MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: new entrant: stockafe  (Read 10787 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 04, 2014, 11:29 »
0
Saw an ad for a new site coming soon:

https://stockafe.com/coming-soon

They are saying all the right things and it looks promising. And they have a budget, advertising on the Deck Network isn't cheap. Anyone have any info about royalty rates?


« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2014, 11:33 »
+5
if u pass our Jo Ann Snover's test, i will check u out  ;)

« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2014, 11:40 »
+2
Not sure what that test would be, but there's no information on the site at all about price, license, terms or anything else. If and when they make all of the nuts and bolts information available, I'll have a read.

« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2014, 11:43 »
-2
Stock Afe?

« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2014, 11:47 »
0
Not sure what that test would be, but there's no information on the site at all about price, license, terms or anything else. If and when they make all of the nuts and bolts information available, I'll have a read.

There's a little bit of additional info if you click on community, and then look at tutorials and forum, but not much.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 11:51 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2014, 11:59 »
0
Thanks Shelma1, here are the royalty rates:

https://stockafe.com/appendix-a/

« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2014, 12:21 »
+14
Quote
Licenses sold for Shared Content will earn the Contributor a base Royalty Rate of 30%

Licenses sold for Exclusive Content will earn the Contributor a base Royalty Rate of 40%

Contribution-based incentives will be put in place that will allow Contributors to earn 35% on Shared Content and 50% on Exclusive Content.

And... we're done here.

« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2014, 12:22 »
+12
Thanks Shelma1, here are the royalty rates:

https://stockafe.com/appendix-a/

I find it sad that "Why bother?" seems to be my most asked question in stock. It's disappointing to constantly be underwhelmed by new offerings.

« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2014, 12:47 »
+5
I'll pass on this one,nothing new

« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2014, 13:16 »
0
Thanks Shelma1, here are the royalty rates:

https://stockafe.com/appendix-a/

I find it sad that "Why bother?" seems to be my most asked question in stock. It's disappointing to constantly be underwhelmed by new offerings.

1- scottdunlap, where u r located ?
2 - i like 2 c some of the members' portfolios but cannot seem to do that.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 13:22 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2014, 13:30 »
+11
Thanks for the links. I wouldn't rule an agency out on the basis of 30% royalties, but there are some other pricing and terms things that seem very strange to me.

They want to charge $30 for a 12mp file. I have a choice of 40 million of those for $15 each from Shutterstock (two images $29, one year to buy). Why would anyone buy from them (for the non- exclusive content)?

40% royalties for exclusive content seems unreasonable. They're new with no sales track record. It's a big ask to look for exclusive sets for that money.

The exclusive pricing is odd. Small size is $25 vs. $8 for non-exclusive but "super" is $70 (versus $30) - it's not 3x across the price range.

The extended license pricing is insane - no one will buy at those prices for non-exclusive content.

The incentive system is odd too. They aren't paying for uploads ('cause if you upload and never sell you make nothing) but they will pay 5% extra if you upload 200+ in a calendar year. You don't get any more than 5% so they might seem some odd patterns of irregular uploads. I'd hold some back at the end of the year to get my extra 5% quickly at the beginning of the following year.

Not thrilled about the 30 day hold on termination - just because they're new and an unknown quantity - but it seems reasonable. A $100 payout level is fine for an established agency, but I think a new agency could lower payout levels for the first year or so to encourage contributors to give it a shot.

So who are the people behind it and what is their plan to separate themselves from 500px, Stocksy, Getty, Shutterstock and Uncle Tom Cobley and all? In the (rather empty) forums I see "Emperor Alan" saying they're in a unique position but not elaborating on why that is - or what he's emperor of exactly :)


« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2014, 13:57 »
+6
Quote
Licenses sold for Shared Content will earn the Contributor a base Royalty Rate of 30%

Licenses sold for Exclusive Content will earn the Contributor a base Royalty Rate of 40%

Contribution-based incentives will be put in place that will allow Contributors to earn 35% on Shared Content and 50% on Exclusive Content.

And... we're done here.

Agree.
Different pricing for exclusive vs. non-exclusive content makes sense.
But there's no reason why they should not pay 50% on non-exclusive content.

« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2014, 14:00 »
0
Thanks for the links. I wouldn't rule an agency out on the basis of 30% royalties, but ...


Not thrilled about the 30 day hold on termination - just because they're new and an unknown quantity - but it seems reasonable. A $100 payout level is fine for an established agency, but I think a new agency could lower payout levels for the first year or so to encourage contributors to give it a shot.

So who are the people behind it and what is their plan to separate themselves from 500px, Stocksy, Getty, Shutterstock and Uncle Tom Cobley and all?

+1 on all counts
-Jo Ann, Shutterstock payout is not $100. I think one can get payout with $75 .
and that is so easily reached with Shutterstock, even $100.
this is the sore point of so many single digit sites to the right.

I would not say we are done here just yet. Give Emperor the chance to amend the issues,
as did the other site that got Jo Ann's eventual "approval".

my resounding + for Jo Ann is this closing para
So who are the people behind it and what is their plan to separate themselves from 500px, Stocksy, Getty, Shutterstock and Uncle Tom Cobley and all?

i want 2 know the answer too , which is more important than perharps the 30% royalties,
as many of the right side sites promised a lottttttt more, but a lotttt more of nothing = nothing.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 14:03 by etudiante_rapide »

stocked

« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2014, 14:01 »
-1
it's a good site and a good concept I will apply with non-exclusive stuff that is a little bit edgy and not too typical micro.
If we rule out any new agency or concept nothing will change, the conditions are not ideal but a lot better than most others and I do like the pricing!
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 14:14 by stocked »

« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2014, 14:24 »
+1
it's a good site and a good concept I will apply with non-exclusive stuff that is a little bit edgy and not too typical micro.
If we rule out any new agency or concept nothing will change, the conditions are not ideal but a lot better than most others and I do like the pricing!

yes, precisely with what Jo Ann pointed out, who would pay the higher price when they could get it at SS. so, if ur images are uniquely and not too homogenous to micro, perharps that would be an impetus to clients paying more.

which i too am waiting on the sideline before attempting to apply to 500px, Stocksy, ... Offset, and hopefully this one if only i can see the portfolios they have presently.

« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2014, 14:33 »
0
Thanks Shelma1, here are the royalty rates:

https://stockafe.com/appendix-a/

I find it sad that "Why bother?" seems to be my most asked question in stock. It's disappointing to constantly be underwhelmed by new offerings.

1- scottdunlap, where u r located ?
2 - i like 2 c some of the members' portfolios but cannot seem to do that.

I'm not affiliated with the site in any way, just came across it and thought I'd share.


stocked

« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2014, 14:38 »
0
it's a good site and a good concept I will apply with non-exclusive stuff that is a little bit edgy and not too typical micro.
If we rule out any new agency or concept nothing will change, the conditions are not ideal but a lot better than most others and I do like the pricing!

yes, precisely with what Jo Ann pointed out, who would pay the higher price when they could get it at SS.
You are assuming that buyers know this industry like you do but they don't. Most buyers where I live now hardly more than three agencies, they know all Getty and maybe one or two micros or a local one. But even they know four or five micros they really don't know that they have all the same images they look very surprised if you tell them.
You can curate a great unique collection from all those micro images and make it visible to buyers.

« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2014, 14:43 »
0

I'm not affiliated with the site in any way, just came across it and thought I'd share.

cheers, scott.
so...
did anyone here find out where they r located? and how do we see the members' portfolios?

« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2014, 15:08 »
+1
They are apparently in the Seattle area (Google search says Edmonds, WA)

https://www.facebook.com/stockafe

I'm guessing their Pinterest board is what sorts of things they hope to sell:

http://www.pinterest.com/stockafe/pins/

They have a design firm working on the look/logo/site?

http://roguecreativestudio.com/project/stockafe/

Their twitter feed doesn't have very many followers but they've announced some people who have joined up

https://twitter.com/stockafe

Of the names they posted as people signing up:

http://www.shutterstock.com/g/AndyDeanPhotography

http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=9844995

Couldn't find Don Niemi

The name on the Pinterest board is Peter McRae and there is someone of that name in Edmonds who is a financial advisor. The account has the Stockafe logo.

http://www.brightscope.com/financial-planning/firm/32770/Mcrae-Capital-Management-LLC/

« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2014, 15:52 »
+3
...If we rule out any new agency or concept nothing will change, the conditions are not ideal but a lot better than most others...

If we agree to every 30% company that comes along, you're right, nothing will change.

This is how we have come to where we are now. 30% seems perfectly reasonable, when it shouldn't. We've already got plenty of sub-50% options. We don't need any more.

Not when there are more and more companies emerging that have proven that we don't need to settle for less than 50% on non-exclusive content.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2014, 15:56 »
0
Not that I'm interested in being a contributor, but I notice no illustrations on their Pinterest board.

« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2015, 21:56 »
+1
I know this is an old post, but I'd like to resurrect it if I may. Full disclosure - I am a contributor to Stockafe and an unpaid "evangelist". I am not one of the principles of the company. But I have the ear of the founders.

To answer some questions, yes we are in the Seattle area. There are a couple of things we're doing that we hope will set us apart from SS and the rest. First, our stated goal is to make a positive difference in the stock industry, not only for contributors and buyers, but for those who are served by stock imagery. Recently there's been a lot of attention on the unspoken messages embedded in the images that the media uses to represent people, especially women and girls, people of color, people with disabilities, and the LGBTQ community. We believe photographers can lead the change and make a difference. Some of the existing image issues we hope to address are the following:

  • Unrealistic body images, both men and women
  • Distorted representation of what women/men do and are
  • Unrealistic and/or under representation of people of color and LGBT youth/adults
  • Images that support misogyny and stereotypes

You can also read the http://inspire.stockafe.com/stockafe/stockafe-manifesto/ [nofollow]

BTW, we are in the process of updating the look and feel of the site. :)

To date, most of our efforts in recruiting contributors and finding buyers have been local. Unfortunately, we seem to be in a chicken and egg scenario. It's hard to find contributors with quality images without having a steady stream of sales. And it's hard to attract buyers without having a robust catalog of quality images.

Question for you - If we offered 60% or 70% plus royalties to contributors on a limited number of files (100-500) for a year or two, would that be enough to get you to "bother"?

« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2015, 22:48 »
+5
I know this is an old post, but I'd like to resurrect it if I may. Full disclosure - I am a contributor to Stockafe and an unpaid "evangelist". I am not one of the principles of the company. But I have the ear of the founders.

To answer some questions, yes we are in the Seattle area. There are a couple of things we're doing that we hope will set us apart from SS and the rest. First, our stated goal is to make a positive difference in the stock industry, not only for contributors and buyers, but for those who are served by stock imagery. Recently there's been a lot of attention on the unspoken messages embedded in the images that the media uses to represent people, especially women and girls, people of color, people with disabilities, and the LGBTQ community. We believe photographers can lead the change and make a difference. Some of the existing image issues we hope to address are the following:

  • Unrealistic body images, both men and women
  • Distorted representation of what women/men do and are
  • Unrealistic and/or under representation of people of color and LGBT youth/adults
  • Images that support misogyny and stereotypes

You can also read the http://inspire.stockafe.com/stockafe/stockafe-manifesto/

BTW, we are in the process of updating the look and feel of the site. :)

To date, most of our efforts in recruiting contributors and finding buyers have been local. Unfortunately, we seem to be in a chicken and egg scenario. It's hard to find contributors with quality images without having a steady stream of sales. And it's hard to attract buyers without having a robust catalog of quality images.

Question for you - If we offered 60% or 70% plus royalties to contributors on a limited number of files (100-500) for a year or two, would that be enough to get you to "bother"?


Not for me. Why not offer 50% all he time for non exclusives? Offering the same as other sites just dilutes our ability to work with a stand out site and cnibalize sales from sites that pay more. So for me it's a non starter.

« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2015, 02:30 »
+5
...Question for you - If we offered 60% or 70% plus royalties to contributors on a limited number of files (100-500) for a year or two, would that be enough to get you to "bother"?

Royalty percentage, by itself, would mean little to me, especially if i's temporary or limited. I can't speak for anyone else, but my reasoning, roughly, goes something like this.

-I'm looking at the long term success of any site I get involved with, so gimmicks aren't a good sign

- We have several large and well established agencies that buyers can use. Any new agency needs to explain how it will draw buyers away from the existing ones or attract new buyers who don't currently use any of the agencies (and that'd require some real explaining)

- To answer the previous question, there would need to be some solid marketing plan and probably some pretty significant amount of cash to get the new agency known to buyers. I want to hear more about how a newcomer will bring in buyers than anything else. I'm glad to hear someone's going to work on the site as it's pretty unwieldy to use as well as not all that visually appealing right now.

It certainly sounds interesting to try and focus on more realistic portrayals of a broad range of people and lifestyles, but is there something stockcafe has done to see if there's really a market for that? I hear a lot about authentic, but there's still a mass of shiny happy people pictures getting bought.

I have contributed to several new(ish) agencies over the last couple of years, in all cases because there seemed to be something other than a "me too" business in the making. These things don't always work out, but it hasn't been the royalty rate that made the difference.

I guess it's also the case that I'd need to know something about who I was dealing with so I had a level of confidence in the trustworthiness of the business. Contributors hand over valuable assets to an agency with no way to independently verify anything that goes on through the site or otherwise. Unknown owners can be as disconcerting as a bad reputation (DepositPhotos comes to mind there, an agency I've never submitted work to)

Hope this helps


« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2015, 04:05 »
+13
robin you turned symbiostock into an agency, which betrays the heart and soul of the symbiostock project, you should be very quiet


« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2015, 15:53 »
0
Thanks everyone for your comments!

« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2015, 19:08 »
+3
Quote
Question for you - If we offered 60% or 70% plus royalties to contributors on a limited number of files (100-500) for a year or two, would that be enough to get you to "bother"?

The idea is naive, ridiculous, exploitative, insulting and in the long term - plain suicidal.
60-70% royalty sound fine, but not if it is limited to a year or two and only so many files. For the agency, it takes a year or two to get a traction and sell anything. For the contributor, it means selling maybe a handful of images in the first couple of years before the royalty rolls down to 30% or less, so there won't be any incentive to keep uploading new images.

You really have to think with a longer horizon than a year or two, and instead of grabbing an easy profit from the contributors come up with some innovative way to lower the operational costs and at the same time maximize the visibility and reach of the agency. Definitely not renting the office space at the most expensive tower in the town.

« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2015, 19:41 »
+1
I think most people would consider 50% reasonable, and we know it can be done because several agencies are doing it, e.g., pond5, Alamy, featurepics.  Some new agencies have paid less and still attracted contributors, but they had sales.  i'm thinking Canva here - they pay 35% but concentrated on generating customers first.  Many contributors will submit a few hundred images to see what will happen, but will stop if there are no sales.  A good explanation of what makes you unique for customers and how you plan to attract them would help.

« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2015, 02:09 »
0
Thanks everyone for your comments!
No worries - and good luck! I think the idea of promoting more realistic portrayals of men and women is a valiant notion.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
6718 Views
Last post April 18, 2013, 14:51
by dirkr
0 Replies
2164 Views
Last post August 12, 2014, 12:11
by Paulfleet
7 Replies
3599 Views
Last post June 25, 2016, 11:25
by qunamax

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors