I think it is generally recognized that the Web 2.0 world loves flickr, with its viral, community-focused fun and its AJAXerrific cool. But a recent report from Hitwise shows that flickr is a distant sixth in terms of market share, at just less than 6%, beaten handily by 44% dominator PhotoBucket (the company's competitive strategy: be a storage backend for users who wish to post photos to MySpace), and even by the far less sexy service of flickr's parent, Yahoo! Photos, at 18% (in second place). Webshots Community, Kodakgallery.com (formerly Ofoto.com), and ImageShack all rank ahead of flickr in terms of market share.
There's a story here, that flickr may seem cool but it's not even a big deal in the traffic big dogs. I don't know if I buy it. LeAnn Prescott, who blogs the market share charts, notes the MySpace strategy of PhotoBucket and mentions that three photo sharing sites in the top 10 are getting the vast majority of their traffic from the teen-centric social network, including Imageshack and Slide.
It's all about the growth of the platform, and the longevity of the business strategy. As a hard-core photo enthusiast who lives and breathes Web 2.0, I've used most of the non-MySpace services. I did Webshots Community, then I switched to Ofoto, and when Kodak bought it I was using Yahoo! Pictures and my own web site. And then I discovered flickr. Now I have 1,859 photos uploaded there. I think that I -- an early adopter who has already convinced any number of friends, family, and colleagues to switch to flickr -- am a fair indicator that the prospects for flickr are good. I have to wonder if PhotoBucket and others who rely so much on one source of traffic.
There it is: the real question. Is that one source a long-term play? Will MySpace still be rocking and rolling in three, five, 10 years? I doubt it. I'd put my money on the technology and monetization potential of flickr anyday.
Careless Chinese Baggage Handler Really Throws Himself Into His Work
Here's Why United Was Just Named America's Worst Airline


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-22-2006 @ 6:23PM
Peter Pham said...
I left relatively the same comments at GigaOm, but here goes...
We have been around for 3 years, serving now 18 million users, and yes we have myspace users, but we also have users to over 60,000 unique websites. Photobucket was one of the first to empower users to take their content where they want thru the simple process of uploading to us, and direct linking.
We currently upload over 5 million new images, and that%u2019s all types, photos, animated gif%u2019s, screenshots, etc. and we do video with currently over 30,000 uploads a day. It's just a very simple and easy service, upload your stuff, and use it onn the web.
We are not a photo community like flickr and don%u2019t do tagging, of which we believe they do a great job at. We are more about hosting your visual content in 1 location and providing a fast, reliable service for you to express yourself wherever you want.
Thanks for the writeup, since we aren%u2019t a web 2.0 company, I guess we don%u2019t get the silicon valley love ;)Cheers!
Peter
6-23-2006 @ 11:21AM
Klaas Brumann said...
There are constantly new players with new ideas coming to the social software market like for example http://www.miaplaza.com and http://sossoon.net. Large corporations like NewsCorp or Yahoo are not well placed to keep up with grassroots developments. Mentioning Ofoto and Kodak are completely out of pace, as they are first generation online photo processors, competing with us http://fotoinsight.com and other pure photo services like, but half heartedly adding online photo sharing. However, as they painfully worked out, the required resolution for photographic printing is not good for free online storing online.