pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What IF we had a Cooperative distribution channel?  (Read 10984 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2012, 16:16 »
0
Justin, several of us asked lots of questions about picturengine in a previous thread.  This is what I thought then and I think you still need to make changes to get us interested.
....PicturEngine is very affordable when you look at the numbers.  

Perhaps when you're established but not for a new site.  If I pay $40 a month, you need to sell at least $80 a month or you aren't beating the commission percentage I get with sites like alamy, Stockfresh and Graphic Leftovers.  I haven't seen a new site that hasn't spent a lot of money on marketing generate anywhere near $40 a month from my portfolio.  Most of them take years generating sales and they are unlikely to ever reach $40 a month.

If you really think this is going to take off, why are contributors having to fund the start up of the site?  Waive the fees until there are enough sales to pay for them.  Have a temporary 50% commission for the first year.  You'll get lots more interest from contributors who will recommend the site to buyers.

Here's the old thread http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/check-out-picturengine/
« Last Edit: August 01, 2012, 16:26 by sharpshot »


« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2012, 16:22 »
0
IF you start one, I'm in.
But Exclusivity is not possible. At least in the beginning.
And no dividend or direct return, I would just raised the contributors % the year after.
Prerequisite to be owner: have at least 50 files on site.
Nobody shoud be able to have more than one share of the business.

« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2012, 16:33 »
0
If you want a coop, then create one. Build it or at least investigate the costs to build it.

No, no, it's more fun to talk about it and especially fun if you're the OP who thinks theyve come up with a brand new thing we haven't discussed repeatedly, but no one does anything about

Yes let's beat the dead horse until it's totally vaporised. And once more, no one wants the ball. I expect another thread will come about mid September ;-)

cascoly

  • Photography, travel & online games at cascoly.com

« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2012, 16:41 »
0
I started a stock agency also, and building links are not nearly as important as having a real costumers base.

I would say that my original question have been quantified.

Exclusivety is necessary for the same reasons as with farm products: Else you compete with the agency that fights for prices for you.
Im not sure if it matters if we are spread all over the globe, the agancies have used that against us, but it might as well be an advantage, communications work fine nowadays.


I have 200 photographers on my list on facebook, how many do you have?
I have 2000 pictures in play.

Now how many pictures do we represent here, and how many photographers can we reach in just one click? Maybe more than we think.


1 case you claim but wont back up with details is hardly 'quantified' - it's just another anecdote

what is your site, facebook name or portfolio link? you provide nothing, so why should anyone take you seriously?

finally, have you given 10 seconds thought to what you're asking?  anyone you might attract to this new site is already an active photographer and you're asking them to go exlcusive for an unknown site that at best would not shiow many returns for months if not years?

finally buyers arent going to care that some new site has a group of exclusive photographers theyve never heard of - few buyers search by photographer [with a tiny exception for a few well known ones], so what pulls buyers to a site is a solution to their design problems/needs. a small collection of exclusive images cannot compete with the millions available elsewhere, and as the experience of warmpicture has shown, it's a tough struggle to even get noticed, much less sell in significant volume.

« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2012, 16:48 »
0
I have 200 photographers on my list on facebook, how many do you have?
I have 2000 pictures in play.

I have a "photographers" list on Facebook with over 2300 friends in it.  I have at least 2 groups with over 2000 members each.  And I have 4500 stock images "in play." 

And I'm telling you ahead of time - it can't be done without a USP.

« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2012, 17:24 »
0
"More later, my day is pretty full."

Thanks for taking the time to inject your ad into the discussion.

« Reply #31 on: August 01, 2012, 17:54 »
0
Don't let people discourage your project. People used to tell Elvis Presley he could not sing well enough...
Most of people aren't always good at long term forecast.  I am.. money usually goes to shareholders.... not to contributors !
So let's be shareholders also..

RacePhoto

« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2012, 17:56 »
0
IF you start one, I'm in.
But Exclusivity is not possible. At least in the beginning.
And no dividend or direct return, I would just raised the contributors % the year after.
Prerequisite to be owner: have at least 50 files on site.
Nobody shoud be able to have more than one share of the business.

Huh?

So Lisa has 5000 files earning for the site, SJLocke has 5000 images, and I have 50, and we're equal partners. Did I miss something? Doesn't seem right at all.

Some of us tried to join Warmpics and were turned down without a view, because we didn't have big portfolios. So will the co op be the same? Only the chosen ones get in?

As for exclusive images, why? Someone please explain that to me? Exclusive as in, rejected by big agencies? Or the ones that were never uploaded? Instead of our best images, which happen to be on all the agencies already?
« Last Edit: August 01, 2012, 18:04 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2012, 18:02 »
0
Here we go again....

lisafx

« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2012, 18:05 »
0
IF you start one, I'm in.
But Exclusivity is not possible. At least in the beginning.
And no dividend or direct return, I would just raised the contributors % the year after.
Prerequisite to be owner: have at least 50 files on site.
Nobody shoud be able to have more than one share of the business.

Huh?

So Lisa has 5000 files earning for the site, SJLocke has 5000 images, and I have 50, and we're equal partners. Did I miss something? Doesn't seem right at all.


Thanks Pete.  Sounds like a strange plan to me.  I think I'll sit this one out...  :)

« Reply #35 on: August 01, 2012, 18:46 »
0
Some of us tried to join Warmpics and were turned down without a view, because we didn't have big portfolios. So will the co op be the same? Only the chosen ones get in?

I would assume it depends on who starts it and who they want to partner with. If I started something like that, I probably wouldn't accept photos because I don't know anything about them. I probably would also start out small (maybe 5 artists), so I'd probably need them to have larger portfolios to build a decent size catalog. Then, I would grow my contributor base as my customer base grew larger.

« Reply #36 on: August 02, 2012, 01:57 »
0
Here we go again....
Do you have any plans if the new Getty/istock owners are going to squeeze more money out of contributors?  What's the lowest commission you would accept as an exclusive?  I know these threads can get tiresome but perhaps one day someone will start a new site that genuinely offers a better deal for contributors and buyers.  Or should we just forget that idea and carry on the equally boring threads about the latest commission cuts?


RacePhoto

« Reply #38 on: August 02, 2012, 12:49 »
0
Some of us tried to join Warmpics and were turned down without a view, because we didn't have big portfolios. So will the co op be the same? Only the chosen ones get in?

I would assume it depends on who starts it and who they want to partner with. If I started something like that, I probably wouldn't accept photos because I don't know anything about them. I probably would also start out small (maybe 5 artists), so I'd probably need them to have larger portfolios to build a decent size catalog. Then, I would grow my contributor base as my customer base grew larger.

Oh of course. No need for complicated reviewers, you have proven best sellers. It was not a slam, just a point that all this "feel good", small agency, small and photographer friendly stuff, comes down to hard facts, management and economics at some point. People were included based on skimming the cream off the top. I'd probably do the same thing.  ;D I hope it works for all of them.

Maybe when I start Crapstock (the imaginary never to be agency and site) besides only hosting EXCLUSIVE rejected images, I'll have to make a guideline that anyone with over 500 in their portfolio is not eligible. I mean what's the use of promoting the starving, rejected and abandoned, if it involves successful sellers and acceptance?  ;) If you are in Microstock Hell, you are welcome at Crapstock.

Please I want the co-op to have that 50 for me / 5000 for you deal. I'll put up 50 images, get a full share and sit on my lazy @$$ and collect from someone else's work. I think it's called Socialism. (oh now I stepped in something, didn't I?)

« Reply #39 on: August 02, 2012, 23:30 »
0
First.. Im not going to start any COOP.
I dont have a project.
Im more interested in the debate and scouting the possibilities, and to identify problems.
Planting seeds so to speak.

Mainly because Im tired of being exploited.

Secondly. Maybe we are not as alone as we think, the net might be used against us and fragment us, so every single photographer on the globe sits there and works alone on his keyboard. But the net might also be a unifying factor. Like now. We can communicate. And we could also agree on things and sign papers.

Third. How many of the available stock photos could we actually reach. it might be more than we think.

We might not be as alone as we think.

« Reply #40 on: August 03, 2012, 08:44 »
0
"First.. Im not going to start any COOP.
I dont have a project"

Of course not.  But thanks for this quarter's thread on the topic.  Be sure to put October 1st on your calendar for the next...

ShadySue

« Reply #41 on: August 03, 2012, 09:31 »
0
J ~
Yu. know who is still keeping his eggs spread among all the old, exploitative baskets despite his supadupa new shiny website.
What does that tell us?
 :(
Yesterday he posted on his iStock blog: "...So let's create images to our hearts content and care not for the cost, not for the hard work, but only for the images. That is who we are!"
Still the Master of self-promotion.  :)
« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 09:35 by ShadySue »


« Reply #42 on: August 03, 2012, 09:48 »
0
J ~
Yu. know who is still keeping his eggs spread among all the old, exploitative baskets despite his supadupa new shiny website.
What does that tell us?
 :(
Yesterday he posted on his iStock blog: "...So let's create images to our hearts content and care not for the cost, not for the hard work, but only for the images. That is who we are!"
Still the Master of self-promotion.  :)

Eggs is a very good analogy - stock producers (with a possible few exceptions) are just like battery hens producing vast quantities of product for very little gain and no individual importance


Microbius

« Reply #44 on: August 03, 2012, 11:15 »
0
.......For years, I have listened to photographers complain about.... continued lower prices, and even lower commissions.....
I must have totally misunderstood what PicturEngine does then, I thought it allowed buyers to easily find the cheapest possible price for a photo actively driving prices lower for photographers. Is that not correct? Are you not actually driving prices lower in a more active way than anyone else?

ShadySue

« Reply #45 on: August 03, 2012, 11:22 »
0
All of you will benefit from what I have built,
Not those whose pics were first uploaded to agencies with a lower price/commission.

« Reply #46 on: August 03, 2012, 13:03 »
0
.......For years, I have listened to photographers complain about.... continued lower prices, and even lower commissions.....

I must have totally misunderstood what PicturEngine does then, I thought it allowed buyers to easily find the cheapest possible price for a photo actively driving prices lower for photographers. Is that not correct? Are you not actually driving prices lower in a more active way than anyone else?


Microbius,
I encourage you to learn more about the PicturEngine platform, dig a little deeper.

As stated in my earlier post on this thread:
Buyers also demand good prices.  There is only one way to get the best price on ANY good or service, and that is to cut out or drastically reduce the distance from the producer to the buyer.  We DO NOT compare prices, instead we send the buyer to the base agency (where the image was uploaded first) or directly to the photographer (if they are on the PicturEngine platform) to get the best possible price.


How does sending the buyer directly to you (allowing you to keep 100% of the sale) lower prices?  You can choose to lower your price and still make more, or you can price the same as your agency and make 100% of your sale, entirely your choice.  Buyers are happy knowing they are buying directly from the source, which usually means they are getting the best price and photographers are happy keeping 100% of the sale. 

Check out our FAQs:  http://support.picturengine.com/
Does PicturEngine compare prices?    http://j.mp/J31IHD                   
Am I competing with my agencies?    http://j.mp/IMFXQh

Hope that is helpful,
JB

Here is a GREAT article I found recently for this group to read.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/28/stranded-vessels/

« Reply #47 on: August 03, 2012, 13:10 »
0
All of you will benefit from what I have built,
Not those whose pics were first uploaded to agencies with a lower price/commission.

Hi Sue,
We use a base agency calculation, to avoid sending buyers to affiliates of your base agency.  If we were to send a buyer to an affiliate of your base agency, this would effectively increase the number of transactions taking place, thus reducing your small commission further.

You are correct, if you uploaded to the lowest price or lowest commission agency FIRST, given your example, we will send that agency all of your traffic. 

Your options include joining our platform and not sending buyers to any of your agencies, thus keeping 100% of each image sale, or being content that we are helping you make more sales via your agency(ies). 

Best,
JB

Lagereek

« Reply #48 on: August 03, 2012, 13:11 »
0
Sigh!............................................and now for something completely differant!

ShadySue

« Reply #49 on: August 03, 2012, 14:06 »
0
All of you will benefit from what I have built,
Not those whose pics were first uploaded to agencies with a lower price/commission.
Hi Sue,
We use a base agency calculation, to avoid sending buyers to affiliates of your base agency.  If we were to send a buyer to an affiliate of your base agency, this would effectively increase the number of transactions taking place, thus reducing your small commission further.
You are correct, if you uploaded to the lowest price or lowest commission agency FIRST, given your example, we will send that agency all of your traffic. 
Doesn't affect me one way or the other, but when someone makes a categorical statement/promise, "All of you will benefit from what I have built" and that's clearly proven to be a lie (but we can sign up for your system and then we'll benefit if we do), it makes me wonder what promise will be broken next.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4419 Views
Last post August 03, 2008, 22:28
by dnavarrojr
2 Replies
1719 Views
Last post May 24, 2009, 11:04
by nishank.sethi
5 Replies
2389 Views
Last post June 12, 2009, 20:15
by null
12 Replies
2385 Views
Last post January 27, 2013, 20:04
by klsbear
8 Replies
4153 Views
Last post November 14, 2017, 08:34
by increasingdifficulty

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors