pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What IF we had a Cooperative distribution channel?  (Read 11391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: August 03, 2012, 14:19 »
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...  :)

Portfolio size doesn't change anything, since there would be no dividends or direct returns. More files=more money and visibility.


« Reply #51 on: August 03, 2012, 14:21 »
0
i believe Cory have asked this before but when will it launch Justin?

your first post announcing it is from May 24th, thats 2 month and 1 week for a beta version ;D

« Reply #52 on: August 03, 2012, 14:25 »
0
I would be much more interested in our own site if buyers were involved from the start.  They must be annoyed with the constant price rises on some sites and I'm sure they will understand that we can't keep supplying good new images if we're getting a commission cut every year.  If we want to cut out the greedy middlemen, don't we need to discuss it with the people that buy our images?  

Don't know why this never occurred to me, but you're absolutely right!  Having buyers involved from the start would be really helpful, both in building a buyer friendly site, and also in getting them involved in marketing it to other buyers...

Alot of us are also buyers and we work and collaborate with other buyers/companies.  I don't think it would take long for word to spread.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 14:33 by gbalex »

« Reply #53 on: August 03, 2012, 14:38 »
0

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?)
[/quote]


The only problem is if there's no dividends or direct revenues to contribributors, you make much money. Except for the sales of your 50 files.

But if others with big portfolios come in, and sells a lot, the coop revenues will raise, and everybody "single file" percentage will raise also. So does yours...
Call it socialism if you want. The more success the coop have, the more money everyone gets.

« Reply #54 on: August 03, 2012, 14:49 »
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.

We will start it right here in this forum, everyone is welcome. More people mean more chance of success.

« Reply #55 on: August 03, 2012, 15:04 »
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.

Sue,
We will send your images buyer traffic, regardless of active participation.  Unless the goal is to hide your images from buyers view, one would consider PicturEngine advertising their images to be a benefit.

« Reply #56 on: August 03, 2012, 15:10 »
0
i believe Cory have asked this before but when will it launch Justin?

your first post announcing it is from May 24th, thats 2 month and 1 week for a beta version ;D


Here is the link answering the question on our FAQs -
When will the site be "live?" http://support.picturengine.com/customer/portal/articles/478852-when-will-the-site-be-%22live-%22

Here is our FAQ Support center - http://support.picturengine.com/

Best,
JB

« Reply #57 on: August 03, 2012, 16:05 »
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?
I think you have totally misunderstood what PicturEngine does.  It wont send buyers to the cheapest site but it is a nice money maker for the owners, if we sign up at $40 a month.  I think it's fatally flawed because I just don't think buyers will want to sign up to all the sites that PicturEngine will search.  So there's a real chance we wont get sales from it and will be down $40 a month.  If there was a universal payment system for all of the sites that PicturEngine indexes, it could be a game changer but without that, how can it work?

Is a buyer really going to find 20 images on 20 sites and sign up to all of them?  Or will they stick with one or two of the big sites that have huge collections?  They might use PicturEngine occasionally but I'm not inclined to pay $480 a year for that.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 17:26 by sharpshot »

« Reply #58 on: August 03, 2012, 16:19 »
0
I think you have totally misunderstood what PicturEngine does.  It wont send buyers to the cheapest site but it is a nice money maker for the owners, if we sign up at $40 a month.  I think it's fatally flawed because I just don't think buyers will want to sign up to all the sites that PicturEngine will search.  So there's a real chance we wont get sales from it and will be down $40 a month.  If there was a universal payment system for all of the sites that PicturEngine indexes, it could be a game changer but without that, how can it work?

Is a buyer really going to find 20 images on 20 sites and sign up to all of them?  Or will they stick with one or two of the big sites that have huge collections?  They might use PicturEngine occasionally but I'm not inclined to pay $440 a year for that.

The numbers seem to work pretty well for me. The minimum package is $10. That means they would only have to refer one sale a month for me to make my money back. That's a pretty low bar. As far as signing up for a bunch of different sites, my site doesn't have any mandatory signup features. So, people just pay for what they want.

Unfortunately, PicturEngine doesn't currently support illustration or Ktools, so that rules me out. Hopefully, they get that fixed because I like the potential of the site.

ShadySue

« Reply #59 on: August 03, 2012, 16:40 »
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.

Sue,
We will send your images buyer traffic, regardless of active participation.  Unless the goal is to hide your images from buyers view, one would consider PicturEngine advertising their images to be a benefit.

We've heard it before. "Exclusivity brings more attention to your portfolio and makes the most out of all that traffic." Just look at how exclusives are hurting. They used to say, after the above sentence, "You WILL see a difference." - they've taken that sentence out now.
Forgive the scepticism. You may succeed where others have failed. WDIK?

« Reply #60 on: August 03, 2012, 17:14 »
0
Hi Sharpshot - you asked a great question. 

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.

After reading this question / statement again, then reading your first reply to this thread, it was pretty clear that you knew the answer all along:

I think it would take a lot of money to make a big impact.  It would be great if we could get the backing of a big internet business, like Google, Amazon, Facebook etc.  If there was a site that was more beneficial for contributors and buyers, it could dominate the market.

People have tried taking on the big sites with little investment but so far they haven't succeeded.  Why don't we just buy Getty?  That seems more likely than us setting up a cooperative that works.

You are correct, it takes money, time, dedication, along with up-to-date technology to draw in and keep buyers, keep photographers happy, and compete in this marketplace.  With the help of several silent investors, I maintain 100% control of the company's vision and direction.  This is very important to me (and should be to you too).  Investors want to make money (period). They will change and control the direction of the company to make the MOST money (period).  The past and current sales of Getty are no different.  You have seen change and you will see more change very soon, as new owners WILL make money for their 4 billion dollar investment.

My current investors and I have covered the upfront costs of research and development, infrastructure and technology.  The very low, monthly subscription fee we have mathematically calculated to charge photographers, is what it takes to manage, maintain and advertise an individual photographers account, and any profit is reinvested into the company.  I have been doing this long enough to know and project these fixed expenses. No one is getting rich here overnight, instead we are banding together with our resources, as front line image producers.  ALL of the money coming in upfront, from Beta users, goes to initially advertising the site.  You said yourself that you know this is a huge and much needed expense.  We are capable and prepared to pay this upfront expense.  However, the more photographers who join the platform before we launch, the more money well be able to allocate to the advertising campaign.

Additionally, I have promised all of the Beta photographers, to alleviate early entry risk, that they will always have the lowest price on the platform (period).

I have stepped up to do my part, now it is time for photographers to stop complaining and DO something about it, fulfilling your part.  I have built what photographers and buyers alike have asked for.  PicturEngine will be a success, I have no doubt.  With support of active working  photographers, like yourselves, it has the potential to be a true and immediate game changer.

All the best and have a great weekend,
JB

« Reply #61 on: August 03, 2012, 17:21 »
0
I think you have totally misunderstood what PicturEngine does.  It wont send buyers to the cheapest site but it is a nice money maker for the owners, if we sign up at $40 a month.  I think it's fatally flawed because I just don't think buyers will want to sign up to all the sites that PicturEngine will search.  So there's a real chance we wont get sales from it and will be down $40 a month.  If there was a universal payment system for all of the sites that PicturEngine indexes, it could be a game changer but without that, how can it work?

Is a buyer really going to find 20 images on 20 sites and sign up to all of them?  Or will they stick with one or two of the big sites that have huge collections?  They might use PicturEngine occasionally but I'm not inclined to pay $440 a year for that.

The numbers seem to work pretty well for me. The minimum package is $10. That means they would only have to refer one sale a month for me to make my money back. That's a pretty low bar. As far as signing up for a bunch of different sites, my site doesn't have any mandatory signup features. So, people just pay for what they want.

Unfortunately, PicturEngine doesn't currently support illustration or Ktools, so that rules me out. Hopefully, they get that fixed because I like the potential of the site.
I didn't know buyers can just buy without signing up, that might make this more interesting.  It's been a few months now since people were asking for Ktools support.  Not exactly ahead of the curve :)  I'll wait and see how PicturEngine works out of beta, would be fun if it does work but I'm not going to take a gamble on this one.  I'm still annoyed at paying a site 10 once that I'm unlikely to see again.

« Reply #62 on: August 03, 2012, 17:39 »
0
Hi Sharpshot - you asked a great question.  

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.

After reading this question / statement again, then reading your first reply to this thread, it was pretty clear that you knew the answer all along:

I think it would take a lot of money to make a big impact.  It would be great if we could get the backing of a big internet business, like Google, Amazon, Facebook etc.  If there was a site that was more beneficial for contributors and buyers, it could dominate the market.

People have tried taking on the big sites with little investment but so far they haven't succeeded.  Why don't we just buy Getty?  That seems more likely than us setting up a cooperative that works.

You are correct, it takes money, time, dedication, along with up-to-date technology to draw in and keep buyers, keep photographers happy, and compete in this marketplace.  With the help of several silent investors, I maintain 100% control of the company's vision and direction.  This is very important to me (and should be to you too).  Investors want to make money (period). They will change and control the direction of the company to make the MOST money (period).  The past and current sales of Getty are no different.  You have seen change and you will see more change very soon, as new owners WILL make money for their 4 billion dollar investment.

My current investors and I have covered the upfront costs of research and development, infrastructure and technology.  The very low, monthly subscription fee we have mathematically calculated to charge photographers, is what it takes to manage, maintain and advertise an individual photographers account, and any profit is reinvested into the company.  I have been doing this long enough to know and project these fixed expenses. No one is getting rich here overnight, instead we are banding together with our resources, as front line image producers.  ALL of the money coming in upfront, from Beta users, goes to initially advertising the site.  You said yourself that you know this is a huge and much needed expense.  We are capable and prepared to pay this upfront expense.  However, the more photographers who join the platform before we launch, the more money well be able to allocate to the advertising campaign.

Additionally, I have promised all of the Beta photographers, to alleviate early entry risk, that they will always have the lowest price on the platform (period).

I have stepped up to do my part, now it is time for photographers to stop complaining and DO something about it, fulfilling your part.  I have built what photographers and buyers alike have asked for.  PicturEngine will be a success, I have no doubt.  With support of active working  photographers, like yourselves, it has the potential to be a true and immediate game changer.

All the best and have a great weekend,
JB
I still think it's a big problem that you're asking those of us without a site to pay you $480 a year without knowing when we're likely to get that back.  You're sure it's going to be a success but I've heard that thousands of times before.  You should be able to get investment without losing control of the business, like thousands of other entrepreneurs with a good idea do.  If you're not willing to waive the fees and have a temporary 50% commission for the first year until this takes off, I'm not sure why I should take the gamble.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2012, 01:31 by sharpshot »

lisafx

« Reply #63 on: August 03, 2012, 18:02 »
0
As Cory and Sharpshot mentioned, Picturengine is a no go for me until/unless they decide to support Ktools.  Otherwise I would certainly be willing to gamble the $120/year to draw traffic to my site. 

Microbius

« Reply #64 on: August 04, 2012, 02:16 »
0
Microbius,
I encourage you to learn more about the PicturEngine platform, dig a little deeper......We DO NOT compare prices.....

Thanks for clearing that up, and apologies, I was getting the wrong idea about how the site works.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2012, 02:18 by Microbius »

« Reply #65 on: August 06, 2012, 08:08 »
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?

No one was turned down based on portfolio size. There is only one thing that has ever mattered - Sales. And there are no "chosen ones." LisaFX, Christian Lagerek, Jo Ann Snover, and Mandy Godbehear aren't chosen ones. Nobody handed them their success in stock. They just had more talent than the rest of us, and worked a helluva lot harder.

Regarding RacePhoto...I don't know who you are, and I have never seen your portfolio. I'd like to, honestly. Feel free to write me offline if you want us to take a look.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 10:35 by djpadavona »

« Reply #66 on: August 06, 2012, 10:37 »
0
Maybe when I start Crapstock...

I will have the largest portfolio on your site   ;D


« Reply #67 on: August 06, 2012, 10:50 »
0
Alot of us are also buyers and we work and collaborate with other buyers/companies.  I don't think it would take long for word to spread.

This is a brilliant thought, and one we have been aware of since before we started WP. The problem is getting people to take action. As I wrote earlier in the thread, there is only one other contributor who is actually helping me with the site. Everyone else is content to upload, and hope.

If we had 10-20 contributors actively hanging out on message forums with graphic designers, letting them know how artists are being treated by stock agencies, and that there are artist run co-ops springing up, I guarantee you there would be a buzz. Especially when you can buy direct from these co-ops for generally cheaper prices, the artist gets 50%+ of the money instead of a huge agency, and nobody is forcing a credits package down your throat. Just buy what you need and come back when you need more.

The idea that everyone's portfolios/sites have to be interlinked doesn't mesh with real world shopping. For instance I visit 2 or 3 farmer's markets per week. We get meat and poultry from one. Another has a better variety of greens, and yet another has the best sweet corn and peaches. I COULD get everything from a large chain grocery store, but I prefer the farmers get paid directly, and I appreciate their quality enough to make a few stops per week. It really doesn't cramp my style.

But just try to get people excited enough to become part of a "street team." They might start threads like this, and wish for better days, but we are all just standing still and talking about some future journey which isn't going to happen.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 10:53 by djpadavona »

« Reply #68 on: August 06, 2012, 11:21 »
0
Just to clarify, you're not really running a coop, right?  It's basically your ktools site that you allow others to contribute to.

« Reply #69 on: August 06, 2012, 13:09 »
0
Well it depends on the definition you choose for coop. Are there 40+ owners? No, but that is by choice. I offered anyone who wanted to have a role running the site (SEO, blogging, graphic design, management, etc) a commission of 90%, which after credit card transaction costs would essentially be 100% of all their sales. At one point I also talked with the members about co-ownership, and profit sharing.One person took me up on the offer to help me with management/promotion.

So yes, I pay all the bills and run a few ads out of pocket too. But no major decision gets made without the rest of the members approving. For instance, we changed price tiers and licensing terms several times and always talked about it in the members forum. We implemented a pseudo subscription plan too, and that was also talked about. Technically it is my site, but I do everything with "coop" in mind. I'm still waiting to see a true coop, and ours could become one if people showed the interest.

« Reply #70 on: August 09, 2012, 05:07 »
0
Im not ever going to pay for my photos to be marketed.

People should be happy to represent them.

Lagereek

« Reply #71 on: August 09, 2012, 06:08 »
0
Alot of us are also buyers and we work and collaborate with other buyers/companies.  I don't think it would take long for word to spread.

This is a brilliant thought, and one we have been aware of since before we started WP. The problem is getting people to take action. As I wrote earlier in the thread, there is only one other contributor who is actually helping me with the site. Everyone else is content to upload, and hope.

If we had 10-20 contributors actively hanging out on message forums with graphic designers, letting them know how artists are being treated by stock agencies, and that there are artist run co-ops springing up, I guarantee you there would be a buzz. Especially when you can buy direct from these co-ops for generally cheaper prices, the artist gets 50%+ of the money instead of a huge agency, and nobody is forcing a credits package down your throat. Just buy what you need and come back when you need more.

The idea that everyone's portfolios/sites have to be interlinked doesn't mesh with real world shopping. For instance I visit 2 or 3 farmer's markets per week. We get meat and poultry from one. Another has a better variety of greens, and yet another has the best sweet corn and peaches. I COULD get everything from a large chain grocery store, but I prefer the farmers get paid directly, and I appreciate their quality enough to make a few stops per week. It really doesn't cramp my style.

But just try to get people excited enough to become part of a "street team." They might start threads like this, and wish for better days, but we are all just standing still and talking about some future journey which isn't going to happen.

I agree 100% with you and its about time we all chip in here! instead of just sitting by, waiting for the golden goose. How many photographers have you got on your books Dan, apart from me and Lisa that is. If there is one thing that cost an arm and a leg, its exposure! advertising, many ppl, dont understand that.
I strongly suggest, all members at WP, start chipping in something here, if we all do it, it wont come to a fortune at all.

We can not expect ONE, person to stand for it all, thats unfair indeed. We all need to help out here, I mean its our own backs were looking after, isnt it?

Lets come into a discussion here folks and act upon that.

« Reply #72 on: August 09, 2012, 13:28 »
0
Alot of us are also buyers and we work and collaborate with other buyers/companies.  I don't think it would take long for word to spread.

This is a brilliant thought, and one we have been aware of since before we started WP. The problem is getting people to take action. As I wrote earlier in the thread, there is only one other contributor who is actually helping me with the site. Everyone else is content to upload, and hope.

If we had 10-20 contributors actively hanging out on message forums with graphic designers, letting them know how artists are being treated by stock agencies, and that there are artist run co-ops springing up, I guarantee you there would be a buzz. Especially when you can buy direct from these co-ops for generally cheaper prices, the artist gets 50%+ of the money instead of a huge agency, and nobody is forcing a credits package down your throat. Just buy what you need and come back when you need more.

The idea that everyone's portfolios/sites have to be interlinked doesn't mesh with real world shopping. For instance I visit 2 or 3 farmer's markets per week. We get meat and poultry from one. Another has a better variety of greens, and yet another has the best sweet corn and peaches. I COULD get everything from a large chain grocery store, but I prefer the farmers get paid directly, and I appreciate their quality enough to make a few stops per week. It really doesn't cramp my style.

But just try to get people excited enough to become part of a "street team." They might start threads like this, and wish for better days, but we are all just standing still and talking about some future journey which isn't going to happen.

djpadavona, I like your analogy using a farmers market!

Sticking with your analogy, imagine a very clean, uncluttered and organized market, containing everything you want and need, leaving you no reason to go anywhere else because this marketplace contains literally ALL of the grocery stores, farmers markets and coops combined.  All of the major brand name items are located right alongside unique, eclectic direct-from-the-farm items.  On every organized aisle you find all of the major label and unique goods in plain view and available to quickly add to a basket (lightbox).

As you browse the selections, you continue to find a breadth of new tasty items youve never seen before, adding those items to your basket (lightbox) as desired.  Removing ones you dont want anymore is easy and risk-free, as is sharing the contents of your basket (lightbox) with your family and friends(colleagues) to ask their opinion about what to bring home.  This real-time collaboration assists you in making the best decision, every time.  This marketplace saves time and resources, while ensuring you make the best purchasing decisions for YOU.

When ready to checkout, you have a nice, organized basket (lightbox) to reference all of your selections.  You feel good about your purchases, knowing that you are buying farm fresh items directly from the farmer where they receive 100% of each sale (for a small, flat monthly fee to be included in the marketplace), and when you cant buy directly from the farmer you still feel good knowing that you are using the next best thing, the farmers direct distributor and not a series of middle men adding fees (transportation, packing, labeling, advertising costs) along the way.

As a buyer, you feel confident in your buying decision because you have seen nearly everything available and worth seeing, and you are not worried about trekking all over town to ALL of the stores or markets because you are confident youve already found the best item.  As a seller its a no brainer to want to be included in the worldwide marketplace where the buyers go to shop first!

The PicturEngine platform was built with direct photographer and image buyer input, always putting photographers (the fuel of the industry) FIRST!  During the Beta, invested photographers are providing feedback, shaping the future of our industry.  The time to bring suggestions to the table, weigh-in and make a difference, is NOW!!  Stay ahead of the curve!

Best,
JB


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4549 Views
Last post August 03, 2008, 22:28
by dnavarrojr
5 Replies
2442 Views
Last post June 12, 2009, 20:15
by null
12 Replies
2464 Views
Last post January 27, 2013, 20:04
by klsbear
8 Replies
4417 Views
Last post November 14, 2017, 08:34
by increasingdifficulty
3 Replies
780 Views
Last post September 13, 2018, 02:57
by ravens

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors