[chrisgoodrich]

I disagree with your assumption. You're saying that because people order fewer prints from professional photographers, that people don't prefer tangible prints.

I think this points more to the fact that consumers don't value a photographers copyrights. Consumers know that it doesn't cost $50 for a 5x7 print and thus they'd rather buy the digital copy to have more control over what they can do with their own photos. Photos are meant to be shared and it's hard to share photos that cost $50 each.

From the vantage point of the consumer with a smartphone, PicPlum offers a very attractive value proposition to share tangible prints with family members. I don't believe that the desire to have printed photos will go away anytime soon.

[callmeed]

>> I disagree with your assumption. You're saying that because people order fewer prints from professional photographers, that people don't prefer tangible prints.

Not exactly. I'm saying that (a) the preference for tangible prints is fading with every generation and (b) my experience in the professional space is one data point that supports this.

>> I think this points more to the fact that consumers don't value a photographers copyrights. Consumers know that it doesn't cost $50 for a 5x7 print and thus they'd rather buy the digital copy to have more control over what they can do with their own photos. Photos are meant to be shared and it's hard to share photos that cost $50 each.

It's harder to share a tangible/printed picture at any price, so how does PicPlum solve this at all? What you said above supports my thoughts more than it refutes them (IMO).

>> From the vantage point of the consumer with a smartphone, PicPlum offers a very attractive value proposition to share tangible prints with family members.

Maybe it does–I'm just saying the TAM is small is getting smaller. I personally don't build businesses around that.

>> I don't believe that the desire to have printed photos will go away anytime soon.

Replace 1 word and this sounds like a quote from a newspaper executive 10 years ago :)

---

(Let me be clear that I wish PicPlum the best of luck. I wouldn't invest my own money in the startup but I hope they can pull it off or pivot successfully.)

[chrisgoodrich]

I will add that I don't argue that fewer prints are made. Even 10 years ago the majority of photos were printed. Digital photo sharing was still in its infancy. There's no arguing that fewer printed photos exist, but that doesn't mean that a market doesn't exist. It means that the market hasn't pivoted in a relevant way.

The value of printed photos has significantly shifted. 10 years ago, printed photos were necessary for archival and sharing personal photos. Today, photo prints serve a very emotional purpose.

>> It's harder to share a tangible/printed picture at any price, so how does PicPlum solve this at all? What you said above supports my thoughts more than it refutes them (IMO).

My point is that if you have 4 sets of grandparents that each want several prints of your wedding, it's generally not economically viable to pay $50 each for prints to share with them. Thus people order fewer prints from photographers and more digital/albums that they can share without incremental costs.

PicPlum seems to make the sharing of printed photos easier by removing the friction in getting prints done and mailing them out to family members. Note that PicPlum's target market isn't (yet) the professional photographer.