain the release of Contests.com.

If Yahoo! is to be relevant once again, known more for its successes than its failures (as Yahoo!), and if Yahoo! wants to invest for forward-looking media brand value, it doesn’t need Flicker.com

By: MHB

MHB — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:52:43 +0000

This story has now been picked up by TechCrunch:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/26/flicker-no-not-that-one-bares-its-stats-in-an-attempt-to-get-rich/

However they did not credit thedomains.com as being the source of the story, well at least I know there reading

By: Jamie Zoch

Jamie Zoch — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:20:23 +0000

It seems like a “No-Brainer” buy to me, but it always comes down to money. My guess is that Yahoo! made the $350K offer in the past and that’s what they were willing to spend on the domain.

3.6M a year traffic is great, but 27M a month is much better. Do they miss the 75K a month that likely find the Flickr.com site anyway?

I like how Flicker.com is hiding it’s Ad URL’s with Bit.ly links.

By: Kevin McDermott

Kevin McDermott — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:19:09 +0000

I’m wondering how many visitors does it take Yahoo!(tm) to convert on their Flickr.com site vs traffic from Flicker.com?1000:1 vs 10:1?

By: Andrew Donnovan

Andrew Donnovan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:57:03 +0000

Ecstatic numbers! Outbound clicks 11%, where’s the other 89%? Flicker.com can see 100K/month, Y! could see 1M/month.