MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: gostwyck on May 04, 2009, 12:03

Title: Contributors' Collective
Post by: gostwyck on May 04, 2009, 12:03
I'm becoming increasingly concerned regarding the way things have been going over the last few months at several microstock agencies. It seems that our value and our ability to control how are images are licensed, as individual contributors, is being slowly erroded.

We seem to be sliding inevitably into a situation in which almost all the power will be controlled by one or two huge players __ just as things have been for years within the traditional stock industry.

I know at one time we have speculated about the concept of contributors owning and running their own agency but back then it was only about us keeping a fairer share of the revenue our images generated. Now I'm starting to wonder if we need our own agency as an insurance policy against our work being packaged up and flogged off absurdly cheaply which increasingly seems to be the trend. I can't ever imagine that a 'union' would ever have enough teeth to be effective so that route is probably a non-starter.

Anyone else got any thoughts on this?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: stacey_newman on May 04, 2009, 12:17
twice in one day I'm agreeing with you, wow ;-)

I think something like this is a great idea. but only if done well. really really really well. and there would have to be a legal agreement amongst members that selling the business after it gets going is never in the plans.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: sharpshot on May 04, 2009, 12:21
I have thought all along that we should start our own site.  I don't mind paying a middle man when they provide a good service but I don't like taking 20% commission or 25 cents a sale.  The sites will want to make bigger profits in the future and one way to do that will be to take more from us.  That wouldn't be as easy if we had our own site and could deal directly with the buyers.

If there were enough of us interested and we could bring in some buyers, it might not cost too much to set up.  New sites don't work but if the contributors ran it with the buyers, I think it would succeed.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: stockastic on May 04, 2009, 12:22
I disagree that our value is being slowly eroded -I think it's happening quickly.

I've only been doing this a few months and I have a small portfolio.  My acceptance rate has been good, and my earnings have been dismal.  As a relative newcomer, all I see happening in microstock is a "race to the bottom" with agencies selling the same images to the same people and competing on nothing but price.  Keywording abuse has made searching tedious and frustrating.  The archives are flooded with boring, similar shots.  As buyers get turned off, prices will be lowered further.  

All we will see from these companies is a continuation these trends.  And all we can do is wait for a shakeout and a collapse.  Those millions of images already archived will not go away and will continue to be dumped on the market for years,  but maybe in time we can find new ways to market new images.

Creativity is the only answer. We need to come up with new image concepts and then not hand them over to the old agencies to sell for 10 cents.  Oops, it just went to 5...






Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: stacey_newman on May 04, 2009, 12:24
without decreasing cost per image, how would we compete with the existing big wigs?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: gostwyck on May 04, 2009, 12:27
without decreasing cost per image, how would we compete with the existing big wigs?

Err ... the big wigs don't own the content (at least the good stuff). We do.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: stacey_newman on May 04, 2009, 12:28
I don't think it could be pulled off, good idea in theory. I don't see the same doomsday numbers and I don't even know that I would want to be part of running a company like that. traditional stock photographers said the same thing about microstock.

I just plan on evolving well.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: sharpshot on May 04, 2009, 12:31
without decreasing cost per image, how would we compete with the existing big wigs?

We could sell for lower prices and still make more, as we wouldn't need to make profits for investors.  I think the best way to compete would be to upload lots of exclusive content and perhaps have a month of only uploading to our own site, to get the buyers interested. 

It would only work if all the big contributors were behind it.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 04, 2009, 12:33
I disagree that our value is being slowly eroded -I think it's happening quickly.

I've only been doing this a few months and I have a small portfolio.  My acceptance rate has been good, and my earnings have been dismal.  As a relative newcomer, all I see happening in microstock is a "race to the bottom" with agencies selling the same images to the same people and competing on nothing but price.  Keywording abuse has made searching tedious and frustrating.  The archives are flooded with boring, similar shots.  As buyers get turned off, prices will be lowered further.

You only perceive "quickly" because you've been in a few months.  We've already risen from the bottom.  iStockphoto used to be free, after all.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Xalanx on May 04, 2009, 12:38
It would only work if all the big contributors were behind it.

I agree with this. However, the idea is great but it will take more than just a bunch of photographers to start this. And who's gonna take care of marketing stuff? A lot of hard questions are behind this initiative.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: gostwyck on May 04, 2009, 12:40
You only perceive "quickly" because you've been in a few months.  We've already risen from the bottom.  iStockphoto used to be free, after all.

Exactly. Yet already IS have sales of something like $150M pa of which only about $50M will be paid out to contributors. Potentially there is a huge amount of business out there.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 12:43
If you're considering each of us owning our own site, then linking our whole community to each other, it could well work. Using the porn sites as a model. I know this may sound like dirty ole woman or man pervesion talk, but it isn't. According to a survey on the biggest business on www, porn stood the test of time best.
We, as photographers , could do with someone who knows how they worked at the beginning of www. We certainly do have the resources, as many of us are from different business fields, and to really make it work , it has to be someone very knowledgeable in IT, which I think we do have too, ie. Flemish, who else, I think Magnum,etc...
Well, keep talking. We are all fighting for the same cause. As much as it seems like we've been crapping on each other, we still come together as one force in the event of a threat. Much like War of the Worlds, sworn enemies become one to combat the extra terrestrial invaders. Only in our case, it's not extra terrestrial, it's macro invaders  8)

Keep talking people, I am all ears. Bat ones , lol.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: aremafoto on May 04, 2009, 12:58
If you're considering each of us owning our own site, then linking our whole community to each other, it could well work.

I think that is a great idea!!!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 04, 2009, 12:59
I think something needs to be done also. Most business flock to micro sites and really I am on two Macro site also and and sell very little. When I do it's a good pay off and you know when the photo is going, but in the long run the micro pays better. That was the only reason I broke down and went to micro. You'd really have to research the micro sites to get the true cost to the buyers in order to compete...as far as running it, that would be tough. It would require alot of time for someone. You would almost have to subscribe to be a contributor (not buyer but contributor) in order to finance the site and unless you can make enough off of the micro alot of photographers may not even be interested....I'm all ears also and I'd love to see some solution. Just don't know what ???
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: WarrenPrice on May 04, 2009, 13:02
I think we keep shooting ourselves in the foot.  Everytime a new site comes on line ... we attack it.  I saw CutCaster as just the right vehicle to fight against the monopoly.  It could only work, however, if everyone went exclusive there and quit uploading to Getty and Corbis.  

The approach we are talking about in this thread is like re-inventing the wheel.  If you want to fight the monopoly ... don't use them.  Unite behind an independant.

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: GeoPappas on May 04, 2009, 13:04
While this sounds like a great idea, it has been discussed a few times over the last few years and nothing has ever come of it.  I had actually started down the path of creating a new site that would be fair to contributors, but after a few months I realized how much effort it truly was (and there is no guarantee of success).  I'm glad that I didn't go through with it because since then there have been dozens of sites that have come out of the woodwork and none of them have ever come close to competing with the big 5 (or 6 or 7).  I hate to be a naysayer, but I don't think that anything ever will come of this idea for a few reasons:

- First, to create a new site, someone has to create the infrastructure (both hardware and software).  There is an initial cost (both monetary and time) to setup a new site, especially one that needs to be able to handle the large workloads that stock sites can receive.  You would need high bandwidth, large hard disk capacities (on the order of multiple terabytes), redundancy (for 24x7 operability), a programming staff (to create the site and maintain it), a support staff, etc, etc.  If someone is going to put in their own time and money to start a new site, then they are going to want to get a larger slice in return.  Also, if they are going to do this, then why set up a new site for others to make a profit?  Why not just keep all of the profit for themselves?

- Second, sites already exist that offer a higher return, among them FeaturePics.  Contributors could band together and put up exclusive content on FP and support that site (or any other site that offers
better royalties), but most contributors don't support FP because of the low income that they receive.

- Third, why would contributors contribute exclusive content?  If the content was worthy of sales, most contributors would want it to be placed on the top sites, not a startup that has very little traffic and little sales.

There are other reasons as well, but these alone would probably kill any real effort.

IMHO, I believe that setting up some sort of association/union would be more likely, but it would need to be done correctly.

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 04, 2009, 13:08
I think we keep shooting ourselves in the foot.  Everytime a new site comes on line ... we attack it.  I saw CutCaster as just the right vehicle to fight against the monopoly.  It could only work, however, if everyone went exclusive there and quit uploading to Getty and Corbis.  

The approach we are talking about in this thread is like re-inventing the wheel.  If you want to fight the monopoly ... don't use them.  Unite behind an independant.

Then the independent gets successful, is bought out and you get screwed, or they screw you.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 04, 2009, 13:08
How about!, and this idea is off the top of my head, so don't kill me over it!
If we contacted one of the low earning sites and make some kind of legal agreement with them (if they go for it of course), where it would be profitable for us as well as the site, and all of us start uploading all our new photos and take away the good stuff that we've been uploading to the big guys for pennies,  that way, they could take care of the marketing and day to day performance of the site and we would supply the product...I think buyers may tend to buy from that site instead of one of the large ones, since they will be bombarded with great quality photos that other sites will not have...what do you guys think?

Edited: GeoPappas, I upload to FP and lately I've being getting some good sales there, not in quantity but in commisssion, they could be a perfect candidate to contact.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 13:18
If you're considering each of us owning our own site, then linking our whole community to each other, it could well work.

I think that is a great idea!!!

actually it was one of my ex students who told me about it. at the u, he did a thesis on the porn industry and how individual girls (most ex showgirls, ladies of the nights,etc..) would be running their business. all without the help of their pimps or agents. when he mentioned this to the class, they all laughed at him.
by the time he finished his presentation, no one was laughing.

Believe me, none of these girls who started out in the advent of www was making 25 cents per download. and today some of them are truly enterprises with their own fashion shop, merchandising stores,etc...
It isn't a dirty thing, it's real effective marketing and a true community in the sense of the business world. A model to emulate? I should think so.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: gostwyck on May 04, 2009, 13:19
How about!, and this idea is off the top of my head, so don't kill me over it!
If we contacted one of the low earning sites and make some kind of legal agreement with them (if they go for it of course), where it would be profitable for us as well as the site, and all of us start uploading all our new photos and take away the good stuff that we've been uploading to the big guys for pennies,  that way, they could take care of the marketing and day to day performance of the site and we would supply the product...I think buyers may tend to buy from that site instead of one of the large ones, since they will be bombarded with great quality photos that other sites will not have...what do you guys think?

Edited: GeoPappas, I upload to FP and lately I've being getting some good sales there, not in quantity but in commisssion, they could be a perfect candidate to contact.

I did think myself that buying out an existing agency might be the way to start. Unfortunately all of the established ones would be way too expensive so it would have to be a failing one. I'm sure most of them fail due to lack of capital for marketing, etc.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 13:22

Then the independent gets successful, is bought out and you get screwed, or they screw you.

ah yes sjlocke, but for now, looking at your perogative, which is the lesser of the two evils? we know for a fact , Gxxxx has f'ked you up, but we don't know for a fact if say, JG of Cut will do the same.  One is real, the other is hypothetical.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: WarrenPrice on May 04, 2009, 13:23
We need to know HOW a buyer decides which site to use.  I have a friend who is a small time buyer.  When I asked him why he chose iStock, he didn't have a good answer.  It was more like, "Which others are there?"

He had never heard of DT, or FT, of BS, or ShutterStock.  

Are there any buyers paying attention to this thread?  Is there any good answer to the question?

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 13:27

Are there any buyers paying attention to this thread?  Is there any good answer to the question?



Yes, let's look at it this way buyers! If ,like magnum said, I repeat, if I am going to end up getting 03 cents for my work, I would rather leave those images on my hard disk than take your bloody 6 cents and shove it up your know where. 8)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: gostwyck on May 04, 2009, 13:30

actually it was one of my ex students who told me about it. at the u, he did a thesis on the porn industry and how individual girls (most ex showgirls, ladies of the nights,etc..) would be running their business. all without the help of their pimps or agents. when he mentioned this to the class, they all laughed at him.
by the time he finished his presentation, no one was laughing.

Believe me, none of these girls who started out in the advent of www was making 25 cents per download. and today some of them are truly enterprises with their own fashion shop, merchandising stores,etc...
It isn't a dirty thing, it's real effective marketing and a true community in the sense of the business world. A model to emulate? I should think so.

You may have hit upon a possible solution there. I was thinking down the line of Wikipedia being self administrating and staffed by volunteers, etc. If every contributor effectively had their own site, set their own prices and was self-editing ...
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: ThomasAmby on May 04, 2009, 13:31
How about!, and this idea is off the top of my head, so don't kill me over it!
If we contacted one of the low earning sites and make some kind of legal agreement with them (if they go for it of course), where it would be profitable for us as well as the site, and all of us start uploading all our new photos and take away the good stuff that we've been uploading to the big guys for pennies,  that way, they could take care of the marketing and day to day performance of the site and we would supply the product...I think buyers may tend to buy from that site instead of one of the large ones, since they will be bombarded with great quality photos that other sites will not have...what do you guys think?

Edited: GeoPappas, I upload to FP and lately I've being getting some good sales there, not in quantity but in commisssion, they could be a perfect candidate to contact.

Great idea!

A 50% commission would be fair, in my opinion
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 04, 2009, 13:31
While this sounds like a great idea, it has been discussed a few times over the last few years and nothing has ever come of it.  I had actually started down the path of creating a new site that would be fair to contributors, but after a few months I realized how much effort it truly was (and there is no guarantee of success).  I'm glad that I didn't go through with it because since then there have been dozens of sites that have come out of the woodwork and none of them have ever come close to competing with the big 5 (or 6 or 7).  I hate to be a naysayer, but I don't think that anything ever will come of this idea for a few reasons:

- First, to create a new site, someone has to create the infrastructure (both hardware and software).  There is an initial cost (both monetary and time) to setup a new site, especially one that needs to be able to handle the large workloads that stock sites can receive.  You would need high bandwidth, large hard disk capacities (on the order of multiple terabytes), redundancy (for 24x7 operability), a programming staff (to create the site and maintain it), a support staff, etc, etc.  If someone is going to put in their own time and money to start a new site, then they are going to want to get a larger slice in return.  Also, if they are going to do this, then why set up a new site for others to make a profit?  Why not just keep all of the profit for themselves?

- Second, sites already exist that offer a higher return, among them FeaturePics.  Contributors could band together and put up exclusive content on FP and support that site (or any other site that offers
better royalties), but most contributors don't support FP because of the low income that they receive.

- Third, why would contributors contribute exclusive content?  If the content was worthy of sales, most contributors would want it to be placed on the top sites, not a startup that has very little traffic and little sales.

There are other reasons as well, but these alone would probably kill any real effort.

IMHO, I believe that setting up some sort of association/union would be more likely, but it would need to be done correctly.



A union would be a good idea but the problem with that is how would you get the thousands and thousands of microstock contributors to join. You proubably couldn't post on the forums because they'd delete the post then kick you out. We here are just a tiny fish in a sea of large contributor fish.

Just think if the price got to one cent per download you'd have to make 100 sales just to make 1.00. And with the big microstock's that require a $100.00 worth of sales before payout would be loving it while collecting interest off their contributors!!!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 13:35
no believe me, i wouldn't touch a union with a ten foot pole. even in the 70's mick jagger told the musicians union to stick it. union is no better than the big players. the administrators get paid while you go on strike. it's in their interest you go on strike, then your employers lay the burden of your pay increase to the customer.
union? forget it!

 a co-op , run by the people, owned by the people, and given back to the people. no union.
one mention of the union, and you can kiss my ass good bye.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: sharpshot on May 04, 2009, 13:36
Having our own sites and linking them together would be great.  We would all pay for our own hosting etc. and could put a small percentage of sales in to marketing.  I still think it need a lot of the top 100 contributors to make it work though and I haven't  seen much interest from them.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 04, 2009, 13:38

Great idea!

A 50% commission would be fair, in my opinion

Isn't that the way some of the "not so successful" micro stock sites are now?  ??? You'd have to have some way to pull buyers to the site as well as really research what buyers are wanting these days to pull them there to make it work.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: ThomasAmby on May 04, 2009, 13:39

actually it was one of my ex students who told me about it. at the u, he did a thesis on the porn industry and how individual girls (most ex showgirls, ladies of the nights,etc..) would be running their business. all without the help of their pimps or agents. when he mentioned this to the class, they all laughed at him.
by the time he finished his presentation, no one was laughing.

Believe me, none of these girls who started out in the advent of www was making 25 cents per download. and today some of them are truly enterprises with their own fashion shop, merchandising stores,etc...
It isn't a dirty thing, it's real effective marketing and a true community in the sense of the business world. A model to emulate? I should think so.

You may have hit upon a possible solution there. I was thinking down the line of Wikipedia being self administrating and staffed by volunteers, etc. If every contributor effectively had their own site, set their own prices and was self-editing ...

Wouldn't that be a bit risky? There would have to be some sort of intervention from people who knew about things such as copyright infringement, and who knew which images to reject.

I wouldn't bother donating money for the purpose of hiring a team of moderators, though. It is worth fighting for and would be a great investment for us suppressed contributors.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: leaf on May 04, 2009, 13:40
there has been discussion about this before and i think it is a great idea if it could ever work but it would sure be tough to get going... There is even a 'microstock co-op' area of the forum from about a year ago :)

A better option might be gathering 100 or so photographers and their $$ and purchasing an already existing site and turn it into a contributors collective.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 13:44
there has been discussion about this before and i think it is a great idea if it could ever work but it would sure be tough to get going... There is even a 'microstock co-op' area of the forum from about a year ago :)

A better option might be gathering 100 or so photographers and their $$ and purchasing an already existing site and turn it into a contributors collective.

Tyler, this community you have here. This is the mothership. We rant and spit and banter, but these few minutes, we have come together as one. This proves what your site has become, a think tank.
If there 's any place we need to be the mother ship, i think this is it.

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: stacey_newman on May 04, 2009, 13:47
maybe Bruce Livingstone is looking for an investment opportunity ;-)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 04, 2009, 13:47
If you're considering each of us owning our own site, then linking our whole community to each other, it could well work.

I think that is a great idea!!!

actually it was one of my ex students who told me about it. at the u, he did a thesis on the porn industry and how individual girls (most ex showgirls, ladies of the nights,etc..) would be running their business. all without the help of their pimps or agents. when he mentioned this to the class, they all laughed at him.
by the time he finished his presentation, no one was laughing.

Believe me, none of these girls who started out in the advent of www was making 25 cents per download. and today some of them are truly enterprises with their own fashion shop, merchandising stores,etc...
It isn't a dirty thing, it's real effective marketing and a true community in the sense of the business world. A model to emulate? I should think so.

Does anyone here actually know how to do this? Heh I'd be willing to add a web site, but they would almost have to be exclusive images or pull from the other sites and that would be extremely risky especially those who make decent money off it. If you add the same images the buyers are going to continue to go to those old sites. Someone would have to know the pricing structure of the microsites also in order to make it work.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: WarrenPrice on May 04, 2009, 13:56
Union, Co-op, society, association, community, collection ... what's the difference? 

There is no leadership and too many Alpha personalities.  We all are just talking.

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: lisafx on May 04, 2009, 14:11
I think the idea of banding together is a good one.  In fact I think it is the only one that will assure a fair and viable market for our images and our livelihood in the long run. 

Not sure if our own agency is the answer or perhaps something similar to the Stock Artists Alliance.  I know it has been discussed before, but what about approaching the SAA and seeing if they would be interested in starting a microstock branch. 

I know all the arguments why this wouldn't work - they hate us because we hurt their business, etc.  But if they are smart and pragmatic they should welcome the idea of getting active, successful microstockers on their team.  It is in their best interests as well as ours to not allow royalties to be erroded further.

My husband is a member of the IBEW (electrician's union).  Decades back when the large numbers of Cuban refugees came to Florida the Cuban electricians wanted to join the IBEW.  At the time the union had the place pretty much to themselves and didn't want to let in the competition.  The Cuban electricians started their own competing organization. 

Fast forward 20-30 years and the competition in the industry has driven electrican wages in Florida to some of the lowest in the nation and unemployment is rampant among IBEW members.  If they had welcomed in the Latin electricians they might have been able to stick together and keep wages up. 

I see that as a very similar story to what the Trad agencies did to most of us.  They didn't want us so we joined the micros and that drove down prices and royalties in the industry.  But now that we have had a taste of success we want fair pay for our hard work.  The SAA would be stupid and short sighted if they refused to help us protect our rights and raise industry pay standards. 
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 14:16
Union, Co-op, society, association, community, collection ... what's the difference? 

There is no leadership and too many Alpha personalities.  We all are just talking.



What 's the difference. Do your research Warren? If you think there is no diff between a Union and a Co-op, your naivete is showing.
We are just talking? Yes. Every vision begins with talk.
But the negativity "it can't be done", "all talk", "what's the diff?", and the division , is the destruction of your vision.
If you're so intent on settling for 3 cts. C'est cool, my friend. Don't come in here and create the division. This is where it's critical that any form of negativity and division have to be left at the door.

If you don't believe it'll work, the door swings both ways...

bye !
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: WarrenPrice on May 04, 2009, 14:25
If you don't believe it'll work, the door swings both ways...

bye !

Believe what will work???? Is there a proposal on the table?

I thought offering an already existing agency was a good idea.  What have we agreed on?  I repeat -- until we can agree upon a plan ... it's loose talk.  Are you offering to provide leadership?  Direction?

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: lisafx on May 04, 2009, 14:27

Every vision begins with talk.
But the negativity "it can't be done", "all talk", "what's the diff?", and the division , is the destruction of your vision.


Agree with my buddy Batman on this.  If we start talking failure and defeatism before we even try then there is no hope for the future of this industry.  

to quote Ned Flanders' hippy mom:  "We've tried nothing and we're fresh out of ideas! "
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Freezingpictures on May 04, 2009, 14:31
Having our own sites and linking them together would be great.  We would all pay for our own hosting etc. and could put a small percentage of sales in to marketing.  I still think it need a lot of the top 100 contributors to make it work though and I haven't  seen much interest from them.

I like that idea of course. The main problem though is how will the buyer find the images he is looking for?
While writing this it just came to my mind that maybe we can do something with smugmug. They have a search capability with keywords and almost all the infrastructure you need already running.  And they will only take 15%. You have to pay a yearly fee though. But there are a few contributors with their files online already. E.g. Cdwealthy has already a big collection of his images online with them and I have images for sale there as well.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: stacey_newman on May 04, 2009, 14:32
my husband is an air traffic controller. he is by default a member of the Canadian Auto Workers Union, CAW for short. they in turn are run by the teamsters. the tactics, red tape and mediocrity that unions promote is too much for me. I'm afraid we hate unions, or anything that smells of union with fairly unbridled passion. this smells like a union.

again in theory, a great idea. but I have no interest in being, or following the Norma Rae of microstock. the task is too daunting and I don't believe there is a good reason to go this route. yet. maybe never. nor do I believe the contributors that would need to front this would. anyone large enough to have that kind of clout is already doing well on their own.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: patballard on May 04, 2009, 14:41
This sounds a lot like an internet version of many artists and crafts cooperatives. They are usually started by people who are tired of the usually gallery 50 to 60% cut for low sales and little marketing. Craft gallery owners often opt for lower quality to get more cheaper sales. Sound familiar? The cooperatives are usually run by a rotating board with all of the members putting in several hours of work a month at the gallery. Several of these galleries have been successful in New Mexico and North Carolina since the 60s. There are probably many more businesses like this out there. These are just the two areas of the country that I'm the most familiar with. If an artist wants to sell through the gallery but doesn't want to work there, they sometimes have the option of taking a lesser percentage of their sales. There would also be a need for a good contract similar to the ones that we agree to with the micro agencies, but it would have to take into account all of the changes in the pricing structure. With ironclad options for getting rid of those members who don't live up to the agreement. I'm not sure how this model could be adapted to the internet, but the idea is exciting.

Great idea, gostwyck. It's well worth exploring.

Pat
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: lisafx on May 04, 2009, 14:58
Unions, cooperatives, trade organizations, etc. only become necessary when the people at the top get too greedy. 

Let's call it the Yertle the Turtle principle... ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yertle_the_Turtle_and_Other_Stories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yertle_the_Turtle_and_Other_Stories)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 15:10
my husband is an air traffic controller. he is by default a member of the Canadian Auto Workers Union, CAW for short. they in turn are run by the teamsters. the tactics, red tape and mediocrity that unions promote is too much for me. I'm afraid we hate unions, or anything that smells of union with fairly unbridled passion. this smells like a union.

again in theory, a great idea. but I have no interest in being, or following the Norma Rae of microstock. the task is too daunting and I don't believe there is a good reason to go this route. yet. maybe never. nor do I believe the contributors that would need to front this would. anyone large enough to have that kind of clout is already doing well on their own.

this is not a union. i dread unions. this is a co-op .
if you've owned a condominium , you know what i mean.
ok, i'll have to spell it out for those who don't know the diff.

a union and a co-op may sound alike to you, as a union member. but not to you if you are a co-op member. the co-op member goes down when the members suffers. the union admins or the staff that runs the union does not suffer the same as the union members.
if i say to you as a union chief, screw the company, and keep striking. you get paid strike pay, a measly equivalence to a little more than subs. while i as the negotitator still gets full pay.
if tomorrow the company goes bankrupt, you will face bankruptcy , but i the union negotiator does not.
as a co-op, if i am the committee, and i am reckless, and i emptied the condo fees, for example.
i suffer the same consequence as you , my condo fees go up.
as a union man, if i f'ed things up for you union members, your union dues go up. my pay does not go down, it might even go up.

there is a big diff. every person in the co-op suffers the same consequence; not so with the union.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 15:23
This sounds a lot like an internet version of many artists and crafts cooperatives. They are usually started by people who are tired of the usually gallery 50 to 60% cut for low sales and little marketing. Craft gallery owners often opt for lower quality to get more cheaper sales. Sound familiar? The cooperatives are usually run by a rotating board with all of the members putting in several hours of work a month at the gallery. Several of these galleries have been successful in New Mexico and North Carolina since the 60s. There are probably many more businesses like this out there. These are just the two areas of the country that I'm the most familiar with. If an artist wants to sell through the gallery but doesn't want to work there, they sometimes have the option of taking a lesser percentage of their sales. There would also be a need for a good contract similar to the ones that we agree to with the micro agencies, but it would have to take into account all of the changes in the pricing structure. With ironclad options for getting rid of those members who don't live up to the agreement. I'm not sure how this model could be adapted to the internet, but the idea is exciting.

Great idea, gostwyck. It's well worth exploring.

Pat

Yes, Yes, Yes... Pat. That is the sort of model. We have a similar one here with our local, and I belong to them .
If we can adapt this globally, we got it. 
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: gostwyck on May 04, 2009, 15:30
Not sure if our own agency is the answer or perhaps something similar to the Stock Artists Alliance.  I know it has been discussed before, but what about approaching the SAA and seeing if they would be interested in starting a microstock branch. 
 

I don't really think there's anything that the SAA can do for us that we're not already able to do for ourselves.  Yes, they've gained a few concessions on behalf of their members but then so have we collectively on several occasions.

The real source of our problem is that the various agencies are competing amongst themselves for customers and using our work to do it, eroding our commissions and perks in the process. Even worse the more successful the agencies become the lower the % they want to pay out. I'd assume that when a private investment equity firm like Hellman & Friedman buys up a company like Getty then they will have their exit strategy in mind even at the point that they're negotiating the purchase. They'll be working to boost profits, fattening the cow for the market, from Day 1.

To get money into the agency we'd probably need to accept our commissions being paid as 'shares' initially, possibly for the first couple of years, in order to pay for marketing, etc, etc. I must admit it is very difficult to see how, where, who, etc from here. It's a semi-socialist idea in a capitalist market.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 04, 2009, 15:46
I think we're all aware of how unions and association boards work, and our general dislike of them, I think that's settle...what we need are ideas on how to make "The Yertle  the Turtle Principle" work for us and our commissions, I've already heard negative, positive, union, nonunion ideas plus a couple of live stories...come on guys what we need are IDEAS, OPTIONS, give us what you think could be the solution of not letting these Big Jerks prostitute our hard work and money. BRAIN STORM PLEASE...WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME BOAT!!!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tommroch on May 04, 2009, 16:35
Great idea.

And of course there would be no barriers to entry?

No matter how small your portfolio.

No matter what the quality of your work, you would still be accepted as a member of this co-op? Right?

I really do think it is a great idea, and I have been hoping for something like this, as I watch the amounts we earn dwindle.

I fear that those with a higher standard of work and higher output might become a little fussy about who gets to join this co-op, especially if it aims towards becoming a stock site in itself.

It must be administered in such a way that ALL stock photographers are protected, not just the top sellers.

But, at which point does one become a stock photographer? As soon as a microstock site has accepted your image? As soon as you sell an image?

How would this co-op decide who to accept as members?

Who would make these decisions? In fact, who would decide, who should make such judgement.

A great idea. Us microstockers need it.

Sadly, whatever you call it, collective, union, co-op, whatever, there is going to an ego or two out there who sees this as an opportunity to take charge, and keep it all for the big boys and their buddies.




Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 04, 2009, 16:54
Tommrock, that's why it is important we keep objective and leave our ego at the front step.
 realising we are all in this together.
no one is going to win, if one thinks for his her own self interest.
then we all go back to being "prostitute".
but i wish we were prostitutes, they made more than 30cents a shot.

Now we've heard your opinion, how about an idea which is actually what we're looking for.

Best regards.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 04, 2009, 17:12
oops - i got the edit and quote function muddled. I leave the later version :)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: runamock on May 04, 2009, 17:13
Should we have a vote on this to see who is in favour of the idea, so at least we have some idea of the numbers?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 04, 2009, 17:13
1. I worked for a while for an agency which was a co operative of shareholding photographers. They argued all the time and were not very good as business! I worked in the offices and as a researcher rather than as a photographer.

^ The point being that photographers are not the best people to run agencies is my experience. And people always fall out over business.

Another problem of running a company is the issue of different laws in different jurisdictions.

2. I do believe that the field is wide open for a company to set up which offers very much better terms. Or to set up the infrastructure to somehow enable people to do it themselves.

A good site with good terms could take the whole market.

In order for this to work and gain traction you would need:

Infrastructure
A decent search engine which learns
A controlled vocabulary
Quality control
Secure payment and distribution of income

If there was enough good content at the right price word would spread via Twitter in about 1 day.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 17:14
again in theory, a great idea. but I have no interest in being, or following the Norma Rae of microstock. the task is too daunting and I don't believe there is a good reason to go this route. yet. maybe never. nor do I believe the contributors that would need to front this would. anyone large enough to have that kind of clout is already doing well on their own.

good point, but already i see some outstanding people here. you cannot say that together that makes this idea not worth the effort.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 17:16
1. I worked for a while for an agency which was a co operative of shareholding photographers. They argued all the time and were not very good as business! I worked in the offices and as a researcher rather than as a photographer.

^ The point being that photographers are not the best people to run agencies is my experience. And people always fall out over business.

Another problem of running a company is the issue of different laws in different jurisdictions.

2. I do believe that the field is wide open for a company to set up which offers very much better terms. Or to set up the infrastructure to somehow enable people to do it themselves.

A good site with good terms could take the whole market.

In order for this to work and gain traction you would need:

Infrastructure
A decent search engine which learns
A controlled vocabulary
Quality control
Secure payment and distribution of income

If there was enough good content at the right price word would spread via Twitter in about 1 day.

well, that's precisely why your IDEAS are as valid as anyone who has IDEAS.
we're not looking for opinions, we're looking for IDEAS.  what we are hoping for is dialogue.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: stockastic on May 04, 2009, 17:16
An artist/craftsperson collective inevitably becomes something of a clique.  Can't be avoided.

Participants want their work to be seen, and not overwhelmed by newer stuff, especially stuff that they feel doesn't complement their own work.  

I can definitely see stock photographers' collectives emerging but one size doesn't fit all.  There would be many collectives.

The typical artist/craftsperson collective is a local thing, based in a well-known "arts district" or tourist area.  
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 04, 2009, 17:25
alias said: The point being that photographers are not the best people to run agencies is my experience.

Well, I don't think we should paint every photographer with the same brush. I think leaf runs this place pretty well  ;)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 04, 2009, 17:26
Should we have a vote on this to see who is in favour of the idea, so at least we have some idea of the numbers?

How can we vote on something we don't have yet an "IDEA", GOT ONE?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Lizard on May 04, 2009, 17:27
.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 04, 2009, 17:30
alias said: The point being that photographers are not the best people to run agencies is my experience.

Well, I don't think we should paint every photographer with the same brush. I think leaf runs this place pretty well  ;)


An agency is best run by people with experience running agencies. Running an internet forum is quite different.

I am totally looking forward different models emerging. But for them to be successful they will need to have considerable traffic. Even the smallest microstocks have 1000s of photographers and customers. Large amounts of money will be involved.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: WarrenPrice on May 04, 2009, 17:37
At the risk of repeating myself, I ask again about buyers.  Who is your market?  what to they want?  What can you offer that is better than what they have?  I'm not being negative; I'm being realistic.  Isn't demographics an essential part of any business plan?

We keep talking about being fair to photographers.  Do you think the buyers want to be fair to you? 
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 04, 2009, 18:07
So obviously Warren you're ready to give up without a fight and take your $0.03 and be happy about it...hey, to each its own...in my case and I hope the case of many of the photographers on this forum, that want to look for a way to balance out this commission rip off by the big boys one way or another, and it's my gut feeling that if we all keep at it together, will come up with the answer or idea we need.

Don't spend it all in one place warren!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 18:12
At the risk of repeating myself, I ask again about buyers.  Who is your market?  what to they want?  What can you offer that is better than what they have?  I'm not being negative; I'm being realistic.  Isn't demographics an essential part of any business plan?

We keep talking about being fair to photographers.  Do you think the buyers want to be fair to you? 

rofl , warren old friend,  BRAINSTORMING ???
we are BRAINSTORMING !    get it? 8)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 18:14
here warren,
take my hand...
walk with me...
and reeaaaaddddd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: gostwyck on May 04, 2009, 18:16
At the risk of repeating myself, I ask again about buyers.  Who is your market?  what to they want?  What can you offer that is better than what they have?  I'm not being negative; I'm being realistic.  Isn't demographics an essential part of any business plan?

We keep talking about being fair to photographers.  Do you think the buyers want to be fair to you? 

Well, rather obviously, the market and the buyers are precisely the same as we are all selling into now. It's a fair assumption that what they want is what they are currently buying isn't it? As as been stated several times before we can certainly offer cheaper prices by cutting out the middleman.

Btw, this marketplace is called 'the internet' so demographics hardly comes into it. We don't need to know where they live, how old they are and what coffee they drink. By means of things called 'search engines' they will find you.

You are being extremely negative IMHO as all you do is highlight 'problems' that don't actually exist. There are challenges with this as several others have pointed out __ huge, huge hurdles __ and if you've got any suggestions how these might be overcome then I'm sure we'd be all ears.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 04, 2009, 18:20
Warren, went right past...

The cup is also half empty , isn't it?  ;)
If there is anything that can improve our position as contributors , I am all ears, man ! Speak up or forever keep your peace !  :-*

here warren,
take my hand...
walk with me...
and reeaaaaddddd

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming[/url])
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: WarrenPrice on May 04, 2009, 18:30
At the risk of repeating myself, I ask again about buyers.  Who is your market?  what to they want?  What can you offer that is better than what they have?  I'm not being negative; I'm being realistic.  Isn't demographics an essential part of any business plan?

We keep talking about being fair to photographers.  Do you think the buyers want to be fair to you? 

rofl , warren old friend,  BRAINSTORMING ???
we are BRAINSTORMING !    get it? 8)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 04, 2009, 18:32
@gostwyck

Do you have any ideas about how to ensure quality control? Also re checking the legal content of the files re rights issues, ownership etc?

And what about secure payment? You need to be able to process credit card payments.

For the market place to gain traction with buyers it would need to have a good reputation.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 04, 2009, 18:47
never mind
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: cidepix on May 04, 2009, 18:53
I think we keep shooting ourselves in the foot.  Everytime a new site comes on line ... we attack it.  I saw CutCaster as just the right vehicle to fight against the monopoly.  It could only work, however, if everyone went exclusive there and quit uploading to Getty and Corbis.  

The approach we are talking about in this thread is like re-inventing the wheel.  If you want to fight the monopoly ... don't use them.  Unite behind an independant.

Then the independent gets successful, is bought out and you get screwed, or they screw you.

Not if we write our legally unchangable terms and conditions in advance. No matter who buys it, the terms will remain the same. It is possible!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: cidepix on May 04, 2009, 18:55
At the risk of repeating myself, I ask again about buyers.  Who is your market?  what to they want?  What can you offer that is better than what they have?  I'm not being negative; I'm being realistic.  Isn't demographics an essential part of any business plan?

We keep talking about being fair to photographers.  Do you think the buyers want to be fair to you? 

Warren  :)

What we can offer is images, EXCLUSIVELY!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 18:56
thanks tan510jomast

At the risk of repeating myself, I ask again about buyers.  Who is your market?  what to they want?  What can you offer that is better than what they have?  I'm not being negative; I'm being realistic.  Isn't demographics an essential part of any business plan?

We keep talking about being fair to photographers.  Do you think the buyers want to be fair to you? 

Warren  :)

What we can offer is images, EXCLUSIVELY!

keep them rolling in ppl.
thanks cidepix,
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 04, 2009, 18:58
@tan510jomast

nobody is dismissing the prospect of a different model.

But in business people have to ask really practical questions. And for stock site or network to succeed it would need to have significant content at viable pricing + infrastructure + trust.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: cidepix on May 04, 2009, 18:58
@gostwyck

Do you have any ideas about how to ensure quality control? Also re checking the legal content of the files re rights issues, ownership etc?

And what about secure payment? You need to be able to process credit card payments.

For the market place to gain traction with buyers it would need to have a good reputation.

We all go to yaymicro! and it's done.. %50 commissions! Fair Trade! and get paid in euros. all we need to do is to make agreement and new terms with yay that legally prevents them from selling the site or changing rules twice a week!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 04, 2009, 19:07
IDEAS!!! THATS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GUYS...Cidepix keep them comming...as a group we have a chance and a chance is all we need to succeed.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 04, 2009, 19:12
IDEAS!!! THATS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GUYS...Cidepix keep them comming...as a group we have a chance and a chance is all we need to succeed.

+ a business plan + considerable seed funding + expert knowledge and experience + infrastructure
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 04, 2009, 19:18
never mind
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 19:22
@tan510jomast

nobody is dismissing the prospect of a different model.

But in business people have to ask really practical questions. And for stock site or network to succeed it would need to have significant content at viable pricing + infrastructure + trust.

hey, this is only the first day and you want all of them to give you a full business plan?
If I had this business plan, you are the last person I will give it to. You and warren  8)

tan wasn't even here at the beginning, and now he is. we need the brains of our community.
but if everyone of us are just waiting to see what happens. oh well, like he said, "roll over and play dead?"  . maybe we all deserve 03 cents a download.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: melastmohican on May 04, 2009, 19:24
There is unlimited supply of new photos and limited number of potential buyers so site that treats buyers best wins. All attempts to create system fair for contributors eventually fail cause it will be too expensive for buyers. It's similar like trying to compete with cheap Chinese production Everybody want more features for less now. We are like workers in these factories. We can complain only but eventually we take whatever employer gives us :-)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 04, 2009, 19:30
never mind
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 04, 2009, 19:31
Right on Tan!!!...alias forgot like some others the idea comes first...lol  ;)
the obstacles up front, of course...you know the wagon in front of the horse type thing. Yeah, I understand alias.  ;)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 04, 2009, 19:34
PhotoShelter was one. I was so enthused about them when they bravely stood up against Getty. But we know what happened. I think the CEO said, "no one wanted to give us a chance" or something like that. You were all waiting to see if PS succeeds before you join.

I personally was one of those who did join. You can still put your portfolio on there. You just have to buy the space, it's not free any more.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: melastmohican on May 04, 2009, 19:37
Macro stock still exists (yachts). Some people still pay hundred for same quality photo they could get from micro for cents. Majority does not own yacht they inflatable boat at Walmart for $9.99 which was made where? China.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 04, 2009, 19:39
Right on Tan!!!...alias forgot like some others the idea comes first...lol  ;)
the obstacles up front, of course...you know the wagon in front of the horse type thing. Yeah, I understand alias.  ;)

I'm not putting up obstacles. What I am attempting to do is to ask some of the questions which would need to be answered.

You start by working out what the objectives are.
You consider what the model needs to accomplish.

You work through the questions and answers methodologically and you begin to sketch out the shape of the structure.

You make reasonable assessments of cost, turnover, traffic etc

You start by working out what some of the questions are which you need to answer.

-----------------

And if you do not do any of that then basically you are not serious to begin with and it will never work
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: madelaide on May 04, 2009, 19:43
I am favorable to finding a new way, but I frankly have no idea.  There is a lot of marketing to reach buyers, and the big ones already have sites they can trust on, and I am sure they don't mind paying a bit more for that comfort.  

Are we willing to pull our portfolios from all sites to make our content exclusive to our site, then showing a differential in our service?  

I think we need to find a new market, a new niche, not to try to compete with the established companies.

What about countries in which microstock is not a well-established thing yet?  Do they exist?  Is there a potential market in South America, for instance, that the micros have not yet reached?

Are there buyers that do not know microstock yet?  What would they be interested in?  Prints maybe, instead of digital files?  

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: melastmohican on May 04, 2009, 19:49
2786 x 500 = 1 393 000

There 2786 member of this forum. If we assume that by average we got 500 pictures online we control more than million pictures but how much contributor's revenue we control? How many top contributors are here and are they will to sacrifice their businesses to help us?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 19:53
2786 x 500 = 1 393 000

There 2786 member of this forum. If we assume that by average we got 500 pictures online we control more than million pictures but how much contributor's revenue we control? How many top contributors are here and are they will to sacrifice their businesses to help us?

Ok, your posting crossed mine so I will reply to this. Based on the response we had today? Not many. so I'm cutting out !  Good noite ! You all did Getty a great favour.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 04, 2009, 19:54
Do any of you know anyone that has experience running a site?? I know there are some in this forum, but as to who they are I don't know. We really need to see their perspective on this...

Also need someone who knows web design and is good at it as well as marketing. We need to start asking around. I'm sure there are some that haven't even read this thread but could help with these issues.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 04, 2009, 20:06
I am favorable to finding a new way, but I frankly have no idea.  There is a lot of marketing to reach buyers, and the big ones already have sites they can trust on, and I am sure they don't mind paying a bit more for that comfort.  

Are we willing to pull our portfolios from all sites to make our content exclusive to our site, then showing a differential in our service?  

I think we need to find a new market, a new niche, not to try to compete with the established companies.

What about countries in which microstock is not a well-established thing yet?  Do they exist?  Is there a potential market in South America, for instance, that the micros have not yet reached?

Are there buyers that do not know microstock yet?  What would they be interested in?  Prints maybe, instead of digital files?  



As for pulling protfolio's....the content of the site would have to be exclusive to that site. The buyers have already purchased what is on our ports now so they would want something new. That's the way I would think as a buyer anyway.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: elvinstar on May 04, 2009, 20:09
My wife and I started a microstock site a few years ago (justmacros.com). We were going for a niche market. It was tough going and didn't quite make it. I would love to be involved in this project!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 04, 2009, 20:17
I'm with you on that one batman...good night!  ::)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 04, 2009, 20:19
My wife and I started a microstock site a few years ago (justmacros.com). We were going for a niche market. It was tough going and didn't quite make it. I would love to be involved in this project!

Well you guys might have some perspective on what is involved...Think about what you did right and what you did wrong... The right as well as the wrong are very important. We wouldn't want to repeat the wrong's.
Think about it and give us some feedback..  
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 04, 2009, 20:21
I'm with Bat and [email protected]'m going to bed....hopefully some of you will dream of a solution..
sweet dreams all
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: madelaide on May 04, 2009, 20:39
I am not saying we should give up.  I'm saying we should think of new ideas.  I don't think we should think of beating the micros where they have already planted their roots deep into the soil.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 04, 2009, 21:28
You know, I was just finishing up my work to come back here for one last look.
It's been a good day of valuable lessons to know who your friends are. I enjoyed this experience .
I want to leave you with one famous saying I learned from studying the lives of successful people. They all had one favourite wise saying they treasure and repeat to themselves every morning. These same people were great achievers who succeeded in chasing their dreams and getting them done. I don't know the origin of this saying, but I know people from Bill Gates, to Bjorn Bork believed in it faithfully.
Maybe not the exact word, but the philosophy behind it:

THE MIND IS A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD. IF YOU THINK YOU CANNOT DO IT,
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

bonne nuit.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Kngkyle on May 04, 2009, 22:03
I am still not convinced that setting up our own micro site is the best route. I don't think many contributors would want to put up content exclusively on a start up site. I think forming some sort of co-op would be less work and easier to manage. Whether it would be effective or not is still a question. One problem that exists in doing this is whether members would actually do what is decided upon. For example, say Fotolia made some change that made submitting each uploaded image take 2 minutes (think Istock x2). All other negotiations failed, and the co-op decided to try an uploading embargo. Would people actually follow suit and stop uploading for x-weeks or months? Or another example... say Dreamstime did something like cutting our commissions and the co-op decided to try a policy of having each member disable 1 image (or a % of their images) every day/week/month and suspend uploading until a fair compromise is offered. Getting the members to actually go through with stuff like that would be probably one of the biggest obstacles.

As for the question someone brought up awhile ago on how such a co-op would determine who could join. Possibly just something simple like having at least 50 or 100 images accepted to any Microstock site?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: null on May 04, 2009, 23:39
Then the independent gets successful, is bought out and you get screwed, or they screw you.

Are you referring to iStockphoto / Getty / Jupiter?  ;)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: null on May 05, 2009, 00:00
Ok, your posting crossed mine so I will reply to this. Based on the response we had today? Not many. so I'm cutting out !  Good noite ! You all did Getty a great favour.

Some people live on opposite sites of the globe Batman. While you're going to bed, others just woke up. Don't quit yet. I need some time to think it all over. The idea is very valuable and I think it is in the mind of most. There should be a wiki of the ideal site, and existing sites can try to match that idea, why not. You can have a loose confederation like the adult sites, or a unified empire like iStock. You will have to think more goal-oriented than means-oriented if you don't want Yet Another Microstock Site.

There are simple answers for the subs concept, the exclusivity, the QC, the LCV, the search engine. The key entity in the concept should be the buyer.

Some tiny examples of thinking out of the box:

- Why can't we buy out Cutcaster and hire John as our CME? After all, like Stacey said... it's our content.

- Exclusivity - nobody wants to give up his existing agents, but we can commit to upload our new images to site U as a first and keep it exclusive there for one month. After that, spread it out over the mob as you wish.

- QC - none. Contributors are elected in, then do their own QC. We know our stuffs, right? LCV will be no problem any more. Three strikes out on inferior uploads.

- Search engine: bias on newness and relevancy. Three kinds of keywords: essential (10), accessory (20), concept (10 from an exhaustive list) (replacing categories) note. Keywords can be wiki-ed by fellow contributors. Tackling relevancy from the start is essential. The current sites are totally winded up in a Gordian knot about relevancy/best match since basically, all keywords are treated equivalently and no way to change that any more after 5M images. Relevancy/best match is patchwork.

Subs: replaced by "try at 1$ before you buy". Buyers need it for comps, don't take it away from them. If they want to use it for anything else than a sidebar or a blog (max 250px), they will need to buy the full license. Buyers can download full size at 1$ for inspection and comps. If they want to use it in a final product > 250px, then only they will have to download the full license.

Purchase: listen to buyers how they want to be invoiced.

Extended : exclusive buyout possible in the one-month exclusivity period - the buyer has the warranty that the image isn't sold to John Doe and 100 others.

...
______________________
note - The current keywords field can be kept as it is, to ensure compatibility with the current sites.
Identification of essential and conceptual keywords can be done by repeating those keywords in an IPTC field that is not used by the current sites. Whatever is not defined there, is considered "accessory".
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Clivia on May 05, 2009, 02:23
Good post FlemishDreams,
I have just woken up to this and have not had time to think it through, but in principle I like the idea. It is exciting.
We have to bear in mind that a lot of us need the money from the micros. We cannot just stop uploading to them, but the one month head start for the new site is a really good idea.

The main drive has to be marketing. We need lots of fresh new marketing ideas.Like someone said earlier, designers only know the site they buy from. Why should they search for anything else when it works? We need to let them know there is a viable alternative.
One way is to target the CEO's not the designers. They control the spending in the company.

As to buying out Cutcaster, John may have something to say about that. :o

If we all can keep calm and stop our inflated artists ego's getting in the way, we may be onto something really good.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: null on May 05, 2009, 02:27
If we all can keep calm and stop our inflated artists ego's getting in the way, we may be onto something really good.

What started this is that our egos are underinflated.  :P
I don't have any idea about marketing, but using SEO can already solve a lot.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Adeptris on May 05, 2009, 02:49
Let me play!

It looks like a good idea at first look, but there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Setting up any website you need to look at costs, consider hardware/hosting, development, legal, SEO, direct and internet marketing.

Then consider the content, why should a buyer use this new service, what is it's unique selling point, what are the risks and protection when buying, why buy an image here when they can get a similar image from an existing account without any problem, by purchasing an image that has been through QC to minimise any risk to the buyer, and a known company with a backroom staff.

Look at recent failures and the amount of venture capital that was used, Digital Railroad who charged for thier service got through $15 million, so you cannot setup a new venture with nothing.

Unique content would be required, so a set of exclusive images that could not be purchased anywhere other than the new site like C & G, the collective could have a portal per photographer but a common licence, payment and pricing structure not micro that was acceptable to all contributors to make it pay, a strict QC and marketing strategy etc:

David  ;D (I already have the domains photographers-collective .com .co.uk and .net)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 05, 2009, 03:01
- QC - none. Contributors are elected in, then do their own QC. We know our stuffs, right? LCV will be no problem any more. Three strikes out on inferior uploads.

- Search engine: bias on newness and relevancy. Three kinds of keywords: essential (10), accessory (20), concept (10 from an exhaustive list) (replacing categories) note. Keywords can be wiki-ed by fellow contributors. Tackling relevancy from the start is essential. The current sites are totally winded up in a Gordian knot about relevancy/best match since basically, all keywords are treated equivalently and no way to change that any more after 5M images. Relevancy/best match is patchwork.

You need quality control. A new non specialist agency would only be successful if it has lots of content. Millions of images. That means 1000s of contributors. Without the content there will be too few customers. So you need experienced quality control. Also looking out for legal, IP and rights issues. Also looking out for stolen content.

You want a search engine which learns from sales. This is essential to prevent spamming.

A new agency would have to take the best from what has been learned so far and build something better from scratch.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: rene on May 05, 2009, 05:02
"they've got the guns but, we got the numbers" ...
I think we can have great power we don't use. We have experience, representants of almost all professions (including IT) and we live all over the world. Why not to create a company? I'm ready to put $1000 in this adventure. If we are 1000  it makes 1.000.000$. Maybe with this amount we can start something?
 I have over 1000 images in microstock and about the same number of  (better quality) images on my HD. If the big players are in, very quickly we can have 2-3 millions of images.

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: sui on May 05, 2009, 05:07
Hi there,

I follow this thread with enthusiasm  and it will be a very good initiative if the plan for contributors' collective works.

I like FlemishDreams idea. If somehow CutCaster can be bought and turn it into a wikipedia-like site for image/vector repository, where contributors control and administer the content, QC, LCV, etc., in a fairly democratic way, then I think that's a good model. Passing a new rule about commission or exclusivity, for example, can be done through discussions and votes from all contributors. There might be some special contributors act as administrator (much like wikipedia) to control the debates, passing the policies, etc. Electing these administrators should also go through all contributors.

For the search engine, all metadata database should be set open for other people to develop. Much like wikimedia commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page), where there are some other alternatives beside the default one, e.g., the mayflower search (http://toolserver.org/~tangotango/mayflower/), or wikiwix search (http://www.wikiwix.com/index.php?home=true&lang=en&disp=commons). If these metadata, including keywords, can be accessed freely, then I might want to try to develop a search engine for that to help buyers finding relevant images. ::)

So it's basically an open site that is maintained, used and controlled from-and-by contributors only. Note that we still need to hire a few dedicated specialists, just like the Wikimedia Foundation which hire a lawyer, programmers and other clerks. We should then make, say, Microstock Foundation, as a non-profit organization that owns the site.

That's only my 2 cents, of course.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 05:41
Let me add some ideas, from a buyers point of view.

This could really work if you market it as a fair-trade product. Educate the buyer about the exploitation that is going on in microstock, and then explain how, if you buy your product here, the artist is always paid fairly. There will have to be a very strict standard on what is fair, and how to remain competitive with it.

But personally speaking, I would rather pay 10 dollars for an image knowing the artist has a smile on their face and I've not exploited anyone's work, and that's how I currently work. (Plus, it's company money, and I make the cost back from my own customers, so it's not like it breaks the bank) That's where you get them. Because they can NEVER compete against the fair trade idea, because they will never pay the artists enough!!!

That could really work.. I also have a web design company, and once you guys have a real proposal together, I'd be willing to take a look and see how this could be done.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 05:44
As for who runs it at the top, that will come down to an election, so each member has a vote, and anyone can run for any position, with reasons why they should get your vote, experience etc.. everything will be done on a voluntary basis..
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 05:48
Ooooo, and, as someone mentioned, over time if the idea is a success you will need to upgrade servers/hosting, so why not ask each member to donate a % of their earnings towards the running of the site, but only ask them to, not enforce it, and only those who can afford it.. then that % can go towards running costs.. and we elect a secretary to keep track of everything so that each member can see exactly what the money is paying for..
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: ThomasAmby on May 05, 2009, 05:58
Among other things, what we pay the big agencies for is them marketing our images and making sure customers will come to their site. If we are thousands of photographers and illustrators in this altogether, we will be thousands of photographers and illustrators willing to try and direct buyers to our site through social networks, education (as hqimages mentions), marketing paid by donations and so forth.

We can be competitive by having lower prices than the big 5 (not too low), and we will still earn more. Also by branding the cooperation as an agency that treats the artists as they deserve.

I think there would have to be some donations involved in this, so maybe someone with knowledge could put up a site for fellow contributors to donate money? They money should be spent on either buying up an existing agency or having a person with programming skills build up a site from scratch.

I like the wikipedia-idea a lot. Self-moderation works great on Wikipedia.

A question to all: There would have to be some money spent on paying administrators and people running the site, so you're commission would not be 100% to make this work. We can all agree that 20% commission is way too little - how big a percentage would you be willing to cut off of the price the image was bought for?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 06:01
first you get a pen and paper, and make out a rough estimate of what the yearly cost will be, then go look for that amount from members..
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 06:03
Also, if this is fair trade, it won't be about undercutting the competition, it will be about charging what the market will bear. As far as I can see, IS were just at that point, and I would start with their pay-as-you-go payment structure, where it goes up to 10-20 dollars for a super high res file..

Also the very very first step should be to get a group of volunteers to out their hands up who have time to start organising this, and then get all the volunteers into an instant message chat.. after you have more of a talk about it here tho :) need more ideas!!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: ThomasAmby on May 05, 2009, 06:07
We need an accountant!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 06:16
lol! :) That's true, we may have to charge tax on the purchase, but, you generally don't have to worry about that until the earnings go over 'x' amount, so even just to consult with someone for now would be good, and perhaps you can trade for a year before being eligible for tax anyway since you don't know what you will earn..

In Ireland at least, you dont register for vat until you think your company will hit that amount (over 35k), but we do need to ask someone!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 06:18
I also think there should be a cap on the number of images any user has, it totally defeats the purpose, if we have one member with 10,000 images, who continuously uploads to the detriment of smaller members, so that kind of thing will have to be tackled, and not allowed!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 05, 2009, 06:30
I like the mention of Wikipedia. I think there is something in that.

I am sorry to say that I do not believe that we would be capable of organizing ourselves. We are all independents. What we need is an umbrella. An infrastructure and a set of standards. There is no point in creating just another microstock agency.

I hope though that the word gets out that there is a business here waiting to be done on much better terms and more or less based on some sort of open model. With the right model it would end up being most of the market. It would be the main player. It would be unstoppable.

I have believed for a while that this will happen one way or another. For this to happen it would take someone putting together of team of existing industry experts but who would be committed to a different model.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 06:33
I also think there should be a cap on the number of images any user has, it totally defeats the purpose, if we have one member with 10,000 images, who continuously uploads to the detriment of smaller members, so that kind of thing will have to be tackled, and not allowed!

Interesting point... But, do you think you should be favourized due to that you can't upload in huge batches?

I don't think it is a good idea.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 06:35
I like the mention of Wikipedia. I think there is something in that.

I am sorry to say that I do not believe that we would be capable of organizing ourselves. We are all independents. What we need is an umbrella. An infrastructure and a set of standards. There is no point in creating just another microstock agency.

I hope though that the word gets out that there is a business here waiting to be done on much better terms and more or less based on some sort of open model. With the right model it would end up being most of the market. It would be the main player. It would be unstoppable.

I have believed for a while that this will happen one way or another. For this to happen it would take someone putting together of team of existing industry experts but who would be committed to a different model.

I agree that you made the point!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 06:37
I also think there should be a cap on the number of images any user has, it totally defeats the purpose, if we have one member with 10,000 images, who continuously uploads to the detriment of smaller members, so that kind of thing will have to be tackled, and not allowed!

Interesting point... But, do you think you should be favourized due to that you can't upload in huge batches?

I don't think it is a good idea.

Yes, Each person should have a monthly quota, so no one person can flood the pool with 1000's images, trust me, if you don't think it's a good idea now, if this idea takes off, it will be the one thing contributors will complain about non-stop, and rightly so.. so there has to be a solution to even out the playing field since it is a co-op, not a profit making corporation, so people interested in making profit at the detriment of smaller users will have to be capped imo..
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 06:43
You may be right with limiting some uploads... But, again It is not a good idea. You must compete with agencies who accept tens of thousands images weekly... If you don't follow that step - you fail in future...

I have some other idea in mind... Something like GOLD collection for non-microstock images... That would be product which will bring many buyers. Plus exclusive images which can be found only on one site and nowhere else. If you have that kind of product, you will have returned buyers! If not, you are down.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 06:45
Also, about using experienced industry people to create a 'new model', that has already been done, and they always get bought out by a bigger company, that's why, if you want something different, that is guaranteed to remain independent, it has to be a co-op, run by volunteers, with a budget to hire professionals when needed.. you could give an actual guarantee to each artist that joins, that the web site will ALWAYS remain independent, and will always be run by peers. And that will go a long way..

Think of the microstock community, you already have laywers, graphic designers, web designers, web developers, you have retired professionals that would love to volunteer on something like this..
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 06:47
You may be right with limiting some uploads... But, again It is not a good idea. You must compete with agencies who accept tens of thousands images weekly... If you don't follow that step - you fail in future...

I have some other idea in mind... Something like GOLD collection for non-microstock images... That would be product which will bring many buyers. Plus exclusive images which can be found only on one site and nowhere else. If you have that kind of product, you will have returned buyers! If not, you are down.


Yeah the gold and exclusive images idea is great!

I would limit users like Yuri, sorry but, he is an entire web site on his own, and he would drown the smaller users, who would become disillusioned with the whole thing, we want to make sure EVERYONE makes money, not the select few people who have 10+ staff, so there has to be something put in place for that..
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 06:55
Can you make better images than Yuri?

Put them on GOLD and let Yuri have microstock section ;-)

I believe that people like Yuri really helped in developing microstock market. But, even Yuri today knows that wide spread of same images is not the best way to make earnings - it is best way to give chance to corrupted managements on some sites that they calculate and even cut-off part of commission... As it happens lately!

I'd advise 3 product categories and that can't fail...
1. Volume Subscription (pay per download system)
2. Classic subscription for big buyers
3. Gold Label with MID-STOCK pricing
4. Editorials

Already I made my points about this on Featurepics and they are seriously considering to make all that real...
So, I believe uploading there today will bring satisfaction to all.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 07:00
Can you make better images than Yuri?

Put them on GOLD and let Yuri have microstock section ;-)

I believe that people like Yuri really helped in developing microstock market. But, even Yuri today knows that wide spread of same images is not the best way to make earnings - it is best way to give chance to corrupted managements on some sites that they calculate and even cut-off part of commission... As it happens lately!

I'd advise 3 product categories and that can't fail...
1. Volume Subscription (pay per download system)
2. Classic subscription for big buyers
3. Gold Label with MID-STOCK pricing
4. Editorials

Already I made my points about this on Featurepics and they are seriously considering to make all that real...
So, I believe uploading there today will bring satisfaction to all.

It's not about the quality of his work, the quality is great, but the idea that he can kill the competition ie. users with smaller galleries, totally goes against the ethos of having a co-op where everyone has an equal chance.. I do agree give him his own page for his newest images added, and keep the rest of the pool separate, and that's a really good idea.. so the really big players, if they join, are separated from the rest of the group, in a way it could give everyone a fair chance..

Putting a big player on a co-op site run by volunteers without any caps or control over them, never, ever, ever going to work.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 07:09
Maybe... But, We all aim to have big portfolios, isn't it so?

In terms of what is big it is quite discutable... Someone will always have problems with someone who has more images...

I think it is also tweakable on some other way... You should attain free market - not introduce communist regime on agency ;-) The more capable should have more revenue... It is not smart to expect that great players will play small games! Also, great players deserve more money just because they are great...

Yuri was also beginner and he started with no images as you or me... It is not fair that now he is to be punished due to you or me voted him out from business despite that he has great quality images... That is wrong for business! Just think about it!

Nevertheless I suppose even Yuri has images on Featurepics and I believe he is feeling the same as all other contributing authors there... Urge for some smart changes...

So, look at this thread:
http://www.featureimage.com/Forum/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=1810&#1810 (http://www.featureimage.com/Forum/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=1810&#1810)



Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 07:13
Maybe... But, We all aim to have big portfolios, isn't it so?

In terms of what is big it is quite discutable... Someone will always have problems with someone who has more images...

I think it is also tweakable on some other way... You should attain free market - not introduce communist regime on agency ;-) The more capable should have more revenue... It is not smart to expect that great players will play small games! Also, great players deserve more money just because they are great...

Yuri was also beginner and he started with no images as you or me... It is not fair that now he is to be punished due to you or me voted him out from business despite that he has great quality images... That is wrong for business! Just think about it!

Nevertheless I suppose even Yuri has images on Featurepics and I believe he is feeling the same as all other contributing authors there... Urge for some smart changes...

So, look at this thread:
[url]http://www.featureimage.com/Forum/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=1810&#1810[/url] ([url]http://www.featureimage.com/Forum/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=1810&#1810[/url])






Well if it was the case that big players were allowed free reign on that web site, to wipe out the smaller players, i don't want to be involved. And the people volunteering their time free of charge, in order to increase the big players already massive profits, won't be happy, and the smaller contributors, will probably just leave when they get 0 downloads due to big players monopolizing profits..

So if you want a different solution to everything that is already out there, that's how it has to go down, otherwise, go join any other web site that has no guarantee to remain independant, and no guarantee to not de-value your work once you're reeled in. There are many to choose from, but if you want a co-operative, non-profit, for the interests of the contributors and not the bottom line, then even out the playing field. Everyone should have a fair chance.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 07:20
Let's put it this way:

Big players = More expensive images - understandable?
Small players = Less expensive images - Fair enough?

So, you can have Yuris images in higher tiers for same resolution than some newbie?
Do you think then it would be fair?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 05, 2009, 07:23
This sort of arguing is exactly why co operatives fail.

The fact is that you need a model in which everyone who is competent can participate. Without artificial restrictions or barriers to entry.

This is why I am saying that what you need is a different model rather than yet another microstock.

Some sort of market place. But it would need structure and controls.

It is worth remembering that microstock was not really invented. More like it was discovered.

I was thinking again about quality control in a market place. I was wondering whether a system of feedback might not work. A bit like ebay. This might get around the problem of inspectors - i mean the problem of how to put a system in place.

And perhaps some kind of system of levels based on some equation of sales and feedback.

Quality control is important because buyers need to be able to trust what they are buying.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Kngkyle on May 05, 2009, 07:24
I like the idea someone posted earlier about uploading images there exclusively for a month before uploading to the other sites. I don't think many of us would be willing to throw potential money away by not uploading to the top earning sites.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 07:29
Let's put it this way:

Big players = More expensive images - understandable?
Small players = Less expensive images - Fair enough?

So, you can have Yuris images in higher tiers for same resolution than some newbie?
Do you think then it would be fair?

Well no because everyone should get paid the same amount no matter how many images they have, all I'm saying is don't allow bigger players to flood the pool at the expense of the smaller player, I see it happen over and over on various web sites, and if this web site is not concerned with the bottom-line, but with the contributor, then that issue has to be tackled.. a group of volunteers making money for big players while the small ones complain in the forums, is exactly what is going on now with all of the microstock sites, this one, being a co-op, and unconcerned with profit, should care more about the smaller contributor, and less about who is making them more money.. I can't explain it any clearer than that! But if it is only profits people want out of this, it's the same as any other web site..
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 07:44
That with same ammount payed is still wrong and communistic ideology... Sorry I don't like that. I would like to see that images are selling and more they are selling they bring more money like on DT... That is very nice to have there! I think some tiers for contributors are needed to be made...

Maybe problem with flooding can be solved in search? There can be made some tweaks that no more than 2-3 images from same author show on one result page... That may be good if possible to implement. But, then you can loose results by relevancy and some buyers due to that ;-)

Politizing with sales oriented business is always wrong... Tha uthopia with same for all with same earnings can be live only if there is ONE AND ONLY agency... Unfortunately, there is many competitor agencies and they all fight for their piece of pie...
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 05, 2009, 08:41
Ok, your posting crossed mine so I will reply to this. Based on the response we had today? Not many. so I'm cutting out !  Good noite ! You all did Getty a great favour.

Some people live on opposite sites of the globe Batman. While you're going to bed, others just woke up. Don't quit yet. I need some time to think it all over.

hokey dokey, i have awoken from my batcave, i'm in. but i'm going to sit and watch as it is dialogue we need, not one guy doing all the talking . we succeed if we put our brains and experience in business and networking together. we fail, if someone craps on the idea.

for those who crap on the idea initially, do yourself a favour and make some dialogue instead of crapping on the idea. it's for your own good too. if not, please keep your negativity to yourself and out of this dialogue, it's better posted on Istock forum.
and we won't miss your absence... i assure you.

cheers FlemishDream.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 05, 2009, 08:47
I was thrilled to awaken to some productive communication!!

My brainstorm.....as for covering costs. Would something like Flickr where you are limited to uploads unless you pay to be a member work? This might not solve the problem of huge uploads, but again like was mentioned before the more images on the site the more the buyer will stay there.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 05, 2009, 08:49
I'm happy to see we have some web designer's and people with the knowledge of what the procedure to take and the costs and time involved will be. It definetly needs to be mapped out before anyone trys to drive down this dirt road...then we need to figure out how to pave it.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 05, 2009, 09:04
There has to be some type of quality control. We personally don't upload crap to our micro sites and we don't upload that crap to our personal web sites, but if it's open to anyone and everyone then you will end up with alot of people with a point and shoots taking pictures of their cat crapping in the litter box....then once the buyer's keep pulling up those images among the quality ones...they will get tired of looking and go back to the quality controled sites...so there has to be some sort of quality control here.
Agreed???
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 05, 2009, 09:17
Agreed???

Definitely agreed. All creatives need someone to edit and check their work. Learning to trust the opinion of your editors is part of learning to be a creative professional.

For this reason I take nearly all moans about inspection with a pinch of salt :)

As good as we are we need our work to be inspected by a second set of eyes. 15 years ago (when it was still transparencies and light boxes) agency photographers often did not even do their own edits.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on May 05, 2009, 09:33
I joined the party here a little late. Many collectives and "photographers agencies" have been tried out in the traditional market and I can't think of one that was successful. It's not that I don't agree with the principle it just it would require some huge resources to pull off.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: NoData on May 05, 2009, 09:41
I love reading all the comments and suggestions. This sure is a bright and talented group. Can I offer one alternative? In the interest of time and not having to reinvent the wheel by setting up a new site and the almighty search algorithm, payment issues and staff.

Why not try to unite as a group and select a representative to contact a site we all agree offers what is top on our collective list. First we create a list of what we want. Then try to negotiate or work with the site owner so it's a win win for all. They can then advertise the fact that the top players in Microstock are there and watch the people come. That's the movie in my head anyway.

Other randoms thoughts that make me worry that something needs to get done fast because how long do you think it will be before Flikr start's selling pic's for pennies? The time to act, educate newbies and organize is now. I will put my camera down before I sell a picture for pennies. So should everyone else.

Yes I am an Exclusive but maybe not for long.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 05, 2009, 09:47
I joined the party here a little late. Many collectives and "photographers agencies" have been tried out in the traditional market and I can't think of one that was successful.

I can think of more than one. But not one that has more than about 50 basically elite photographers.  And typically less than 20. And not RF either. The thing to remember about the co-ops is that invariably they are about profit sharing. So you potentially end up getting a cut of my corporate report etc. I doubt that would go down well in microstock land :)

This is why I believe that what micro/stock needs is some sort of market place, but which some sort of layer of administration. Rather than yet another microstock.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 05, 2009, 09:48
how long do you think it will be before Flikr start's selling pic's for pennies?

The Flickr Getty deal restricts that AFAIK.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 10:28
how long do you think it will be before Flikr start's selling pic's for pennies?

The Flickr Getty deal restricts that AFAIK.

They could change arrangement in a minute... Like istock removed OPT-OUT SUBSCRIPTION Button ;-)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 05, 2009, 10:33
It's refreshing to see some knowledgeable people and finally some good ideas on this thread...It can be done people, we as the main force on this business can beat them.  ;)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 10:48
Yes, some really great ideas from everyone! I think with a bit of organisation, this could be done.. has to be a co-op, and maybe somewhere between macro and micro stock, a new model, that doesn't charge as much as macro, but doesn't charge as little as micro either.. the exclusive for a month idea ROCKS, I really really love that one, and lots of other great thoughts, even talking about this helps, and if we keep talking, we'll keep attracting people that have real skills to help organise it.. you never know what opportunity could pop up!!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: WarrenPrice on May 05, 2009, 11:03
I think we keep shooting ourselves in the foot.  Everytime a new site comes on line ... we attack it.  I saw CutCaster as just the right vehicle to fight against the monopoly.  It could only work, however, if everyone went exclusive there and quit uploading to Getty and Corbis.  

The approach we are talking about in this thread is like re-inventing the wheel.  If you want to fight the monopoly ... don't use them.  Unite behind an independant.



Preparing to take more heat, I am reposting my original post on this subject.  It is on page one and was posted at 1320 yesterday.  I am still shocked by the attacks and the claim that I was being negative. 


Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 11:46
Warren exactly because you are doubtful means if you are won over by the idea, you could become one of it's greatest advocates.. plus the more people say something can't be done, the more we have to come up with ideas of why it will, and how to make it different.. everyone's opinion counts whether good or bad..

And anyone outright slamming the idea, just take that to drive the idea further, prove them all wrong.. work for me in business anyway, always has, I want more people to tell me I can't do something because it makes me even more determined to do it!!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: GeoPappas on May 05, 2009, 11:52
I want more people to tell me I can't do something because it makes me even more determined to do it!!

You can't do it!  ;)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 11:53
I want more people to tell me I can't do something because it makes me even more determined to do it!!

You can't do it!  ;)

lol!! I'll prove you wrong mister!! (starts programming :D)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 05, 2009, 11:58
Warren exactly because you are doubtful means if you are won over by the idea, you could become one of it's greatest advocates.. plus the more people say something can't be done, the more we have to come up with ideas of why it will, and how to make it different.. everyone's opinion counts whether good or bad..

And anyone outright slamming the idea, just take that to drive the idea further, prove them all wrong.. work for me in business anyway, always has, I want more people to tell me I can't do something because it makes me even more determined to do it!!

lol, the contrarian theory. in the real stock market, we made lots of money thinking this way.
like now we are going in, when everyone is selling, and vice versa.
i think you will succeed.  even if this co-op idea dies due to warren and his cohorts, there could still be some form of little pockets of networkings with people we find that have the ability and the diversity we need as a group to succeed.

i am learning more and more, not so much as trying to make this idea of gostwyck to work, but more to see a bright idea popping up with each new comment that is made here .

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: RT on May 05, 2009, 12:00
I want more people to tell me I can't do something because it makes me even more determined to do it!!

You can't do it!  ;)

You CAN do it, but unfortunately it'll fail.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: patballard on May 05, 2009, 12:02
Again, this thread is exciting. A couple of thoughts come to mind.

Don't get discouraged. This thread is just 24 hours old, and it has already generated some great ideas. This is a process that will take many months to carefully work out, if we choose to pursue it.

The one month exclusive idea is genius. Very few of us will want to cut our ties with the traditional micro agencies. At least at first. This would be a way of giving our group an edge, and we'd still be able to generate traditional income. The successful art cooperatives that I've seen aren't trying to eradicate privately owned galleries. They're just offering a new pricing structure to the artists. One thing that is complicated by the internet is that many galleries make the artists sign an exclusive contract within a certain geographic area. Not sure how we could use that one on the internet. Maybe the one month exclusive, or something similar, would take care of that issue. It changes the exclusivity from geography to time. Also, complicated by the internet is that in a geographic setting, competition makes the pie larger not smaller. I use Santa Fe as an example because I know the community. People flock to Santa Fe to buy art. More galleries open, and more people flock to Santa Fe to buy more art. There have been some gallery closings this last year, but not as many as I expected. These were probably under funded and didn't expand their marketing strategies to make up for the shortfall in income due to the recession. That's just a guess on my part.

Let's not let all of the frustrations we feel toward the traditional agencies at the moment make us hostile and cloud our judgment. We're not trying to make traditional microstock go away, we're just trying to find a successful alternative that will give the photographers and illustrators a larger percentage of sales. My attitude is that they own the businesses. They have the right to set their own standards. If I don't like it I should stop uploading to those sites that have business practices that I can't work with or work to find a successful alternative. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about business to know if we're being totally screwed financially by these sites or not. Look at the banking crisis here in the US. Are the successful agencies making larger profits at our expense, or are they struggling to maintain some sort of profit margin during a recession? I don't know, but this last year has made me cynical about business in general.

While still spotty, the economic news coming out of the US is getting better. This might be a great time to start planning for the eventual up turn in business. It's sort of like the buy low and sell high rule. Let's hope things have bottomed out and are really starting up. However, if the current recession hadn't happened, we'd all still be happy working and uploading. We'd never have examined what was happening with our work at the established agencies. At the very least, this is a good time to examine what's really going on with our sales.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: WarrenPrice on May 05, 2009, 12:06
Warren exactly because you are doubtful means if you are won over by the idea, you could become one of it's greatest advocates.. plus the more people say something can't be done, the more we have to come up with ideas of why it will, and how to make it different.. everyone's opinion counts whether good or bad..

And anyone outright slamming the idea, just take that to drive the idea further, prove them all wrong.. work for me in business anyway, always has, I want more people to tell me I can't do something because it makes me even more determined to do it!!

Doubtful???  Are we reading the same words?  I was offering an idea, not doubting an idea? 
I read the same recommendation in several other posts.  It was praised.  Are we speaking the same language? ???
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 05, 2009, 12:09
Again, this thread is exciting. A couple of thoughts come to mind.

Don't get discouraged. This thread is just 24 hours old, and it has already generated some great ideas. This is a process that will take many months to carefully work out, if we choose to pursue it.

The one month exclusive idea is genius. Very few of us will want to cut our ties with the traditional micro agencies. At least at first. This would be a way of giving our group an edge, and we'd still be able to generate traditional income. The successful art cooperatives that I've seen aren't trying to eradicate privately owned galleries. They're just offering a new pricing structure to the artists. One thing that is complicated by the internet is that many galleries make the artists sign an exclusive contract within a certain geographic area. Not sure how we could use that one on the internet. Maybe the one month exclusive, or something similar, would take care of that issue. It changes the exclusivity from geography to time. Also, complicated by the internet is that in a geographic setting, competition makes the pie larger not smaller. I use Santa Fe as an example because I know the community. People flock to Santa Fe to buy art. More galleries open, and more people flock to Santa Fe to buy more art. There have been some gallery closings this last year, but not as many as I expected. These were probably under funded and didn't expand their marketing strategies to make up for the shortfall in income due to the recession. That's just a guess on my part.

Let's not let all of the frustrations we feel toward the traditional agencies at the moment make us hostile and cloud our judgment.   My attitude is that they own the businesses. They have the right to set their own standards. If I don't like it I should stop uploading to those sites that have business practices that I can't work with or work to find a successful alternative. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about business to know if we're being totally screwed financially by these sites or not. Look at the banking crisis here in the US. Are the successful agencies making larger profits at our expense, or are they struggling to maintain some sort of profit margin during a recession? I don't know, but this last year has made me cynical about business in general.

While still spotty, the economic news coming out of the US is getting better. This might be a great time to start planning for the eventual up turn in business. It's sort of like the buy low and sell high rule. Let's hope things have bottomed out and are really starting up. However, if the current recession hadn't happened, we'd all still be happy working and uploading. We'd never have examined what was happening with our work at the established agencies. At the very least, this is a good time to examine what's really going on with our sales.


Spoken like a true trooper who knows the business. I will second this, if I might !
So well written and objectively. I like to repeat what Pat said,  "We're not trying to make traditional microstock go away, we're just trying to find a successful alternative that will give the photographers and illustrators a larger percentage of sales."

The more I see insertions like this by Pat, the more I will be interested for dialogue.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 05, 2009, 12:12
Warren exactly because you are doubtful means if you are won over by the idea, you could become one of it's greatest advocates.. plus the more people say something can't be done, the more we have to come up with ideas of why it will, and how to make it different.. everyone's opinion counts whether good or bad..

And anyone outright slamming the idea, just take that to drive the idea further, prove them all wrong.. work for me in business anyway, always has, I want more people to tell me I can't do something because it makes me even more determined to do it!!

Doubtful???  Are we reading the same words?  I was offering an idea, not doubting an idea? 
I read the same recommendation in several other posts.  It was praised.  Are we speaking the same language? ???
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 05, 2009, 12:18
Warren exactly because you are doubtful means if you are won over by the idea, you could become one of it's greatest advocates.. plus the more people say something can't be done, the more we have to come up with ideas of why it will, and how to make it different.. everyone's opinion counts whether good or bad..

And anyone outright slamming the idea, just take that to drive the idea further, prove them all wrong.. work for me in business anyway, always has, I want more people to tell me I can't do something because it makes me even more determined to do it!!

Doubtful???  Are we reading the same words?  I was offering an idea, not doubting an idea? 
I read the same recommendation in several other posts.  It was praised.  Are we speaking the same language? ???

Sorry I meant to put a comment and hit the reply button...
anyway Warren if it's any consulation I don't believe you are being doubtful.
We need to look at what was done in the past and make sure the same mistakes aren't made again. He isn't being doubtful. Any business has to look at the failures of the past and don't make the same mistakes...that's just smart business. I don't believe he is saying it can't be done and he is a believer, just has to find the solution which I believe is what we are doing here now.
It's the ones who say "It can't be done" who are doubtful and the non believers.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 12:20
Warren exactly because you are doubtful means if you are won over by the idea, you could become one of it's greatest advocates.. plus the more people say something can't be done, the more we have to come up with ideas of why it will, and how to make it different.. everyone's opinion counts whether good or bad..

And anyone outright slamming the idea, just take that to drive the idea further, prove them all wrong.. work for me in business anyway, always has, I want more people to tell me I can't do something because it makes me even more determined to do it!!

Doubtful???  Are we reading the same words?  I was offering an idea, not doubting an idea? 
I read the same recommendation in several other posts.  It was praised.  Are we speaking the same language? ???

Sry Warren my reply seems to have gone missing! That's cool, I only thought you were being negative because you mentioned it in your post, that's cool that you're not! And the ideas are great.. sorry about that misunderstanding :)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tempura on May 05, 2009, 12:26
maybe it's one of those yes we can moments
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: gostwyck on May 05, 2009, 12:28
maybe it's one of those yes we can moments

That's good __ I like that! (I'm sure I've heard it somewhere before though)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 05, 2009, 12:33
maybe it's one of those yes we can moments

That's good __ I like that! (I'm sure I've heard it somewhere before though)

Yeaaaa for tempura, the little engine !  8)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on May 05, 2009, 12:46
I joined the party here a little late. Many collectives and "photographers agencies" have been tried out in the traditional market and I can't think of one that was successful.

I can think of more than one. But not one that has more than about 50 basically elite photographers.  And typically less than 20. And not RF either. The thing to remember about the co-ops is that invariably they are about profit sharing. So you potentially end up getting a cut of my corporate report etc. I doubt that would go down well in microstock land :)

This is why I believe that what micro/stock needs is some sort of market place, but which some sort of layer of administration. Rather than yet another microstock.

But aren't those elite restrictive groups and not the co-op, let's all do nice things for each other method being discussed here?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 05, 2009, 13:00
Again, this thread is exciting. A couple of thoughts come to mind.

Don't get discouraged. This thread is just 24 hours old, and it has already generated some great ideas. This is a process that will take many months to carefully work out, if we choose to pursue it.

The one month exclusive idea is genius. Very few of us will want to cut our ties with the traditional micro agencies. At least at first. This would be a way of giving our group an edge, and we'd still be able to generate traditional income. The successful art cooperatives that I've seen aren't trying to eradicate privately owned galleries. They're just offering a new pricing structure to the artists. One thing that is complicated by the internet is that many galleries make the artists sign an exclusive contract within a certain geographic area. Not sure how we could use that one on the internet. Maybe the one month exclusive, or something similar, would take care of that issue. It changes the exclusivity from geography to time. Also, complicated by the internet is that in a geographic setting, competition makes the pie larger not smaller. I use Santa Fe as an example because I know the community. People flock to Santa Fe to buy art. More galleries open, and more people flock to Santa Fe to buy more art. There have been some gallery closings this last year, but not as many as I expected. These were probably under funded and didn't expand their marketing strategies to make up for the shortfall in income due to the recession. That's just a guess on my part.

Let's not let all of the frustrations we feel toward the traditional agencies at the moment make us hostile and cloud our judgment. We're not trying to make traditional microstock go away, we're just trying to find a successful alternative that will give the photographers and illustrators a larger percentage of sales. My attitude is that they own the businesses. They have the right to set their own standards. If I don't like it I should stop uploading to those sites that have business practices that I can't work with or work to find a successful alternative. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about business to know if we're being totally screwed financially by these sites or not. Look at the banking crisis here in the US. Are the successful agencies making larger profits at our expense, or are they struggling to maintain some sort of profit margin during a recession? I don't know, but this last year has made me cynical about business in general.

While still spotty, the economic news coming out of the US is getting better. This might be a great time to start planning for the eventual up turn in business. It's sort of like the buy low and sell high rule. Let's hope things have bottomed out and are really starting up. However, if the current recession hadn't happened, we'd all still be happy working and uploading. We'd never have examined what was happening with our work at the established agencies. At the very least, this is a good time to examine what's really going on with our sales.


Very well said Pat, my hat off to you...I also think the month exclusive idea is a hit!!! ;D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 05, 2009, 13:05
I joined the party here a little late. Many collectives and "photographers agencies" have been tried out in the traditional market and I can't think of one that was successful.

I can think of more than one. But not one that has more than about 50 basically elite photographers.  And typically less than 20. And not RF either. The thing to remember about the co-ops is that invariably they are about profit sharing. So you potentially end up getting a cut of my corporate report etc. I doubt that would go down well in microstock land :)

This is why I believe that what micro/stock needs is some sort of market place, but which some sort of layer of administration. Rather than yet another microstock.

But aren't those elite restrictive groups and not the co-op, let's all do nice things for each other method being discussed here?

Ok, let me play the devil's advocate here, as I just finished 2 pints of Guinness and a whole plate of mussels, so my brain's working , rofl.
We are all in a way elitist. I am also hanging about here looking to network for my own interest.
I am not any different from say sjlocke who has been accused as not being too much of a good samaritan or a nice guy to help newbies. I am somewhere on extreme ends. I teach newbies , that's my trade in my history, and I share secret that my gurus impart to me. I also at times get tired of all these help me get good threads. Am I looking for an elite groups, ya ! I am even trying to establish one here in my own city.
 
So how is this CC different?   Unless you're lying through your dentures, every single one of us is here for our self interest. Don't fool yourself. I am here because I want answers to enable me to establish a network . I don't need advice to shoot, I teach people how to do that. I don't need people to help me make portraits, isolated shots,nature,etc. I can do all that myself. But I want to belong to a conglomerate where we can kick arse consistently.

How is this going to work? Well, we are like Ellen Bough said, divided into artists who gives a rat ass to money, and entrepreneurs who think $$$ before pressing the shutter. If we combine the two with careful selecting our networks, we could be a formidable force in the stock photo world.
Not too many of us can compete with Yuri. No, not alone, but we can if we find selective partnership or association, each photographer being a specialist in his work, and having some one who knows what sells in stock.  Is this being elitist? I think so. I love being elitist, as I am proud of what I can do,
I didn't studying photography and read piles of great photographers works for nothing. I didn't spend hours lighting a stupid pair of shoes shooting 20 rolls of film just to end up earning 30 cents a download, never mind 3 cents.

If that's cool for you, which I gather many is cool to that, bully for you. But before I make that transition from a working photographer to micro stock, I want to see the money . If there is no money , I am not interested . I already have a better option , I just want to investigate the possibilities of branching out.
If microstock dies tomorrow, you won't find me crying, but I like to see it succeed with better deals for all of us, as since last april, I have met some of the nicest people here.

Keep talking.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 05, 2009, 13:10
his OR HER,

I have to add this , because when I say his, I am speaking as a group, not to mean masculine. I have to say this because I am probably lisafx most staunch admirer, and lisafx is a SHE  ;D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 05, 2009, 14:12
tan,
Self interest, whatver, it's still a great motivational tool.  8) 
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 05, 2009, 14:21
I want more people to tell me I can't do something because it makes me even more determined to do it!!

You can't do it!  ;)

You CAN do it, but unfortunately it'll fail.

rofl,
it cannot be done ...

BECAUSE
- microstock photographers on the general have short memories and short attention span. they get excited over little things and get charged with an idea but that feeling is more like an explosion rather than a slow enduring burning candle.

the germ of a good idea requires conviction and discipline and desire to persevere. i don't think too many microstock-ers are ready for that, or possess that quality.  maybe trad stock photographers have that, as they belong to a diff
kind of mentality. i would love to be proven wrong, but i won't hold my breath  ;)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Adeptris on May 05, 2009, 14:44
I have been folowing this thread but it is still missing the key information.

What is the Added Value for the Buyer?
What is the Unique Selling Point?

This is my take on things, the "Added Value for a Buyer" should be the exclusive content the site provides, not here for a month and on all sites next month, the photographers should be a big part of the site and look to provide exclusive content and not just throw up what they offer on other sites, the pricing therefore becomes premium and not microstock pricing.

The collective concept is good "Unique Selling Point" and something I have been thinking about, a central branded store front with the search content from many unique photographers portals, each one being a portal site within the main website, with an open and uniform price structure, each photographer being able to showcase thier content and manage thier own sales through the site. 

There have been so many stocksites "By Photographers for Photographers".
Microstock requires large volumes of customers to survive, there are many out there already to choose from, with almost every style of image and content.

Create another microsite and you will fail, create a site full of value added exclusive content and a unique selling point where you have a monopoly on the content, that is I.M.H.O. the way forward.

David  :o
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 05, 2009, 15:00
I have been folowing this thread but it is still missing the key information.

What is the Added Value for the Buyer?
What is the Unique Selling Point?

This is my take on things, the "Added Value for a Buyer" should be the exclusive content the site provides, not here for a month and on all sites next month, the photographers should be a big part of the site and look to provide exclusive content and not just throw up what they offer on other sites, the pricing therefore becomes premium and not microstock pricing.

The collective concept is good "Unique Selling Point" and something I have been thinking about, a central branded store front with the search content from many unique photographers portals, each one being a portal site within the main website, with an open and uniform price structure, each photographer being able to showcase thier content and manage thier own sales through the site. 

There have been so many stocksites "By Photographers for Photographers".
Microstock requires large volumes of customers to survive, there are many out there already to choose from, with almost every style of image and content.

Create another microsite and you will fail, create a site full of value added exclusive content and a unique selling point where you have a monopoly on the content, that is I.M.H.O. the way forward.

David  :o


David, I think the biggest hurdle is convincing anyone who has been making money in micro for all these years to simply delete their port to join a co-operative.
I like the exclusive image factor. This is what makes the product viable. It's like old days of view camera vs SLR. Sinar did not look at Nikon and say, we have to corner that market. They were not interested in the consumer market. Stock photography could do the same, not to the point of trad images costing an arm and a leg, nor micro literally giving away the shop for even less than what it cost me to buy one gram of peanuts.

The conglomerate could still have the existing port with the sites, of course this excludes IS exclusives as they cannot supply images elsewhere. But for the rest, the photographers can still provide the exclusive images with this module.
The argument of course would come, "so what's the diff between this and just continuing to contribute to both micro and trad which many are already doing?"
Well, there is no longer the middle man, so the price factor alone would enable buyers to get these images for less, and the contributors also get a higher earning.

All sounds incredible and attractive, except in order to do this, each and every one of the contributors has to be trusted in not betraying their colleagues.  I am not sure, if this is possible globally; for that reason, I'd sooner go co-operative with some people I find that I can and like to work with, rather than treat this as a global objective.

Just my 2 bobs' worth of personal search for a better alternative to a more fair system . Good to hear you, I will be reading and hope to see more insightful comments here. It's not easy for me to concentrate on any topic here, but if it's worth my while... and self-interest, I think I could tear myself away from the pub, or shooting,  for a bit  ;)

P.S.
or we could all demand to be paid in "grams of peanuts" rather than cash.
we would earn more in commission that way  :D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 05, 2009, 15:07
I have been folowing this thread but it is still missing the key information.

What is the Added Value for the Buyer?
What is the Unique Selling Point?


I agree with the exclusive idea and I think that is a added value for the buyer as well as a unique selling point. We as contributors need some input from buyers as to what is missing in the stock today and see if we can supply that for them. That would also be a unique selling point..
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 05, 2009, 15:17
I have been folowing this thread but it is still missing the key information.

What is the Added Value for the Buyer?
What is the Unique Selling Point?


I agree with the exclusive idea and I think that is a added value for the buyer as well as a unique selling point. We as contributors need some input from buyers as to what is missing in the stock today and see if we can supply that for them. That would also be a unique selling point..


Yuri had already posted a thread to this.

Justifibaly, he got some  responders asking : who's going to retrain the stuck in the mud reviewers to stop approving same old same old and let the new ideas in? the way it stands, the only sure thing of approval is to upload  same old same old.

In a co-operative , the reviewers especially Atilla, will have to find a new job; I don't know how this is going to solve Atilla's S&M fetish urges, but honestly, at this moment, Atilla's the least of my concern ;D.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 05, 2009, 15:24

I have been folowing this thread but it is still missing the key information.

What is the Added Value for the Buyer?
What is the Unique Selling Point?

This is my take on things, the "Added Value for a Buyer" should be the exclusive content the site provides, not here for a month and on all sites next month, the photographers should be a big part of the site and look to provide exclusive content and not just throw up what they offer on other sites, the pricing therefore becomes premium and not microstock pricing.

The collective concept is good "Unique Selling Point" and something I have been thinking about, a central branded store front with the search content from many unique photographers portals, each one being a portal site within the main website, with an open and uniform price structure, each photographer being able to showcase thier content and manage thier own sales through the site. 

There have been so many stocksites "By Photographers for Photographers".
Microstock requires large volumes of customers to survive, there are many out there already to choose from, with almost every style of image and content.

Create another microsite and you will fail, create a site full of value added exclusive content and a unique selling point where you have a monopoly on the content, that is I.M.H.O. the way forward.

David  :o


David, I think the biggest hurdle is convincing anyone who has been making money in micro for all these years to simply delete their port to join a co-operative.
I like the exclusive image factor. This is what makes the product viable. It's like old days of view camera vs SLR. Sinar did not look at Nikon and say, we have to corner that market. They were not interested in the consumer market. Stock photography could do the same, not to the point of trad images costing an arm and a leg, nor micro literally giving away the shop for even less than what it cost me to buy one gram of peanuts.

The conglomerate could still have the existing port with the sites, of course this excludes IS exclusives as they cannot supply images elsewhere. But for the rest, the photographers can still provide the exclusive images with this module.
The argument of course would come, "so what's the diff between this and just continuing to contribute to both micro and trad which many are already doing?"
Well, there is no longer the middle man, so the price factor alone would enable buyers to get these images for less, and the contributors also get a higher earning.

All sounds incredible and attractive, except in order to do this, each and every one of the contributors has to be trusted in not betraying their colleagues.  I am not sure, if this is possible globally; for that reason, I'd sooner go co-operative with some people I find that I can and like to work with, rather than treat this as a global objective.

Just my 2 bobs' worth of personal search for a better alternative to a more fair system . Good to hear you, I will be reading and hope to see more insightful comments here. It's not easy for me to concentrate on any topic here, but if it's worth my while... and self-interest, I think I could tear myself away from the pub, or shooting,  for a bit  ;)

P.S.
or we could all demand to be paid in "grams of peanuts" rather than cash.
we would earn more in commission that way  :D



are we now talking about co-existence rather than elimination of the middle man?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: alias on May 05, 2009, 15:40
the way it stands, the only sure thing of approval is to upload  same old same old.

I do not know where you are sending your work or how much of your income comes from stock photography but what you are saying certainly is not true at Alamy, Getty or IS where you will frequently see innovated concepts and techniques.

Few rejection moans are justified. You should really study your rejections and learn from them.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 05, 2009, 15:56
..... IS where you will frequently see innovated concepts and techniques.

(REPEAT)

also, I am NOT interested in working for IStock. not more than ever as of yesterday.  do you see any one of the IStock--ers exclusive or non exclusive celebrating, alias?
Other than yourself ?   ;D ;D ;D ;D

AS FOR THE INNOVATED CONCEPT OF ISTOCK?  ohhhhh yes, i've seen that in one of the thread we had here a while back.

But Helllllll no, I don' t know how to shoot images like that...
I am quite allergic to lense flare and clipped highlights  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 05, 2009, 15:57
the way it stands, the only sure thing of approval is to upload  same old same old.

I do not know where you are sending your work or how much of your income comes from stock photography but what you are saying certainly is not true at Alamy, Getty or IS where you will frequently see innovated concepts and techniques.

Few rejection moans are justified. You should really study your rejections and learn from them.

I don't know about Alamy, but I think we have learn enough already this couple of week from Getty/Istock...what they stand for and their techniques.  ;)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 05, 2009, 16:04
Alamy, unless you're consistently bad, you should not get anything but 100% approval because it is based on the first of your submission. Also, given the high standards of 49MB, you really cannot but be a critical contributor to succeed uploading at Alamy.  Because by the time you upsize to 19MP +- your image has better be impeccable at the original smaller size.

I don't think the problem is Alamy, we are talking about an alternative to get sub sub commission.

as pointed out below by m@m (edited)

I don't know about Alamy, but I think we have learn enough already this couple of week from Getty/Istock...what they stand for and their techniques.  ;)

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 05, 2009, 16:18
..... IS where you will frequently see innovated concepts and techniques.



AS FOR THE INNOVATED CONCEPT OF ISTOCK?  ohhhhh yes, i've seen that in one of the thread we had here a while back.

But Helllllll no, I don' t know how to shoot images like that...
I am quite allergic to lense flare and clipped highlights  ;D ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 05, 2009, 16:19


AS FOR THE INNOVATED CONCEPT OF ISTOCK?  ohhhhh yes, i've seen that in one of the thread we had here a while back.

But Helllllll no, I don' t know how to shoot images like that...
I am quite allergic to lense flare and clipped highlights  ;D ;D ;D ;D



 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  alias rofl  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Adeptris on May 05, 2009, 16:21
are we now talking about co-existence rather than elimination of the middle man?

The middle man cannot be eliminated as in any collective there will be ongoing costs, software, hosting, legal, marketing these are all middle men that need to be funded, look at it from another perspective some of the sites that already exist were bank rolled from venture capital or other investors and had the funding pulled, so how will this site be funded or the workload shared evenly, are a few going to create the site for the many on an equal share footing, the internet is changing daily and the site would need to move with these trends.

To do this with minimum risk you would need to control costs and allow the growth to be organic, this could not happen overnight, and you would be looking at investing at all levels for about three years, only photographers that were in it for the long haul should be involved and contribute on an image exclusive basis to start, RM and RF no subscriptions but with middle price points for volume.

Looking back on a few threads this model will not suit many here, the number of times I have read that a Photographer has uploaded to a New site, gave it two months, stopped uploading and is then posting negative feedback in the forum about all the work they have done uploading, so it would be important that contributors understood that they could not judge the site as a failure for 2 -3 years, that other were working just as hard trying to tune the website, and that there is a minimum time needed for organic growth to maximize the contributors return.  

David  ;)    
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 05, 2009, 16:51
are we now talking about co-existence rather than elimination of the middle man?

The middle man cannot be eliminated as in any collective there will be ongoing costs, software, hosting, legal, marketing these are all middle men that need to be funded, look at it from another perspective some of the sites that already exist were bank rolled from venture capital or other investors and had the funding pulled, so how will this site be funded or the workload shared evenly, are a few going to create the site for the many on an equal share footing, the internet is changing daily and the site would need to move with these trends.

To do this with minimum risk you would need to control costs and allow the growth to be organic, this could not happen overnight, and you would be looking at investing at all levels for about three years, only photographers that were in it for the long haul should be involved and contribute on an image exclusive basis to start, RM and RF no subscriptions but with middle price points for volume.

Looking back on a few threads this model will not suit many here, the number of times I have read that a Photographer has uploaded to a New site, gave it two months, stopped uploading and is then posting negative feedback in the forum about all the work they have done uploading, so it would be important that contributors understood that they could not judge the site as a failure for 2 -3 years, that other were working just as hard trying to tune the website, and that there is a minimum time needed for organic growth to maximize the contributors return. 

David  ;)   

hokey dokey, let's say Cutcaster, as they're new and their prices are healthy. they lack the market draw but that could again be partly like you said, they upload and expect instant result, and waiting 2-3 months start to crap on Cut due to no sales. which touches back to what tan510jomast said
about reliability.  we have a problem, but it's mostly the irrational and unreliability of the photographers, as they all want instant results . so it's no wonder Cut may be stalling , or PhotoShelter failing to take on a monolith like Getty. great vision, no sustian power.

so let's say i'm re-adapting from elimination of the middle man to working with one of the new sites.
this would save alot of startup cost and trial and error, as someone like John Griffin would certainly have the knowhow of the ropes by now. and he certainly hasn't given up on his vision which is consistent with us.

On the other thread, lisafx suggested going to Corbis Veers, which i think is going back in circles
since Corbis and Getty are old player, and tired old dogs. I would see someone new in the game,
would be more stamina to see this through , rather than an old dog that's already lost to Getty.

Input ? David?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: le_cyclope on May 05, 2009, 17:09
Lots of great ideas here!

So I jump in with few more:

I remember the talks we had here two years ago about a Co-op of photographers and after some research about such co-ops, I found back then that it is a lot of work to set up and I can not afford to transform what I consider as a part-time hobby/job into a full-time job…  And I guess I’m not the only one in this situation!

But here are some thoughts, based on what I red here:

We can group ourselves and use a unique template to build our own individual site.  On this template, buyers would have the possibility to

1. search within this private site,

2. search within an existing site (let’s say FeaturesPic (or any other site!)) but only within the group of photographers

3. search trough the whole FP site.

Benefits:

For the individual, possibility of selling a photo directly,  or receiving a referenced commission plus a bonus (?) because of the association, or receive a regular reference commission.  Plus the possibility to structure ourselves and maybe in a few years (or months?!) start our own site.

For the group, more sales, more visibility, more commission (to be negociated?)

For the site, more sales, much more visibility, possibility of exclusive content. ( I really like Flemmishdream's idea of a month of exclusivity)

What do you think about it?

To start up, what we need is:

1. Form a group (that's the easy job  ;) )

2. Negociate and/or build a template  (I have no idea of what this work represent, just to get an idea, let’s figure we are 50 photographers and we pitch 50$ in the bucket; that’s 2500$ for the template)

3. Negociate as an entity with sites that offer the greatest commissions (or any site…)

4. Sell!

What do you think about it?

Claude
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 05, 2009, 17:49
This is from the other thread Attention: Web designers, Accountants, Lawyers and Photographers

Has Zymmetrical not been aiming for many of these objectives from our inception?

- 70% commission
- no free photos
- no subscriptions
- open market pricing
- truly internationalized system, one of very few agencies that uses truly international domains (this has been a key strategy from the start, each month we are tripling traffic on Zymmetrical.de, .es, etc.)
- experienced staff (Paul Melcher, veteran of innumerable startups as photo industry liason, review staff that are veterans of popular stock agencies, and humbly myself as one who has been selling digital art online since 1991)
- high editorial standards from the start
- established, scalable web system that relies on a programming framework that just got series "A" venture capital ([url=http://www.dotnetnuke.com]www.dotnetnuke.com[/url] ([url]http://www.dotnetnuke.com[/url]))
- made in Canada: Canadians aren't boastful but it helps to know the business you are dealing with operates from an advanced legal/copyright jurisdiction
 
After the pain and frayed patience levels of a year-long beta we are ready and able to support coop initiatives - we have always maintained an Artist focus, and hopefully any shortcomings in actual returns on time invested can be balanced out against our undeniably non-standard approach.

ps. I completely agree with the time-dependent exclusivity clause, however 1 month is not enough turnaround for most magazine publishers etc. 6 months would be a healthy figure.


Zymmetrical I'm not familiar with your site and I will go check it out, but the main question would be if you would back a co-op?
Would you be willing to listen to what those of the co-op want and change accordingly?
I think what everyone is voicing their opinions about right now is the terms and conditions of the big sites. You could be a great benifit if you would be willing to listen. As for rather you would be willing to do these things that would be left totally up to you.


Voice your opnions on this....we need feed back.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 17:55
I think it is not time to vote yet.

First of all you must define problems you have on microstock sites.

I know several. But main problem is that some microstock sites which are acting as Slave Masters to Contributing Authors.

Other problems? Prices? Sales? Stupid rejections? Favourising other authors?

What are solutions? Coop?

One month exclusivity? What is that with one month exclusivity? That is not enough to get your image noticed!

Exclusivity must be based on 6-12 months at least. But, if you wish to make it real that should be 2 - 5 years. Then all other agencies will not see your images and that will hurt them hard!

One month is nothing!

Also who of you all has so much guts to leave micro earnings behind and turn exclusive somewhere on 2 years ?

I don't! I just make my selections and lately there was 2 bridges I demolished - one more to come soon!

So, 2 bridges down one more to demolish and I need one more good agency to cover my loss... What would it be? Helping already established ageancy to get on right way or to play communism?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 05, 2009, 18:10
I think it is not time to vote yet.

First of all you must define problems you have on microstock sites.

I know several. But main problem is that some microstock sites which are acting as Slave Masters to Contributing Authors.

Other problems? Prices? Sales?

What are solutions? Coop?

One month exclusivity? What is that with one month exclusivity? That is not enough to get your image noticed!

Exclusivity must be based on 6-12 months at least. But, if you wish to make it real that should be 2 - 5 years. Then all other agencies will not see your images and that will hurt them hard!

One month is nothing!

Also who of you all has so much guts to leave micro earnings behind and turn exclusive somewhere on 2 years ?




We don't need a vote..only opinions....which is what you just voiced and thank you...that's what we need...but we also need agreement on that rather than going rounds and rounds about the same thing.

 
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 05, 2009, 18:14
here's another quote from the other thread

I will give web design services free of charge, I specialise in search engine optimisation, however, I'm not a developer/programmer, just have a good working knowledge of php/mysql, but we would need someone who specialises in programming too!
[/quote

This is what we need...more that are willing to do what is needed in that area in order to make it work. And I do think that a reasonable subscription is needed by contributors that will help finance this...it won't be free by any means and the costs need to be taken into account.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 05, 2009, 18:18
donding, milinz, woa... woa...
We are far from getting any kind of closure here. If you look at the names of the visitors, we're not even getting the main players, which is what we need. Until we get the same rapport as the other thread where you have a larger number of old timers, we cannot really say it's nothing but hot air. Sorry. 8)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: hqimages on May 05, 2009, 18:22
All that's needed is to keep talking about it, keep brainstorming, get as many opinions as possible, and slowly but surely get new names added to the volunteer list started by donding!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 05, 2009, 18:25
donding, milinz, woa... woa...
We are far from getting any kind of closure here. If you look at the names of the visitors, we're not even getting the main players, which is what we need. Until we get the same rapport as the other thread where you have a larger number of old timers, we cannot really say it's nothing but hot air. Sorry. 8)

 Yeah I know but I was hoping to get those who checked out the other thread to come here and join in the discussion. Some people on here only read the subject line and if they don't understand what it's talking about they won't visit that thread, so hopefully in the days ahead more will jump from that one to this one to voice their thoughts and opinions. Ohhh this is far from closure and I'm totally aware of that.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 05, 2009, 18:30
donding, milinz, woa... woa...
We are far from getting any kind of closure here. If you look at the names of the visitors, we're not even getting the main players, which is what we need. Until we get the same rapport as the other thread where you have a larger number of old timers, we cannot really say it's nothing but hot air. Sorry. 8)

 Yeah I know but I was hoping to get those who checked out the other thread to come here and join in the discussion. Some people on here only read the subject line and if they don't understand what it's talking about they won't visit that thread, so hopefully in the days ahead more will jump from that one to this one to voice their thoughts and opinions. Ohhh this is far from closure and I'm totally aware of that.

But you are doing such a great job being our Marketing & Promo Rep !  Good show  ;)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 05, 2009, 18:37
donding, milinz, woa... woa...
We are far from getting any kind of closure here. If you look at the names of the visitors, we're not even getting the main players, which is what we need. Until we get the same rapport as the other thread where you have a larger number of old timers, we cannot really say it's nothing but hot air. Sorry. 8)

By what I have seen and heard this past couple of day on this thread, I tend to agree with Tan, the people that we need on this thread don't seem to be interested or care, even though they're on the same $0.03 boat that we are, so to keep at it is to go around in circles...just wait until the new commissions start to kick in, and maybe one of them will start a similar thread.

Best regards.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: vonkara on May 05, 2009, 18:45
Get yours today for FREE!!  (http://tgfwrw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pZCWIob0gD92OFmUY6qRC_KXeSfgFHNN0Q2LZdYiL5n61BuL6F-qfSAjin2InkhM5PFOEFG_RmuEVKVpXi8VIpe3o7IKbeE3e/opt-out.jpg)

ADD to the discuss here http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87899&page=1 and on MSG
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 05, 2009, 19:01
Get yours today for FREE!!  ([url]http://tgfwrw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pZCWIob0gD92OFmUY6qRC_KXeSfgFHNN0Q2LZdYiL5n61BuL6F-qfSAjin2InkhM5PFOEFG_RmuEVKVpXi8VIpe3o7IKbeE3e/opt-out.jpg[/url])

ADD to the discuss here [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87899&page=1[/url] and on MSG


and if anyone wants peanuts, I have several images in my portfolio.
this one being my latest masterpiece..
(http://images.stockxpert.com/pic/m/j/js/jsltanm/38751031_54283485.jpg)
 Only 60 cents !!!
...sorry Tyler, for the self promo,  ;D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Nero the Fiddler on May 05, 2009, 20:56
 I admire those that wish to stand by their principles and try to buck the system. That is what this country is all about. I don't think it will make any difference as I see the threads at Istock have been locked. I believe their minds are made up. I will follow what ever an agency offers that is in my best interest. Will this benefit enough people to offset those that are opting out. I imagine they have thought this reaction through in detail. Diversity is your best answer to this problem in the future. Spread your images as far and wide as you can. Learn from this lesson if it effects your income negatively and adjust accordingly. Their company their rules, it will always be this way. Good luck to all involved.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: thomasw on May 06, 2009, 00:38
Well I've been pondering this now for the last night / day and a bit and this is what I am thinking, some of this may be a bit of a rehash of others ideas and or patch of job so credit for others is due where it is due.

A co-op is most definitely the way to go but how to do it? The tech requirements, logistics, legal and what not are just to large an barrier for a fresh out of the darkroom co-op to work around. The idea behind the porn structure is good but I can us getting into trouble with conflicting contracts and payment structures (processing and pricing).

As far as creating our own self sustaining site site we get into issues managing the site, lawyers, accountants, marketers, image reviewers (yes we need reviewers), someone to hire all these people. If we do these jobs ourselves there will be conflicts and not nice ones either amongest the members not to mention the conflicts of interest with running a site will submitting to other agencies.

I'm thinking that our best bet to make this co-op work will be to partner with an existing site. I know people have their reservations about the new sites and low earners but quite frankly what would we expect from our own start up. If one of the new / low earners were to approach us with a new business plan were we as contributors are offered a "new" contract were by we take a smaller percentage of the sale price of each image for x number of dollars in exchange for a vote in the operation of the site (similar to a vote on the board of directors), one vote per contributor. This way the site becomes legally responsible to seek the majority vote of its contributors before making changes to the site or agreements, no majority no change. Also once the x number of dollars has been reached by the contributor their percentage of each sale would rise to rate y, therefore providing the site with a financial boost to assist with the re-branding (renaming) and marketing the site as a "Fair Trade" stock site.

In order for such a change in a contributors agreement would most certainly require the submission of proof of identification as the contributors would end up becoming shareholders of the site (one share per contributor).

The one contributor one vote would help avoid any one contributor from corning the voting process on changes although the site would have to disclose the number of votes outstanding and abide by a 50 percent plus one rule for votes cast on changes.

By using an existing site we would have the infrastructure in place and a means to review our images (in a clear well stated manner, rules and guide lines) to ensure that we do not harm our own quality.

No mandatory exclusivity as it would limit the number of images that we can get on-line in a relatively reasonable time frame.

These are just few thoughts that I've had on the subjectand how it maybe able to work, and yes these thoughts still need work themselves. Now is there a site admin out there that may interested in such an idea?

Enjoy and rip away!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: epixx on May 06, 2009, 01:56
I don't understand this discussion. Instead of putting a lot of effort, money and risk into making something that may or may not fail, why not give our full support to agencies like FP? FP was my number five earner last month, with 70% of prices that I decide myself. You won't do much better than that whatever you do.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Adeptris on May 06, 2009, 02:33
Lets look again at the concept again, each photographer manages thier own portal of images with a central showroom of approved images where a buyer can search images from all portals or from photographer specific portals.

Common opinion to discusss which could see the site as a non starter, "I will not upload to any site where I have to pay", the truth here is that you do not pay to upload, but you pay a heavy price when you have a sale, if you are sure about your work and you do not upload for fun, then paying for a service would not be a problem in return for a lower sales fee.

How to keep costs to a minimum, option one we would need to design and build the site, my model would be looking at DotNetNuke (DNN) for the front end holding thumbs and comps and Amazon S3 simple storage for the back end to store the full size images this would mean that each contributor would have an amazon account with an image bucket that they pay for, then we could host DNN for a smaller fee to minimise charges to contributors and present the thumbs and comps any sales would provide a secure download link from Amazon webservices and use the Amazon payment service.

This would keep the costs managable as the DNN site would only need to store small images and the search engine.

The Alamy model of QC where you would only look at quality and legal requirements would be a good model, as we are not qualified to judge content in terms of "what the buyers might be looking for", there would need to be some policy where contributors could flag an image they felt falls outside of the scope of the site.

Then there is the second option to approach an existing site with a group proposal a form of Virtual Agency where the portfolio is a collective and special different percentage rates are agreed on the sales from this collective with the revenue going to each photographer, but this model removes the photographers own portals within the collective.

David  :D 
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: zymmetricaldotcom on May 06, 2009, 02:47
I was going to upload some more files. Guess not today.  :-X Hope this gets fixed soon. If their ever is a partnership between us and Zymmetrical I'm sure there will be a huge increase in submissions.

It's an unfortunate pause but one that must be taken in order to keep the playing field level for everyone. The good news is that, even though we get frustrated on our end when some people do not seem to read or react to cues such as rejection reasons, we honestly have not really encountered anyone acting in 'bad faith' and uploading away with no cares in the world - most people are just naturally enthusiastic about their work. It's just a matter that we need better communication and clearer procedures from our side, coming out of beta the current 'open' upload system seemed manageable but scaling up always means some unanticipated growth spurts.   

For the coop concept; I think pretty much most 'image agency' staff i've met are creative types and very into what this business is about, there are so many hard working people who want to make a living with your best interests as an artist in mind. I really don't most agency staff rolls into their office with dollar signs in their eyes thinking 'how can I milk these photographers today'.  ;)      I think we just happen to be in a period in this industry where business models aren't quite settled and adding in a nightmare economic depression to the mix hasn't helped.

You are absolutely right that the agencies must listen to the demands of their suppliers - but I wouldn't want to see creatives get distracted from their primary work by the more dreary aspects of growing a business directly in retaliation for lack of agency response to independents - as a first step why not try a non-profit collective as simply a content pool? This forum is already a beehive in this industry, if some democratic voting mechanism is established for debating issues with the agencies (with the ultimate bargaining chip being the group collectively can move it's content) you may be able to get the bargaining power you want without having to invest upfront in the truly expensive and difficult process of making an end-to-end business. Already many agencies actively pay attention to what is discussed here, maybe a more centralized issue tracker/voter would a step in the right direction?



Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: diego_cervo on May 06, 2009, 03:02
Well I've been pondering this now for the last night / day and a bit and this is what I am thinking, some of this may be a bit of a rehash of others ideas and or patch of job so credit for others is due where it is due.

A co-op is most definitely the way to go but how to do it? The tech requirements, logistics, legal and what not are just to large an barrier for a fresh out of the darkroom co-op to work around. The idea behind the porn structure is good but I can us getting into trouble with conflicting contracts and payment structures (processing and pricing).

As far as creating our own self sustaining site site we get into issues managing the site, lawyers, accountants, marketers, image reviewers (yes we need reviewers), someone to hire all these people. If we do these jobs ourselves there will be conflicts and not nice ones either amongest the members not to mention the conflicts of interest with running a site will submitting to other agencies.

I'm thinking that our best bet to make this co-op work will be to partner with an existing site. I know people have their reservations about the new sites and low earners but quite frankly what would we expect from our own start up. If one of the new / low earners were to approach us with a new business plan were we as contributors are offered a "new" contract were by we take a smaller percentage of the sale price of each image for x number of dollars in exchange for a vote in the operation of the site (similar to a vote on the board of directors), one vote per contributor. This way the site becomes legally responsible to seek the majority vote of its contributors before making changes to the site or agreements, no majority no change. Also once the x number of dollars has been reached by the contributor their percentage of each sale would rise to rate y, therefore providing the site with a financial boost to assist with the re-branding (renaming) and marketing the site as a "Fair Trade" stock site.

In order for such a change in a contributors agreement would most certainly require the submission of proof of identification as the contributors would end up becoming shareholders of the site (one share per contributor).

The one contributor one vote would help avoid any one contributor from corning the voting process on changes although the site would have to disclose the number of votes outstanding and abide by a 50 percent plus one rule for votes cast on changes.

By using an existing site we would have the infrastructure in place and a means to review our images (in a clear well stated manner, rules and guide lines) to ensure that we do not harm our own quality.

No mandatory exclusivity as it would limit the number of images that we can get on-line in a relatively reasonable time frame.

These are just few thoughts that I've had on the subjectand how it maybe able to work, and yes these thoughts still need work themselves. Now is there a site admin out there that may interested in such an idea?

Enjoy and rip away!

Absolutely agree with you. That's the simplest way to see some bucks in a relatively short term and have voice on decisions (which I think it's one of the things we need the most and lead some of us starting this thread, right?).
Exclusivity is an essential part to make a low earner site standing out of the crowd....otherwise there's no added value to it. Of course it should be on a per image basis and IMO they should be priced higher.
best,
diego
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: null on May 06, 2009, 03:46
Well I'm on a different time zone so I couldn't cope reading all yet.

Actually, the idea of a United Artist stock site was launched by Rinder about 3 years ago. He researched the idea thoroughly and found out it would just be Another New Site with loads of capital needed.

When I brought up part of his ideas again, it was mostly to create a wiki of the Ideal Site, to produce a sort of benchmark to judge sites against. And also as a stimulus for existing sites to abolish some very unfavorable recent decisions in the rush to the bottom line price.

As for me personally, Dreamstime still is close to the "ideal site", and in a recent poll here, I guess for many. The subs are under control there, judged from an increasing RPD. For StockXpert and iStock, it's too early to judge, as probably Getty itself is still struggling with their strategy after the buyouts.

Judging from some very remarkable personal messages, the vested stock sites are certainly a bit worried about a microstockers collective, but there is no reason for really. I was more thinking of a benchmark for existing sites, although the looming of an independent Mother of all Sites can certainly be motivating in taking the benchmark seriously :)
Technically, it's not that difficult to build a new site. LO and YAY have been built by one guy. The problem will be maintenance and balancing server load after a while, and those experts don't come cheap.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 06, 2009, 05:35
wow, such a development since last night. it's amazing the rapport we are getting here. dongding is doing such a great promo job. but here's another question i am asking myself this early in the morning. lol, i don't wake up this early so i must be getting obsessed to this forum since the IS incident.
what do we do now? are you still uploading new images to IS, StockXpert? and to the other sites? if so, why?  if things look gloomy as it appears, how are the other sites at higher prices going to compete. Dan mentioned already that SS too is affected, and we all know how much sales SS gets. I am  even more surprised that we have not heard from the other sites on this. At least to give us some perspective of whether we should still send them new images. If no sales gets there, what's the incentive.

update:
and as you can see, even Panthermedia is being flooded with new images.
i wonder if this is mostly from IS and StockXpert.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Dreamframer on May 06, 2009, 07:27
Thank God! Looks like some steps will be made finally. :)
We already became some kind of slaves who blindly obey everything agencies ask of us.

Can someone make a poll to see which agency we like the most?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 08:10
Also, I understand Zymmetrical is good, but not exactly microstock oriented and their reviewers are pickier than ones at Fotolia or Crestock... Also, Zymm is quite slow these days in acceptance and glitches with new files. I am sorry Keith - but that is what I felt on my images that sell elsewhere.

Cutcaster is good too, but as startup - It may be reserve variant and we all may upload there too. But, they are low with traffic and they need 10x more images to catch up with next site.

I'd say Featurepics is the most fit for what all said here... They have decent traffic and they are way up to make more. Also, there are some work outs with making some order in microstock and other kind of images with prices accordingly.


 So I vote FP +1 and CC +1
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 06, 2009, 08:30
i started with FP when it was introduced here on the forum, but i stopped due to lack of marketing on their end. Yay was the same for me, great prospect but lost interest too. Zymm, i like to keep trying with Keith, but the keywording is cumbersome and yes, glitches . for this reason, i have settled with Cutcaster after cutting out (no pun intended) on John for a bit, but decided to come back in,
after i heard from John . if i have to choose one, i 'd say John because his site is always making improvement and getting simpler to upload. sales are not there for all 4 , neither in Alamy, which I truly like too. but i don't know if i want to upload 49MB images without some signs of sales or traffic.
with John's site, i can go with various sizes, so there is also more leeway for me.
There is really nothing to vote for me, as I am already with Cutcaster. I just renewed my upload to Zymm, but the reviews are slllllooow...couple that with the erratic uploading and keywording process, i get frustrated and forget the whole deal as time is money to me.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 08:51
i started with FP when it was introduced here on the forum, but i stopped due to lack of marketing on their end. Yay was the same for me, great prospect but lost interest too. Zymm, i like to keep trying with Keith, but the keywording is cumbersome and yes, glitches . for this reason, i have settled with Cutcaster after cutting out (no pun intended) on John for a bit, but decided to come back in,
after i heard from John . if i have to choose one, i 'd say John because his site is always making improvement and getting simpler to upload. sales are not there for all 4 , neither in Alamy, which I truly like too. but i don't know if i want to upload 49MB images without some signs of sales or traffic.
with John's site, i can go with various sizes, so there is also more leeway for me.
There is really nothing to vote for me, as I am already with Cutcaster. I just renewed my upload to Zymm, but the reviews are slllllooow...couple that with the erratic uploading and keywording process, i get frustrated and forget the whole deal as time is money to me.

I think you are making a mistake... Why you not feed FP with your images? I have regular 2 month payouts from there from $50 up to $200...
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: sharpshot on May 06, 2009, 09:06
FP seems to work for some people but not others.  I have never done well there but I stick with them, as they sell one every now and then and I like the 70% commission.  I do reach a payout once or twice a year.  Zym were doing well last year but I have only had 2 sales there this year.  Hopefully they can get sales going again.  Cutcaster is the newest of the 3 sites and while sales are low there, I really like the look of the site and the way John has set up something a bit different.  He gets my vote so far but I will also give FP and Zym my support.  It would take a miracle but I would love to see these 3 sites in the top 6.  I also liked Lucky Oliver, so I have a history of backing the wrong horse :)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: dnavarrojr on May 06, 2009, 09:16
One of the primary problems in partnering with any existing agency is that they STILL DECIDE what images they want to sell and what the overall rules are.  And in many cases, their decisions are arbitrary as they rely on "human beings" to handle the review process.  And human beings are fallible.

With a coop system where each artist runs their own image site but where a central site handles searching through all of them, the artists themselves decide what they want to sell.  And if their stuff is crap then it won't sell.  But it's the BUYERS who decide what is crap and what isn't, not someone being paid 10 cents an image trying to get through as many images as possible to earn a decent paycheck.

Also, there is an issue of transparency.  Existing agencies hide a lot of information from contributors.  If a coop is formed the whole process can be open and available for review by all coop members.

As for how to attract buyers from existing established agencies...  That's done through content.  If coop members are willing to stop updating their portfolios on other sites (not remove them, just stop uploading to them) and the coop becomes the #1 location for fresh images, the buyers will come.  Either that or they just keep buying from old collections at other sites.

It's a test of will, though.  Ultimately this is all about money and MOST artists won't have the willpower to stop contributing to the main players they despise because they don't want to give up what little they are getting now.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 06, 2009, 09:39
I upload to both sites, FP and CC but I put a little more emphasis in uploading to FP based on sales, commissions, review time, I've also being there for some time, so I'm very comfortable with the site and the partner relationship I have with Elena (the administrator), and I have a larger portfolio with them than I do with CC, mind you, ones John is able to bring in sales I would not have any problem concentrating more on building a larger portfolio with John, but for now FP is making me sales and CC is not yet.
Could not tell you about Zymmetrical because, even though I registered there some time ago, for some reason (maybe some things I've read on this forum) I've never uploaded there.
So as to help a site grow and come up in the scale, for me FP is right now the place to be.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 06, 2009, 10:10

As for how to attract buyers from existing established agencies...  That's done through content.  If coop members are willing to stop updating their portfolios on other sites (not remove them, just stop uploading to them) and the coop becomes the #1 location for fresh images, the buyers will come.  Either that or they just keep buying from old collections at other sites.

It's a test of will, though.  Ultimately this is all about money and MOST artists won't have the willpower to stop contributing to the main players they despise because they don't want to give up what little they are getting now.

I agree. many rely on that income from the big 6 and it would be hard for them to stop uploading, but on the other hand if they would start uploading fresh images that are available on one site and that site only, then I think alot of the buyers would come. I got pics on my hard drive I just can't bring myself to sell for 30 cents therefore I don't upload them. What I do upload is mainly what I believe won't sell on a macro site because they can get something like that on a micro for less money. I wonder if we could get one of these already established sites to put up a separete section that only has the exclusive contributors on it...the fresh stuff. Leave what you have on the other stock sites alone simply because they are more likely already ready floating around out in the buyers market. that would help generate income to those who are hardly making it now untill this thing takes off.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: madelaide on May 06, 2009, 10:13
I don't understand this discussion. Instead of putting a lot of effort, money and risk into making something that may or may not fail, why not give our full support to agencies like FP? FP was my number five earner last month, with 70% of prices that I decide myself. You won't do much better than that whatever you do.

I was going to suggest that, not because of FP's performance - it does need improvement on that side - but because of two things: they are always open for suggestions and they have nice tools we can use if we want to market images on our own.  

If our collective effort is on traditional macrostock to traditional markets, FP is a good choice.  Maybe Zymm also, as they already have a multi-language site.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 06, 2009, 10:16
as for Fp and CC I have pics on both sites and have yet to make a sale. Of course I upload the same pics to all the micro stock sites where they do sale which may be why they don't sell there because they are cheeper some where else. As for Zym I'm never tried them out so I don't know what the results would be there.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: zymmetricaldotcom on May 06, 2009, 10:29
To clarify, it wasn't my intent to suggest ourselves as a contender for this type of action necessarily- just that the direction of the coop idea sounds great.  As has been said, i'd bet on a collective group being much easier to implement and maintain, then trying to reinvent the wheel of working business infrastructure.    If you made designer shoes, would you want to open a department store to sell them in or simply focus on what you do best and let someone take care of the nuts & bolts? :)

There's plenty of great agencies that listen and adapt to members requests  - it might be just a matter of making sure your voices are cohesive in one unit - it's hard for any business to try and assemble individual suggestions and requests into 'the big picture'.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donnelt on May 06, 2009, 11:43

Not many creative co-operatives work.  United Artists sold out as did many record labels that 'kept it real'.  One notable exception that's kept the vision is in fact a photographic cooperative: Magnum.

I've worked with Magnum on image quality in the past and you feel like you're a part of something special.  Their focus on the co-operative and sticking to their vision has worked well.

http://agency.magnumphotos.com/about/about
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 11:52
Ok all...

Lets make some details clear:

I suggested to Featurepics that some order in pricing is to be introduced there. It is quite not clever to have full resolution images in range from $1 up to $150...

Other point is if you sell your microstock image for $40 on Featurepics and that same image is sold on other agency for $1 - $10 it just brings bad impression to Featurepics buyers and they feel robbed! Why would they pay $40 for something they can buy 4 or more times cheaper? That is very point where Authors should be excluded in making decision on pricing microstock images.

So, as result of my suggestions there will be 2 product classes introduced soon on Featurepics. Microstock and GOLD collections.

GOLD collection will consider all NON-MICROSTOCK images with authors personal warranty that he will not sell them on micros. Only where you can sell such images are places with the same prices authors set on their work. So, no exclusivity to Featurepics will be needed in order to have gold images. Only fair play from authors on all mid-stock and traditional agencies. So, you will have GOLD images on Featurepics and also, with the same or higher pricing you may upload to CC, Zymmetrical, GETTY, CORBIS, ALAMY and so on including sites like RODEO or even Photographersdirect (if you qualify to their terms and conditions)...

I believe that such agency will have great succes in future!

So you are all invited to see and participate details of my proposal in forum there.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 11:59
Link on that forum is:

http://www.featureimage.com/Forum/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=1831 (http://www.featureimage.com/Forum/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=1831)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Elena on May 06, 2009, 12:38
I received a few email with invitation to participate in this discussion.
First of all - THANK YOU!

It is not a secret Featurepics is a small agency.
We are planning to introduce changes Milinz described already.
It will take a lot of redevelopment and, unfortunately, bad news are coming (slower reviewing time in May).

Please read the proposal as "efforts to help Authors to earn more".

Sorry for a very short message.
I don't want my response sounds like "advertisement".
Just want to ensure you - we will continue to work for YOU whatever it takes.

Sincerely, Elena.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 06, 2009, 12:49
I received a few email with invitation to participate in this discussion.
First of all - THANK YOU!

It is not a secret Featurepics is a small agency.
We are planning to introduce changes Milinz described already.
It will take a lot of redevelopment and, unfortunately, bad news are coming (slower reviewing time in May).

Please read the proposal as "efforts to help Authors to earn more".

Sorry for a very short message.
I don't want my response sounds like "advertisement".
Just want to ensure you - we will continue to work for YOU whatever it takes.

Sincerely, Elena.

luvly to see you Elena, welcome !  if this was an invitation, you wouldn't need to worry it being an advertisement. we are all ears. but we also need to know what if , you get new images, do you have any plans to get better sales result than in the past. how is your marketing going to be any difference.
i already have an account with you from the beginning, but the marketing wasn't very successful, so i stop contributing.  i suppose with this current issue, it's obvious some of the other sites like yours will get an upsurge,as some are already grabbing for straws. but to be effectively, esp. the ones who are selling well,you have to be more specific with your marketing plans to attract them to move in your direction.

this is not just a question for you Elena, it's a question for anyone else who are here, Keith from Zymm ... hey welcome too . And please feel free to voice your ideas , that's why this thread was created and dongding's other thread which has been joined here now, to avoid redundancy.

Good promo work again  dongding   !
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 06, 2009, 12:52
Just want to say Thank You to Milinz for doing some talking and research for us as well as Elena for coming on here to listen and being open to discussion. The gold collection sounds like just what alot of us are looking for. I will be moving on over to the other forum on FeaturePics to check this out and suggest alot of you do the same. No commitment...just observe.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Elena on May 06, 2009, 13:02
"do you have any plans to get better sales result than in the past" - I believe so.

We made a small "try" with a very limited volume download plan - we have more return buyers now.

I don't think we will be able to make big changes in the next 2 months. I have a huge "TODO" list in front of me.

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Dreamframer on May 06, 2009, 13:33
That's good Elena. Featurepics is very easy agency to work with (easy upload, no categories...), and their support is always helpful, and I like the ability of making your own price for your photos. There is no typical subscription system, and that's good too.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 06, 2009, 13:38
Well I read the forum over there ..not many there...and I might add I couldn't figure out how to post a reply even though i was logged into my account...so I guess I just put it on here.
The gold collection sounds great but I don't know if that is what micro stockers want. Alot of them only do micro stock and if they do macro stock now they are probably already on those other agencies you mention. That really isn't the right anwer but you are on the right track. If you are already on a macro site I wouldn't consider that exclusive.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 06, 2009, 13:42
another thought...if you already have those shots on the other macro sites and they sale it for 250.00 but you are selling it on FuturePics for say 150.00....isn't that the same thing as you were talking about buyers being able to go elsewhere to buy the same image cheeper...only the role would be reversed as far as featurePics would be concerned...
Correct me if I am misunderstanding this.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 14:03
another thought...if you already have those shots on the other macro sites and they sale it for 250.00 but you are selling it on FuturePics for say 150.00....isn't that the same thing as you were talking about buyers being able to go elsewhere to buy the same image cheeper...only the role would be reversed as far as featurePics would be concerned...
Correct me if I am misunderstanding this.

your price = single sale price... And 10 times more if it is Extended licence... That would be this plan:

your price set at $50 will be $500 for extended licence... So, that is quite more than figures you are mentioning...
And don't forget that commission on Featurepic is NOT 20% - it is at least double and little more than that!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 14:14
Well I read the forum over there ..not many there...and I might add I couldn't figure out how to post a reply even though i was logged into my account...so I guess I just put it on here.
The gold collection sounds great but I don't know if that is what micro stockers want. Alot of them only do micro stock and if they do macro stock now they are probably already on those other agencies you mention. That really isn't the right anwer but you are on the right track. If you are already on a macro site I wouldn't consider that exclusive.

You are now forcing me to think fast - I planned that before this story about coop started...
Maybe some solution for microstockers may be that you already suggested with exclusivity on some time frame... But, that time frame is quite short if it is under 6 months as Keith said... If you want to have comparative advantage as coop group and to punish some sites who run unfair policy, you must consider all your new images waiting even more than 6 months before you upload them on other sites. Also it is clear that in 15 days and even more after you upload some image it finds first interest in this industry... So, you will be exclusive with say 5 - 10 sales before you go non-exclusive with your image... Again, that image will probably be charged more than after you take it down from exclusivity... So, plan and logic say no less than 6 months image exclusivity is enough.

I already asked and no one answered: Who has guts to not upload to SS or iStock for 6-12 months?

So, your call about that...
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: dnavarrojr on May 06, 2009, 14:15
One major issue that is not addressed by the existing agencies and would be a huge benefit of a coop is REVIEWS.

When you upload to an agency you are at their mercy as far as both review times and acceptance.  Review times on many sites are out of control taking weeks to months in some cases.  It's hard to be timely and current when it takes that long to get something reviewed.

More importantly, the review criteria between the sites is not uniform.  Some sites reject images that are best sellers on another site.  And the rejections are, more often then not, very arbitrary based on opinion of the reviewer as opposed to technical details.

By creating your own site and linking it to a common search engine, YOU CONTROL your own content.  Not some unknown person who may or may not know what they are doing.

---

BTW, getting an agency such as Zymm, FP or CutCaster involved is not a bad idea.  Since they already have an existing infrastructure, they could easily build the central search site, provide artists with an API to hook into the searches, handle the transactions and pay the artists taking a small cut to handle transaction fees and a profit for themselves.

Question is... Would any agency be willing to do that?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 06, 2009, 14:30
Well I read the forum over there ..not many there...and I might add I couldn't figure out how to post a reply even though i was logged into my account...so I guess I just put it on here.
The gold collection sounds great but I don't know if that is what micro stockers want. Alot of them only do micro stock and if they do macro stock now they are probably already on those other agencies you mention. That really isn't the right anwer but you are on the right track. If you are already on a macro site I wouldn't consider that exclusive.

You are now forcing me to think fast - I planned that before this story about coop started...
Maybe some solution for microstockers may be that you already suggested with exclusivity on some time frame... But, that time frame is quite short if it is under 6 months as Keith said... If you want to have comparative advantage as coop group and to punish some sites who run unfair policy, you must consider all your new images waiting even more than 6 months before you upload them on other sites. Also it is clear that in 15 days and even more after you upload some image it finds first interest in this industry... So, you will be exclusive with say 5 - 10 sales before you go non-exclusive with your image... Again, that image will probably be charged more than after you take it down from exclusivity... So, plan and logic say no less than 6 months image exclusivity is enough.

I already asked and no one answered: Who has guts to not upload to SS or iStock for 6-12 months?

So, your call about that...

I do agree the six month or even longer sounds right, but if I started making sells off the exclusive image I doubt that I personally would want to add it to another site. As for rather I got the guts to quit uploading to SS or iStock for 6 months...that is a hard answer since they are two of my biggest earners. I don't make enough to live off of but there are those microstalkers that depend on those sites for their income and would proubably not consider that, but if they started getting an exclusive collection started up on another site and continued to upload to it then even while uploading to the other sites, when the collection gets sizable enough I think you would see them being more likely to lean more towards the exclusive. There has to be strict policies in place about the exclusive so they aren't uploading that same content to other sites. How that would work I don't know.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 14:31
That's good Elena. Featurepics is very easy agency to work with (easy upload, no categories...), and their support is always helpful, and I like the ability of making your own price for your photos. There is no typical subscription system, and that's good too.


Hi dude!

Do you think making the prices on Featurepics for microstock images widely spread to all agencies is smart move or you will be ok with some normal price of that image with normal commission?

What is the point is double crossing buyers on agencies where you can set your prices while that same images are sold on all other places?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 14:35
....
....

I do agree the six month or even longer sounds right, but if I started making sells off the exclusive image I doubt that I personally would want to add it to another site. As for rather I got the guts to quit uploading to SS or iStock for 6 months...that is a hard answer since they are two of my biggest earners. I don't make enough to live off of but there are those microstalkers that depend on those sites for their income and would proubably not consider that, but if they started getting an exclusive collection started up on another site and continued to upload to it then even while uploading to the other sites, when the collection gets sizable enough I think you would see them being more likely to lean more towards the exclusive. There has to be strict policies in place about the exclusive so they aren't uploading that same content to other sites. How that would work I don't know.

I don't decide about that - but I think it is the only way to do it!

How to control? That is tough... But there is coop... so they all can take care about each other...
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: goldenangel on May 06, 2009, 14:36
Using an existing agency sounds more feasible, of course, if an existing agency would consider doing this, which I doubt. I also doubt that contributors who live from this would consider not uploading to already established agencies. It would be good to hear opinions of some of those on this.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Elena on May 06, 2009, 14:41
"BTW, getting an agency such as Zymm, FP or CutCaster involved is not a bad idea.  Since they already have an existing infrastructure, they could easily build the central search site, provide artists with an API to hook into the searches,"

This kind of API can be modified to meet Authors' needs.

http://www.featurepics.com/API/API.aspx

JSON format is very easy to implement.
Just a very small javascript function.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 14:41
Using an existing agency sounds more feasible, of course, if an existing agency would consider doing this, which I doubt. I also doubt that contributors who live from this would consider not uploading to already established agencies. It would be good to hear opinions of some of those on this.

I am sure in month or two you will be able to become exclusive on Featurepics in some time frame! That is good idea to have exclusive images or even series in 6months and up to 5 years...

Limiting some good images upload to that unfair agencies and changing traffic to other place would be quite hit into face for Slave Masters...
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: goldenangel on May 06, 2009, 14:45
Limiting some good images upload to that unfair agencies and changing traffic to other place would be quite hit into face for Slave Masters...
I agree, but only if this is done by a significant number of important contributors.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Magnum on May 06, 2009, 14:48
What happened to Batman? (black username)   And Milinz is back??     I´ve been away waaaaaaay to long ??? :)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 14:50
Limiting some good images upload to that unfair agencies and changing traffic to other place would be quite hit into face for Slave Masters...
I agree, but only if this is done by a significant number of important contributors.

I think donding should do his job in public relations with big and many contributors...
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 14:51
What happened to Batman? (black username)   And Milinz is back??     I´ve been away waaaaaaay to long ??? :)

I am sorry magnum - I will go away after I finish here ;-)

For your info: I decided to go as well I decided to come back.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: travelstock on May 06, 2009, 16:45
Ok... I've just finished reading the replies to this thread. I agree with the sentiments expressed that it may be time to look at different approaches that may be mutually beneficial. Personally I'd be willing to put money into a new venture, but only if it were properly set up and transparent from the outset.

There have been some different approaches outlined which I think are worth fleshing out more.

My own variation would be as follows:
1. to establish a company (or unit trust) made up of interested contributors.
2. The company operates a site by either acquiring an existing site, or developing a site from scratch.
3. The company or Unit trust deeds establish the ground rules for the operation of the company - to me these should include principles such as that an individual contributor be limited to a single share or unit in the company, a mechanism for collection of commissions, a mechanism to provide for funds to market the site, and a mechanism to re-distribute profits back to shareholder contributors in proportion to the sales generated by the individual contributor.
4. New contributors to the site would receive the % commission set without a profit distribution component, unless they subsequently purchase a unit or share in the company, based on a valuation of the unit trust or share at the time - valuations would ordinarily only take place annually due to logistical difficulties.

Any site that is established should have the following principles:
1. Content approval follows a similar mechanism to Alamy.
2. Intelligent Search engine that can learn based on previous successful outcomes.
3. Decent contributor commissions for sales.
4. Site commissions are used for management & operation costs, reserves and remaining profits used for distribution to photographers / shareholders.

If we were to go down this path, or something similar, we need to discuss what the minimum commitments would be for contributors, and have a way of gauging the level of support. Personally I think we'd need the support of at least 500 photographers, ideally more, and a fair percentage of the top 1000 photographers currently on microstock. The real difficulty is with IS exclusive contributors.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: le_cyclope on May 06, 2009, 17:09
What happened to Batman? (black username)   And Milinz is back??     I´ve been away waaaaaaay to long ??? :)

Just heard this morning that Batman celebrates his 70th anniversary (today or this week or whatever...).  So I guess Batman is out on the party!
 :)
Claude

(now back to the topic!)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: madelaide on May 06, 2009, 17:14
Well I read the forum over there ..not many there...and I might add I couldn't figure out how to post a reply even though i was logged into my account...so I guess I just put it on here.

Forum login is separate from site login.

About the GOLD collection, I don't see it as what we are discussing here.  It's not microstock at higher prices.  

I have two accounts in FP, one for micro and another for macrostock.  While I may agree with proposed changes, such as the credits-per-size-subs, on the microstock account, this is something I don't agree to do in the macrostock account.  I think the macrostock account should allow RM too (currently RM uploading is unavailable).

In either case, I think there must always be a basic inspection.  SP doesn't have it and we see a lot of crap there.

One idea to discuss with FP or another agency that would team up with us: the coop would take care of inspection.  Were any of you in TotallyPhotos?  Inspection was done maybe only by the members.  The coop images would be uploaded and inspected in a separate application.  There would be rules about quality levels and keywording.  After inspection, the images would be moved to the site's regular collection.  In addition to the contributor's name, there could be some tag or icon for the coop.  We could have some HTML coding exclusive for coop images, to add in our websites, mail to friends & clients.  

A period of 6 months for exclusivity looks good.  This would be a real "premiere" collection - seen there before anywhere else.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 06, 2009, 17:46

My own variation would be as follows:
1. to establish a company (or unit trust) made up of interested contributors.
2. The company operates a site by either acquiring an existing site, or developing a site from scratch.
3. The company or Unit trust deeds establish the ground rules for the operation of the company - to me these should include principles such as that an individual contributor be limited to a single share or unit in the company, a mechanism for collection of commissions, a mechanism to provide for funds to market the site, and a mechanism to re-distribute profits back to shareholder contributors in proportion to the sales generated by the individual contributor.
4. New contributors to the site would receive the % commission set without a profit distribution component, unless they subsequently purchase a unit or share in the company, based on a valuation of the unit trust or share at the time - valuations would ordinarily only take place annually due to logistical difficulties.

What you describe here with share's would have to be a corporation and that would be a pain to set up. I'm not sure what the law reads exactly but if there are more than...I think 50 shareholders...it may be less than that...you have to be a C corp and publicly traded....At least this is the case in the USA. Now don't quote me on that because I'm not 100% sure some research would have to be done on that.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 17:55
@ holgs:

1. Please explain how many money will take setup of new company with aquisition of some already established agency?

2. Shares and similar... You are talking like that will be multibillion business...

3. You wish to do all that with 500-1000 authors?

Personally I think your plan is nice and I'd like to see you to do it with Crestock ;-)
They seems as one of most hurting this business of agencies around. Also if you need vector site for aquisition, I'd suggest VS ;-)

It would be so nice to be true because you need a loooooot of money to do so.

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: cidepix on May 06, 2009, 18:05
Even If I have the greatest idea, I am not going to come here and post it on this public forum so all the microstock representatives can read the plan and prevent it.

I have ideas and I believe many of you do. If we were to arrange a meeting and discuss what can legally be done, I am all for it. It should be private and we should have a lawyer who will study all the terms & conditions of the agencies with us and see what are the best options.

The internet has no law. It is the wild west of modern era. We can work on bringing the power of law on agencies so they can't screw people and their rights. This is a fairly new business which I am sure is benefiting greatly from lack of laws in this area.

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 18:08
@ Madelaide:

As you mentioned a lot of crap... But, also crap sells. I saw even 'crap' sold on Mostphotos as well as some grainy OOF grass and so on...

There are some standards to be followed in microstock (which is by all photography standards mostly categorized as 'crap')...

There are some standards to be followed in stock photography (which is by nature different than microstock).
So how do you imagine someone will try to sell expensive microstock images under GOLD label if there is someone who will say: 'sorry dude - this image can be included only in micro category'?

RM - it is not a problem at all... Timeframe of licence and say 20x initial price set plus/minus territory and other affecting elements...

By the way you don't really need 2 separate accounts at all... All you need is better UI and your files management with numerous options.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 06, 2009, 18:17
Even If I have the greatest idea, I am not going to come here and post it on this public forum so all the microstock representatives can read the plan and prevent it.

I have ideas and I believe many of you do. If we were to arrange a meeting and discuss what can legally be done, I am all for it. It should be private and we should have a lawyer who will study all the terms & conditions of the agencies with us and see what are the best options.

The internet has no law. It is the wild west of modern era. We can work on bringing the power of law on agencies so they can't screw people and their rights. This is a fairly new business which I am sure is benefiting greatly from lack of laws in this area.



Yup - make laws - that is what all legalists say... But, I don't believe that law will protect authors... More likely laws will protect agencies - they are the one who make money in IRS eyes ;-)

Dude, I respect your idea but this is something what takes long time. I think that all this isn't mature enough. I will do what I think is right. And from now on I am backing from this thread until I see really constructive idea or question. I am tired with bringing myself repeating again and again.


Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: cidepix on May 06, 2009, 18:23
Even If I have the greatest idea, I am not going to come here and post it on this public forum so all the microstock representatives can read the plan and prevent it.

I have ideas and I believe many of you do. If we were to arrange a meeting and discuss what can legally be done, I am all for it. It should be private and we should have a lawyer who will study all the terms & conditions of the agencies with us and see what are the best options.

The internet has no law. It is the wild west of modern era. We can work on bringing the power of law on agencies so they can't screw people and their rights. This is a fairly new business which I am sure is benefiting greatly from lack of laws in this area.



Yup - make laws - that is what all legalists say... But, I don't believe that law will protect authors... More likely laws will protect agencies - they are the one who make money in IRS eyes ;-)

Dude, I respect your idea but this is something what takes long time. I think that all this isn't mature enough. I will do what I think is right. And from now on I am backing from this thread until I see really constructive idea or question. I am tired with bringing myself repeating again and again.




I agree that nothing is mature enough yet. But I believe it will be mature some time in the near future. I am telling all the contributors I know about this forum. We need to be a bigger crowd. A crowd that make real noise, not individual shouting.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: cidepix on May 06, 2009, 18:32
I also need to add that this forum needs a different kind of ranking. Keep this one on the right column but also add another one that reflects the reliability and honesty of the agencies  as an auto-warning.

It would be good not to advertise any sites that offer less than %50 commission on the right hand side column. (Starting with veer for example. Do not advertise them unless they are willing to pay %50)

That is a start. They better be not known. Keep the top 8 or 9 agencies but only add the new ones if they have decent offerings.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: travelstock on May 06, 2009, 18:49
@ holgs:

1. Please explain how many money will take setup of new company with aquisition of some already established agency?

2. Shares and similar... You are talking like that will be multibillion business...

3. You wish to do all that with 500-1000 authors?

Personally I think your plan is nice and I'd like to see you to do it with Crestock ;-)
They seems as one of most hurting this business of agencies around. Also if you need vector site for aquisition, I'd suggest VS ;-)

It would be so nice to be true because you need a loooooot of money to do so.



1. Companies are relatively easy and quick to set up - the initial costs are for registration of the company, business name etc. - this depends on the jurisdiction that the company is in. A unit trust is a vehicle that operates similarly to a company, but may be more convenient - corporations law was quite a long time ago for me, and my main specialisation is employment law, so I'd have to do a fair bit more research on what would work best.

The way companies operate and the requirements vary country by country. I know many contributors come from the US, but I'm almost sure that wouldn't be the best location to register the company - if you're starting from scratch you may as well set up in the most advantageous place - somewhere with a solid foundation of law, but where intellectual property laws favor stock artists more so than corporation. The main set-up cost as I see it would be to establish the website architecture on a scale that could support the size of agency that a new site would be competing with. In terms of purchasing an agency, I wouldn't rule out purchasing and adapting an agency that has already failed - lucky-oliver springs to mind. Presumably the price for this would be much lower, and the system would already be tested. To make it worthwhile, the site needs to handle photos, vectors and video on day one. It would be absolutely essential to get designers on board and look after them properly.

2. There are plenty of companies that operate and are not multi-billion dollar businesses. I think our primary target would be IS - any approach that looks like a rag-tag rabble (and is) competing against Getty will fail.  EDIT TO ADD: If people are going to be putting money into something then they need to know that they have a share of the asset at the end of the day and aren't just peeing into the wind. If the site becomes successful, then their share of the asset would actually appreciate significantly. Imagine if IS had been set up as a company with initial contributors as the shareholders - we may not have the same problems we do now... or at least the initial shareholders would now be much richer than the are now... as opposed to just a few individuals.

3. The difficulty with a company owned by 500-1000+ people all with equal shares is really in appointing somebody to make executive decisions. This needs to be carefully considered and dealt with explicitly in the document setting up the company. On the other hand, the more contributors there are willing to sign up and put in a share of the initial capital, the greater the chance of success.

To me the attraction of such a site would be that contributors would have a vehicle to really maximise their revenue, and be protected from changes. If successful it would also be a real dis-incentive to contribute material to a competitor. The more I think about it however, the more I think its important that we have the big players on board. If you look at the IS charts, the fist 50 contributors make up over 200,000 files. I suspect that the top 1000 would account for over half the collection, and an even higher % of the sales.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 06, 2009, 19:27
The big challenge would be to get the big contributors on board, rather it would be for a new company or existing one. I don't see many of them voicing the opinions on here...maybe they are watching, but they are not speaking out except about their treatment by the stock sites...I'd really like to hear what their opinion on this is or rather we are just wasting our time even talking about it.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 06, 2009, 19:34
The big challenge would be to get the big contributors on board, rather it would be for a new company or existing one. I don't see many of them voicing the opinions on here...maybe they are watching, but they are not speaking out except about their treatment by the stock sites...I'd really like to hear what their opinion on this is or rather we are just wasting our time even talking about it.


they are , donding, on this other thread
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-content-to-sell-on-photos-com-and-jupiterunlimited/msg96149/?topicseen#new

check it out.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 06, 2009, 19:43
What happened to Batman? (black username)   And Milinz is back??     I´ve been away waaaaaaay to long ??? :)

Magnum, black username means the account was deleted.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 06, 2009, 20:06
Even If I have the greatest idea, I am not going to come here and post it on this public forum so all the microstock representatives can read the plan and prevent it.

I have ideas and I believe many of you do. If we were to arrange a meeting and discuss what can legally be done, I am all for it. It should be private and we should have a lawyer who will study all the terms & conditions of the agencies with us and see what are the best options.

The internet has no law. It is the wild west of modern era. We can work on bringing the power of law on agencies so they can't screw people and their rights. This is a fairly new business which I am sure is benefiting greatly from lack of laws in this area.



Yup - make laws - that is what all legalists say... But, I don't believe that law will protect authors... More likely laws will protect agencies - they are the one who make money in IRS eyes ;-)

Dude, I respect your idea but this is something what takes long time. I think that all this isn't mature enough. I will do what I think is right. And from now on I am backing from this thread until I see really constructive idea or question. I am tired with bringing myself repeating again and again.




Wise move Milinz!  ;)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: madelaide on May 06, 2009, 20:23
As you mentioned a lot of crap... But, also crap sells. I saw even 'crap' sold on Mostphotos as well as some grainy OOF grass and so on...

I do sell crap too. I even have crap shots in IS selling!  ;D 

However, when I mention crap in SP, it's really very blurred, poorly exposed snapshots.  Sometimes with a PS "artistic" filter trying to make crap look like a piece of art. 

Trust me, we need a minimum quality check, without the neurotic, irrational and obsessive level microstock agencies sometimes work with.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: madelaide on May 06, 2009, 20:28
1. Companies are relatively easy and quick to set up - the initial costs are for registration of the company, business name etc. - this depends on the jurisdiction that the company is in.

Holgs,
I think it would be better, if we could, to avoid getting into the trouble of setting up a real coop.  We're people from different places of the world.  There must be a minimum of paper to deal with.  Any problems and disagreements would be perhaps a pain to deal with.  I still think it would be easier to team up with an existing agency, if we manage to. 
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Magnum on May 07, 2009, 10:17
Even If I have the greatest idea, I am not going to come here and post it on this public forum so all the microstock representatives can read the plan and prevent it.

I have ideas and I believe many of you do. If we were to arrange a meeting and discuss what can legally be done, I am all for it. It should be private and we should have a lawyer who will study all the terms & conditions of the agencies with us and see what are the best options.

The internet has no law. It is the wild west of modern era. We can work on bringing the power of law on agencies so they can't screw people and their rights. This is a fairly new business which I am sure is benefiting greatly from lack of laws in this area.



Yup - make laws - that is what all legalists say... But, I don't believe that law will protect authors... More likely laws will protect agencies - they are the one who make money in IRS eyes ;-)

Dude, I respect your idea but this is something what takes long time. I think that all this isn't mature enough. I will do what I think is right. And from now on I am backing from this thread until I see really constructive idea or question. I am tired with bringing myself repeating again and again.




Wise move Milinz!  ;)



You think?   Who taught Milinz perfect english all of a sudden.  Or was Battie from Serbia too?   Milinz!!! Are you Batman?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 07, 2009, 11:01
Sorry, I had to change servers, and it screwed up my accounts. I'm back  ;)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Magnum on May 07, 2009, 11:13
 :-[
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 07, 2009, 11:15
:-[

 8)   Sorry you spoke , huh?  I will be your worst nightmare  ;D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: johngriffin on May 07, 2009, 11:25
SOLD....Cutcaster to all of you ;-)  hahahahaha  justttt kiddinggggg...

This is a great development and I have been saying for a long time that there is power in numbers and don't accept that things can't change.  You guys control the content and that is power. Form a group of like-minded photographers that will act as one and that is even more power.  I also said I am NOTHING without your content and that is why I have always asked for your contributing support and patience.  I need more variety of content at Cutcaster so we can compete with the big boys and keep prices up.  I am always open to new ideas and reading this is really great feedback for what we can focus and improve upon at Cutcaster. 

If Cutcaster can be a source of positive change then I hope to be one of the leaders.

And now I am off to make more sales calls. Letssss goooo buyersssssss.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 07, 2009, 11:34
:-[

 8)   Sorry you spoke , huh?  I will be your worst nightmare  ;D

ARGGGGHHHH no, you're back! YOU batty are MY worst nightmare !  ;D ;D ;D
seriously, good to see you back. I thought you eloped with Superman !  ;D
SOLD....Cutcaster to all of you ;-)  hahahahaha  justttt kiddinggggg...

This is a great development and I have been saying for a long time that there is power in numbers and don't accept that things can't change.  You guys control the content and that is power. Form a group of like-minded photographers that will act as one and that is even more power.  I also said I am NOTHING without your content and that is why I have always asked for your contributing support and patience.  I need more variety of content at Cutcaster so we can compete with the big boys and keep prices up.  I am always open to new ideas and reading this is really great feedback for what we can focus and improve upon at Cutcaster. 

If Cutcaster can be a source of positive change then I hope to be one of the leaders.

And now I am off to make more sales calls. Letssss goooo buyersssssss.

John Griffin, funny how you made the entrance at about the same time as batty babe's re-entrance !
I was wondering why you were sleeping through all this.  Seriously, good to see you here again
John....  ;)   and of course you too batty boo  ;D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: johngriffin on May 07, 2009, 11:42
hahahahaha
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 07, 2009, 11:46
hahahahaha

welcome Monsieur Griffin,  your dialogue has been conspicuosly absent ! 8)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: patballard on May 07, 2009, 12:44
OK before we go on let's make a list of the problems that need to be fixed. That said, I'm very impressed with the quality of solutions that are being proposed. Please feel free to add any points that I might have missed. Here goes:

1. The rise of rejection rates by most of the established agencies. An explanation for this would go a long way toward easing the hostility that this problem causes. Something like, "We're full up, and it's costing more and more to add new images." If not totally valid all of the time, it would begin to give us an idea of the problems that the agencies are facing.

2. Decreasing income % from sales. This is due to subs and changes in pricing structures by the agencies.

3. No control over the pricing structures for our images other than to complain and stop uploading.

4. Irrational reviewers giving unclear or inaccurate reasons for rejections. Plus that lack of direction and detail in the rejections. Look at number 1. I'd rather hear that than some crazy reason that makes no sense. Also, I'd rather hear, "Fractals aren't big sellers, and we don't need more of them unless they are extremely new and creative." Rather than no commercial value, or this is a well covered subject. This probably isn't realistic on my part.

5. Lack of policing or cleaning out of the databases for older substandard images. It would be nice to believe that we can police our own images, but how many of us have any objectivity about our own work? Plus, the difficulty in removing images from our ports at the different sites adds to this problem. I have no idea how much this sort of quality control would cost, but it might be a good use for Attila. Let him have a go at older images that either haven't sold or have technical issues that would never be accepted now.

6. Lack of transparency by the agencies. This includes financial transparency, an explanation for the rise in rejections, and an explanation of the changing quality standards. Dreamstime is my favorite of the stock sites, but I just wish that they'd said that they needed to change and tighten their standards and given us an explanation before the rejections started. It's their company, but it's our images. They have the right to make any changes that they want to their corporate policy, but as a contributor I want a detailed explanation.

Whatever direction we go if we decide to organize formally, it is probably the best idea not to make our headquarters in the US, but I don't know enough about business in the world outside the US to say what country would be the best.

We have a long way to go before we solve this problem. Many of us are creative, but business novices. We're going to need a ton of input from the more business savvy among us. I agree that it would be nice to have the support of the major players, but I'm wondering how necessary this is? There are probably hundreds of really creative new talents out there who can't get into the major agencies who would love to join us in a new venture. There is probably even some undiscovered creative gem out there who could revolutionize the style of stock photography or illustration who just can't get their product to the buyers.

Maybe the most we can hope for is to influence the established agencies to listen and respond to our issues with the way things are currently run. Maybe we can open up a dialogue. This might be the least time consuming and cheapest way to go. We could organize as a collective with some bargaining power. Lest someone yell union, this would be different because we would never be in a position or require membership in order for a contributor to get work. Yes, some contributors would get a free ride, but life is never fair. As I said in an earlier post, we're not trying to eradicate microstock, we're just trying to find a better way to influence or establish a better pricing structure for the contributors, and take more control over our sales.

Lastly after everything is in place, marketing, marketing, marketing.




Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 07, 2009, 13:01
OK before we go on let's make a list of the problems that need to be fixed. That said, I'm very impressed with the quality of solutions that are being proposed. Please feel free to add any points that I might have missed. Here goes:

1. The rise of rejection rates by most of the established agencies. An explanation for this would go a long way toward easing the hostility that this problem causes. Something like, "We're full up, and it's costing more and more to add new images." If not totally valid all of the time, it would begin to give us an idea of the problems that the agencies are facing.

2. Decreasing income % from sales. This is due to subs and changes in pricing structures by the agencies.

3. No control over the pricing structures for our images other than to complain and stop uploading.

4. Irrational reviewers giving unclear or inaccurate reasons for rejections. Plus that lack of direction and detail in the rejections. Look at number 1. I'd rather hear that than some crazy reason that makes no sense. Also, I'd rather hear, "Fractals aren't big sellers, and we don't need more of them unless they are extremely new and creative." Rather than no commercial value, or this is a well covered subject. This probably isn't realistic on my part.

5. Lack of policing or cleaning out of the databases for older substandard images. It would be nice to believe that we can police our own images, but how many of us have any objectivity about our own work? Plus, the difficulty in removing images from our ports at the different sites adds to this problem. I have no idea how much this sort of quality control would cost, but it might be a good use for Attila. Let him have a go at older images that either haven't sold or have technical issues that would never be accepted now.

6. Lack of transparency by the agencies. This includes financial transparency, an explanation for the rise in rejections, and an explanation of the changing quality standards. Dreamstime is my favorite of the stock sites, but I just wish that they'd said that they needed to change and tighten their standards and given us an explanation before the rejections started. It's their company, but it's our images. They have the right to make any changes that they want to their corporate policy, but as a contributor I want a detailed explanation.

Whatever direction we go if we decide to organize formally, it is probably the best idea not to make our headquarters in the US, but I don't know enough about business in the world outside the US to say what country would be the best.

We have a long way to go before we solve this problem. Many of us are creative, but business novices. We're going to need a ton of input from the more business savvy among us. I agree that it would be nice to have the support of the major players, but I'm wondering how necessary this is? There are probably hundreds of really creative new talents out there who can't get into the major agencies who would love to join us in a new venture. There is probably even some undiscovered creative gem out there who could revolutionize the style of stock photography or illustration who just can't get their product to the buyers.

Maybe the most we can hope for is to influence the established agencies to listen and respond to our issues with the way things are currently run. Maybe we can open up a dialogue. This might be the least time consuming and cheapest way to go. We could organize as a collective with some bargaining power. Lest someone yell union, this would be different because we would never be in a position or require membership in order for a contributor to get work. Yes, some contributors would get a free ride, but life is never fair. As I said in an earlier post, we're not trying to eradicate microstock, we're just trying to find a better way to influence or establish a better pricing structure for the contributors, and take more control over our sales.

Lastly after everything is in place, marketing, marketing, marketing.


Good long passage from you Pat. and good to see you again.  I was out of contact for a bit , had my own blackout , but now I'm back.

Actually, the lastly after everything is the main thing we have to drill into the co-op or a variation of little chapters around the globe. Like we already have in practise locally amongst artists.
We can also modify our original idea of an independent co-op to take on one or a few of the existing sites . Not to buy over them, but to offer some kinds of selective exclusiveness. Selective exclusiveness being we maintain to support the ones we favour and the ones whose culture and vision are compatible to us.  Thus, my insistent on those CEOs who were always conversing with us as they already have proven to be interested in building a viable community, albeit at this time,
we are all independent of each other.  But as I said, a morph of these ideas is the solution.

Quality Control MUST still be there. Buyers are not going to take us seriously if we just put crappy noisy bad composition images into the porfolio. We have to have a standard that is comparable to the existing model, or better. To compete again them, I would have to say better, not comparable,
as already the sub will draw them over to the comparable images.

We are back to the old analogy of why should I pay for a yacht? Our images will have to be like a yacht, or else they will go to the sub sites and get their china made yacht at kmart plastic canoe prices.

This is not an offer for a free for all. Unfortunately, the co-op will still need to reject many of the images that were rejected by the current model. Objectivity must still be in full power.

The last thing you want of this new entity is for it to be a clearing house of previously rejected images.  That would be disastrous.  If all of you can truly say your rejections were 100% unjustified,
I would say, the co-op will die at childbirth.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 07, 2009, 13:33
Batman,

I said that with just other wording already several pages before this.

My English is improving but, it is far from 'PERFECT'...

Nevertheless, I've said that the best fit for this ideas are agencies where authors can control their own prices and you said it again.

So, I don't mind that about CC, Zymm and FP... But, IMHO Zymm has to high standards - At least for my images ;-)

I am working with FP to introduce microstock section there as well as to keep the best interest to all authors in that category. But, balance is to be found with pricing and what buyers are expecting from microstock. Also, FP needs your help - I can't represent you all there. You must raise your voice about what is your best interest and how to handle some extremes.

It is tough job to find some markers as well to make all happy. But, I will think hard and try to find some markers which can help us all.

You just continue to talk.. I will pop-in if I see something interesting.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: bittersweet on May 07, 2009, 13:52
I apologize in advance for this reply not being as eloquent as many that preceded it, but I have a few random observations, most of which would apply to the scenario of individual photographers managing their own sales, many "kiosks" under a common searchable tent, a "flea market" of sorts.

One of the biggest obstacles which will need to be overcome, and which surprisingly has been mentioned here only in passing (and I think as an aside by just one person), is customer confidence. By this I mean that if you wish to attract corporate buyers, beyond bloggers, they will want to feel very secure about the legality of what they are purchasing in terms of copyright and necessary releases. Who will bear the responsibility/liability for this? If it is up to the individual artist, is one person saying "it's all good" going to be enough to assuage any potential fear of risk on the part of the customer? It took me over two years to convince one of my corporate clients that the images licensed through istock were legally sound. Not all cases are that hard, but even if a customer is micro-savvy, they need some kind of assurances that proper clearances have been obtained.

Expanding on the confidence, is the issue of payment processing. How will payments be handled? If they wish to purchase two images from two separate artists, will they need to complete a separate transaction for each image? What forms of payment will be accepted, and will everyone offer the same options? A common shopping cart makes the most sense here, but that comes with splitting up payment processing fees, currency exchange, etc. etc.

Finally, there have been some suggestions that there be no inspection—that each photographer promises to upload only their best work, or something to that affect. I think we've all been party, or at least witness to, a ranting individual who thinks his or her wonderful image has been unjustly rejected, only to then post for critique the most steaming pile of poo ever. These suggestions seem to be balanced with those who believe QC is a necessary evil, and that complete objectivity of one's own work is fairly impossible. I would like to agree that an inspection process is absolutely necessary, not only to ensure customers are getting a quality product, but to maintain an overall quality collection.

These all might lean toward the idea of adopting an existing agency to model into your vision, as opposed to starting from scratch.

I'm impressed with the depth and breadth of your discussions so far, and am sending lots of good vibes your way. :)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: patballard on May 07, 2009, 13:53
Yes, strict quality control would be necessary. From my point of view, I can offer very large fractals with very high quality from my software. I've gradually been cutting back on size as it's not cost effective. It takes hours, sometimes all night, to generate a fractal that is 9,000 x 9,000 pixels. I've never offered one that large to a site, but I could. Again, I don't know enough about the technical issues of online storage, but I'd be willing to offer exclusive very large images for a larger share in sales. Is there a need for this sort of image, or am I still thinking like a gallery artist?

This thread has already generated some change for me. I'm going to start uploading to FP again and take a serious look at CC and Zym, when I have the time. My list of agencies needs to morph to support the most flexible of the smaller agencies as well as the big sellers that will accept my work.

This is off topic, but I'm starting to feel overwhelmed by all there is to be done. How do we do it all and keep studying our craft at the same time? Arrrgh! And have a life.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 07, 2009, 14:10


This is off topic, but I'm starting to feel overwhelmed by all there is to be done. How do we do it all and keep studying our craft at the same time? Arrrgh! And have a life.

no kidding, i am glued to this monitor for the first two days it was close to obsessive. good thing i had to change server, it gave me the break .



This thread has already generated some change for me. I'm going to start uploading to FP again and take a serious look at CC and Zym, when I have the time. My list of agencies needs to morph to support the most flexible of the smaller agencies as well as the big sellers that will accept my work.

yes, even if the co-op does not happen, there is a new insight to how we play the game plan now for me too.  i am re-submitting to sites i gave up on as hopeless, as well as being selective with the existing top 6 sites. i would be giving the ones who pay more the larger sizes, and the ones for sub , i send them tiny as possible. i know this way i could be losing out on sales of L, XL. but from the records of things since subs came into play, i won't think i will be missing out too much .

also, with the XL and L available only with the sites that pay better, i suppose the buyer will no longer be able to say, "hey, i see this bugger has the same XL for 30 cents at xxx site".
this time sucker, it won't work, because the 30 cts site is only going to get my 600 by 900, or min. sizes, and the size that pays will get everything 6MP and up.



Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 07, 2009, 14:31
Batman and John showing up together!...uuuh! that's scary...lol.
Batman, welcome back bud! I thought we lost you ;)...@John, where have you been throwout these storm, it was kind of strange not getting any feedback from you, I'm glad you showed up... :D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: johngriffin on May 07, 2009, 14:42
yeah i missed this little discussion.  i have been out calling new buyers and telling them about Cutcaster so i can sell more images ;-)  so far so good but it is a long and hard fight and i am just starting.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 07, 2009, 14:47
Batman, welcome back bud! I thought we lost you ;)...

m@m sweet djarleeng. i wouldn't miss you for the world. i have a deep incest fetish for curious cuddly guys like u. curls my teeny weeny little bat toes when you pined over a sudden well english speaking serb.  oooh how i missed u in those long 24 hours without a server ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 07, 2009, 14:53
LMAO...that sound nasty bat (you pervert) :-* ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: johngriffin on May 07, 2009, 15:09
hahahahahaha  scarrrryyyyyy
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 07, 2009, 15:30
LMAO...that sound nasty bat (you pervert) :-* ;D ;D ;D

oops lol, sorry m@m, that cynical stab was actually for magnum. ...
hey m@m , it's good to see u again buddy, lol  sorry!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Magnum on May 07, 2009, 15:39
Thanks Batty :D   
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 07, 2009, 15:45
Thanks Batty :D   

Hey Magnum, I (my avatar - Gwyneth Paltrow) have Iron Man, and you got Batman. Oooh, we are almost related. ;D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 07, 2009, 15:53
Thanks Batty :D   

Hey Magnum, I (my avatar - Gwyneth Paltrow) have Iron Man, and you got Batman. Oooh, we are almost related. ;D

i am much  warmer... no iron in between, only armini tailored real italian spandex  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 07, 2009, 15:57
Thanks Batty :D   

Hey Magnum, I (my avatar - Gwyneth Paltrow) have Iron Man, and you got Batman. Oooh, we are almost related. ;D

i am much  warmer... no iron in between, only armini tailored real italian spandex  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

SORRY BATTY BABE, IRON MAN'S MY MAN. :-* 
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Magnum on May 07, 2009, 16:13
Thanks Batty :D   

Hey Magnum, I (my avatar - Gwyneth Paltrow) have Iron Man, and you got Batman. Oooh, we are almost related. ;D

I got a silhouette of a church ??? Not even close :D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 07, 2009, 16:45
Thanks Batty :D   

Hey Magnum, I (my avatar - Gwyneth Paltrow) have Iron Man, and you got Batman. Oooh, we are almost related. ;D

I got a silhouette of a church ??? Not even close :D

Heh tan needs glasses...what can he say. ;D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 07, 2009, 16:53
Thanks Batty :D   

Hey Magnum, I (my avatar - Gwyneth Paltrow) have Iron Man, and you got Batman. Oooh, we are almost related. ;D

I got a silhouette of a church ??? Not even close :D



Heh tan needs glasses...what can he say. ;D


Noooooooooo you don't get it.

batman and magnum have a fatal attraction, and I just put Gwyneth Paltrow
as my avatar because batty baby said I should put my clothes on (my old avatar was my first seller in 123rf - ethnic man in spa).

I am just teasing Magnum because batty boo  has a fetish for Magnum, and since Gwyneth Paltrow has Ironman (she is Ironman's girlfriend in the movie) , we are now almost like relations,
each one with a super hero.

You get it now ????
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: donding on May 07, 2009, 17:01
I guess....I'm not a movie goer...tooooooo pooooor ::)...I need to make more off my microstock to do that.. :D
Thanks Batty :D  

Hey Magnum, I (my avatar - Gwyneth Paltrow) have Iron Man, and you got Batman. Oooh, we are almost related. ;D

I got a silhouette of a church ??? Not even close :D



Heh tan needs glasses...what can he say. ;D


Noooooooooo you don't get it.

batman and magnum have a fatal attraction, and I just put Gwyneth Paltrow
as my avatar because batty baby said I should put my clothes on (my old avatar was my first seller in 123rf - ethnic man in spa).

I am just teasing Magnum because batty boo  has a fetish for Magnum, and since Gwyneth Paltrow has Ironman (she is Ironman's girlfriend in the movie) , we are now almost like relations,
each one with a super hero.

You get it now ????
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: tan510jomast on May 07, 2009, 17:10
I guess....I'm not a movie goer...tooooooo pooooor ::)...I need to make more off my microstock to do that.. :D

No kidding. these past 3 days we have been here like crazy, without a life.
but wait till this episode is over, as this is as interesting as Ironman, Fantastic Four, Batman, Superman
all rolled in one, rofl. 
The only hot thing missing is Kate Beckinsale (ooh waaaa!)    :D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: crazychristina on May 07, 2009, 22:53
An alternate business model - each photographer has their own portfolio online, and independent brokers provide marketing and search and transactions (forwarded to photographer - cut). Brokers could be specialist or general, and provide the 'reliability' by representing only trusted contributors (content-wise). Happens in other industries - accommodation, care hire, insurance, etc.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: null on May 07, 2009, 23:46
One of the biggest obstacles which will need to be overcome, and which surprisingly has been mentioned here only in passing (and I think as an aside by just one person), is customer confidence. By this I mean that if you wish to attract corporate buyers, beyond bloggers, they will want to feel very secure about the legality of what they are purchasing in terms of copyright and necessary releases.

I avoided that issue intentionally in my first post for brevity. There are imho two solutions to the legality problem. The keyword is of course "trust". The accumulated trust of the established agencies only rests on the trust they put themselves in the contributors. In my thoughts, the Collective would only be open to contributors that are established themselves, and who reveal their name and business address/info to registered buyers. That would make them legally responsible for the availability of Releases (with protection of course against multimillion fantasy lawsuits).

The second idea is to entrust an independent  third party Release Clearing House with the releases. Each release would receive an ID number and the photo of the model/property would be available on the Clearing House site, together with a statement that the facsimile of the release and of the passport/ID of the contributor were received and conform to the legal requirements. The Clearing House would embody the trust and serve as a buffer for the privacy of the model/property.

Expanding on the confidence, is the issue of payment processing. How will payments be handled? If they wish to purchase two images from two separate artists, will they need to complete a separate transaction for each image? What forms of payment will be accepted, and will everyone offer the same options? A common shopping cart makes the most sense here, but that comes with splitting up payment processing fees, currency exchange, etc. etc.

Paypal offers some pretty good APIs. There are payment gateways that could handle it cheaper than an in-house secretary. Problems are CC fraud, POCs. It would be good to listen to buyers what is the most convenient way to pay.

Finally, there have been some suggestions that there be no inspection—that each photographer promises to upload only their best work, or something to that affect.

Reviewers fees are the most significant cost of any startup. They represent an investment before any income. The original idea of Rinder 2-3 years ago was to abolish that cost by only taking in established contributors into the Collective, and let them be responsible for QC, based on their reputation. The idea isn't that odd. Do you get rejects for technical issues/framing after years in stock? I don't: it's all about LCV and too much of the same. Quite of a few of those contributors are reviewers themselves. A Collective site should have a way to zoom in 100% on all parts of the image, like Mostphotos has, so if real crap slipped in, it could be wiki-ed out.

The wiki-idea (or flagging) is an essential part of a Collective. That's why it's called a collective. It should also extend to keywording and technical issues. A couple of established sites like DT and IS do it already.

If you want to reduce startup costs drastically, you will have to outsource as much as you can, like payment and a clearing house for releases, since those costs are predictable, fixed, and can't spiral out of control. Once again, reviewer fees are what kills most startups, and they should be avoided at any price. An outsider startup like Fotomina has no other choice than rely on external reviewers. A contributors collective doesn't. Entry into the collective should be reserved to contributors that are not-anonymous and that have a portfolio of at least 500-1000 on the established big 6.

These all might lean toward the idea of adopting an existing agency to model into your vision, as opposed to starting from scratch.

An important element in this discussion is that our established agents are not enemies but partners. If the Collective would end up defining some benchmarks for existing agents, that would be a major accomplishment already. A limited example is the handling of releases. Some sites still require upload with every photo. Others have a very elaborate release library with batch-attach, like 123RF. The benchmark could issue scores to every agency in regard to release handling, from 5 to 0.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Adeptris on May 08, 2009, 00:06
An alternate business model - each photographer has their own portfolio online, and independent brokers provide marketing and search and transactions (forwarded to photographer - cut). Brokers could be specialist or general, and provide the 'reliability' by representing only trusted contributors (content-wise). Happens in other industries - accommodation, care hire, insurance, etc.

Agree 100% already thinking along those lines and this thread has me doing some research

The problem with stocksites is they are a retail business and in the present model they want the stock as sale or return, and do not want to pay for it, what the real model should be is as a merchant that sits between the vendor and customer and runs thier business at a fixed percentage and minimal costs.

Lets look at how to maximise our revenue by the use of a merchant, and what is already out there, first thing is the photographer holds the fullsize images until a sale is made, when a sale is made the transaction is between the vendor (photographer) and the buyer and the full size image goes to the merchant to broker for the licence duration, the merchant then invoices the photographer for a transaction fee, if the business is just an online one then overheads are small so the fee could be set at around 10% - 12%

How could this be done, here is my idea, each photographer signs up to "Amazon S3" and create a file bucket of thier own and uploads thier images via an applet supplied free by the website, Amazon S3 charges a small fee to the photographer for storage and bandwidth usage, this cuts down the bandwidth  and storage costs for the main sales website, the photographer manages thier images on the main website, the website will retrieve 170px longest side thumbnails from the Photographers Bucket and only store them for searches, the main site will run on the thumbnail images only, and only registered buyers will be able to view and download a watermarked comp at 450px longest again this will be retrived in realtime from the photographers bucket, pricing would be global and banded and the buyer would be able to filter on price bands, buyer could have discounts based on purchase value with a maximum of 20%, image licences RF, RM, Commercial and Editorial, and Exclusive would affect the prices.

How does that sound?

David  ???        
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: null on May 08, 2009, 00:07
welcome Monsieur Griffin,  your dialogue has been conspicuosly absent ! 8)

Come on Batman, nobody bought your crap of failing servers. We all know that your are monsieur Griffin. I won't mention your side business in snake oil but I'm quite sure you took 2 days off to read the Ego-Rythm handbook, and to streamline your adult sites.  ;D
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: null on May 08, 2009, 00:11
How does that sound

Great and feasable. I had another idea of loosely linked personal sites, but with a common IT framework to safeguard the unique look and feel of the different personal sites.

My USP (unique selling proposition) still holds, that is offer all our content exclusively for a period of one month (period debatable). Buyers keen on fresh images would be attracted that way.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: crazychristina on May 08, 2009, 00:17
Sounds good, but I think we need to get away from having only a SINGLE agent. Several independent agents/brokers (maybe specialist) would be competing with each other, maybe provide specialist search and representation), and avoid the agent monopoly situation we could well be headed for.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: null on May 08, 2009, 00:53
1. The rise of rejection rates by most of the established agencies. An explanation for this would go a long way toward easing the hostility that this problem causes.

It's understandable, but I don't think it has to do with the server or bandwidth costs, but with the relevance problem flawed by design when starting with an equivalent keyword system that must break down after 5M images. With one million or ten million images, there still is one single front page for search results. How many girls with headset does one need? 100, 1000, 100,000? Looking at my sales at DT, I see less and less keywords used to find my images. Buyers obviously are resorting to visual search more and more.

2. Decreasing income % from sales. This is due to subs and changes in pricing structures by the agencies.

Buyers still need subs, for realistic comps. The main issue is that if they use one of these comps for real-world production, they can use the 1$ full size without limits. My proposal would be to allow downloading comps full size, and allow use for sidebars and blogs up to 250px, but recharge the full license for anything else. You would have best of both worlds then. In fact, subs would fall under a separate licensing scheme, just as templates and print runs do now.

3. No control over the pricing structures for our images other than to complain and stop uploading.
4. Irrational reviewers giving unclear or inaccurate reasons for rejections.

Those are major points and they can easily be solved. The rejection screen of the reviewer often contains too few choices. The agents should think of extending that backend screen.

5. Lack of policing or cleaning out of the databases for older substandard images. It would be nice to believe that we can police our own images, but how many of us have any objectivity about our own work?

The main thing that keeps us from doing that is its repercussions on the ranking. For instance, I heard that on BigStock your ranking goes down when you delete images. In the "duplicates" thread in DT, I asked for a way to replace older images with a newly better edited version without losing the image level, but got no reply yet.

Dreamstime is my favorite of the stock sites, but I just wish that they'd said that they needed to change and tighten their standards and given us an explanation before the rejections started. It's their company, but it's our images. They have the right to make any changes that they want to their corporate policy, but as a contributor I want a detailed explanation.

Dreamstime is pretty good at it. I always felt respect from them. There are other sites that are much worsolia  8)

Whatever direction we go if we decide to organize formally, it is probably the best idea not to make our headquarters in the US, but I don't know enough about business in the world outside the US to say what country would be the best.

A US-based site still generates the most trust. Dreamstime realized that very early. The only issue against the US is the ridiculous out of control litigation system, but since most buyers are still in the US, it's imperative that you have at least a US presence. Nobody will trust a site in Elbonia.

Many of us are creative, but business novices. We're going to need a ton of input from the more business savvy among us.

Some have both talents, like Arcurs. Achilles is a pretty good photographer too, although he hasn't volume studio work in his port.

Maybe the most we can hope for is to influence the established agencies to listen and respond to our issues with the way things are currently run. Maybe we can open up a dialogue. This might be the least time consuming and cheapest way to go.

That would be a major accomplishment. I heard rumors that this topic is followed with vivid interest by the sites. I don't like the sound of a "union". It reminds me of socialism, picket lines, force, boycotts. It won't work any ways in a global market. We could influence though some policies about subs, like my proposal above. Right now, sites are only relying on their site forums for contributor feedback, but those forums are too tightly policed for mere rants of individuals. A wiki-ed set of suggestions here on MSG would have more effect and certainly it would be more representative.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: null on May 08, 2009, 01:06
Even If I have the greatest idea, I am not going to come here and post it on this public forum so all the microstock representatives can read the plan and prevent it.

I have some ideas too I don't post here. That's what PM is for. The idea is not competitive to existing microstock, since it addresses the long tail and the so-called LCV. But I can't come in the open until the IT framework is finished. And I won't make the mistake of Fotomina being exposed prematurely when their framework was still in the making. I also don't like the associated pressure at a moment I'm on call for News video and might disappear suddenly for 1-2 weeks.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: photox on May 08, 2009, 01:14
I think the idea of banding together is a good one.  In fact I think it is the only one that will assure a fair and viable market for our images and our livelihood in the long run. 

Not sure if our own agency is the answer or perhaps something similar to the Stock Artists Alliance.  I know it has been discussed before, but what about approaching the SAA and seeing if they would be interested in starting a microstock branch. 

I know all the arguments why this wouldn't work - they hate us because we hurt their business, etc.  But if they are smart and pragmatic they should welcome the idea of getting active, successful microstockers on their team.  It is in their best interests as well as ours to not allow royalties to be erroded further.

My husband is a member of the IBEW (electrician's union).  Decades back when the large numbers of Cuban refugees came to Florida the Cuban electricians wanted to join the IBEW.  At the time the union had the place pretty much to themselves and didn't want to let in the competition.  The Cuban electricians started their own competing organization. 

Fast forward 20-30 years and the competition in the industry has driven electrican wages in Florida to some of the lowest in the nation and unemployment is rampant among IBEW members.  If they had welcomed in the Latin electricians they might have been able to stick together and keep wages up. 

I see that as a very similar story to what the Trad agencies did to most of us.  They didn't want us so we joined the micros and that drove down prices and royalties in the industry.  But now that we have had a taste of success we want fair pay for our hard work.  The SAA would be stupid and short sighted if they refused to help us protect our rights and raise industry pay standards. 

Makes perfect sense to me!!!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: null on May 08, 2009, 01:17
I agree. many rely on that income from the big 6 and it would be hard for them to stop uploading, but on the other hand if they would start uploading fresh images that are available on one site and that site only, then I think alot of the buyers would come.

That was the idea in my first post when somebody asked for a USP. A premiere site would get a lot of free attention from buyers that are keen on fresh images before they became promiscuous on many ms sites. You would have the best of both worlds.

It should also be possible to have an exclusive buyout (compare this license at DT) at the premiere site. It would be much easier to manage since you don't have to remove the still exclusive image from the other sites yet (not mentioning their lock-in periods). As such, it's the best of three worlds, RM included, and all this in a microstock RF model.

Existing sites (except IS with its exclusives) can't beat this scheme since they can only control themselves, not others. The only one that has full control is at the source: the contributor. If an image doesn't sell or bought out at the premiere site, it will still be uploaded to the Big-whatever and generate the normal RF income there.

This idea is open for established sites too. They can start a "premiere collection" under the same conditions. They just should make it easier to opt-out of the exclusivity after one month. Dreamstime for instance has exclusive images, but they are not so happy or it's a bit of a mess if you opt out of exclusivity after 30 days.

Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Adeptris on May 08, 2009, 02:26
Sounds good, but I think we need to get away from having only a SINGLE agent. Several independent agents/brokers (maybe specialist) would be competing with each other, maybe provide specialist search and representation), and avoid the agent monopoly situation we could well be headed for.

The Idea I am floating is not as an agent but as a merchant and there are costs to running a site that would need to be covered, as we are talking "Fair Trade" I was thinking more in new images with mid stock pricing and along the lines of charging the transaction fee to the photographer after an image has been sold and the photographer paid in full and directly.

A Photographers share or loyalty points system would be used and a large percentage of retained earnings would be returned on a per share basis to the Photographers, the balance used for R&D etc:, when a Photographer signs on they would be awarded one share or loyalty point, then based on portfolio size and or sales more points would be awarded, Photographers involved in the development of the site would be awarded points on completion of project tasks these could be planning, design, project management, development or testing so all could be active, so the more the photographer puts in the more they would get out because maybe a 6 monthly share payout could be actioned.

I know that the big players have offices etc: and that is where a large percentage of sales revenue from our images goes, but the image licence will be brokered by the site between the Photographer and the Customer, I think medium sized company designers and AD's would buy into a Fair Trade scheme knowing that all profit from a licence sale goes to the Artist enabling the artist to invest in thier art at a higher level

I would be willing to setup a proof of concept project site, if other are willing to help develop and test the end to end solution, once we have proof of concept it could be rolled out.


David  ;D  (What makes you think I work in software development?)   
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: patballard on May 08, 2009, 16:07
Entry into the collective should be reserved to contributors that are not-anonymous and that have a portfolio of at least 500-1000 on the established big 6.

That would keep me out as I'm still a relative newbie. I'll probably never have a large portfolio. It depends on which way we decide to organize......if we organize. It is certainly the right of any group of contributors to form their own organization and set the standards for membership. I do feel that it would be a mistake to ignore new talent. There's a lot of it out there. Lisa's example of the electrician's union is an example of what could happen if they're excluded. There's power in many small contributors banding together. It depends on whether a bargaining collective is formed or a new commercial group that somehow sells the images. They're totally different concepts, and it's still early days.

Maybe through this forum some of the problems can be solved by a dialogue with the agencies. I'd really rather go this route than take on the huge job of forming any sort of an organization. Am I wrong about this one?





Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: OM on May 08, 2009, 17:31
Dunno if already mentioned:

http://www.snapixel.com/

Own site, their bandwidth, 60/40 split...60 to contributor and basic credit is one Euro/$1.34US.

Anyone know about them?
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 08, 2009, 17:34
Can someone PLEASE tell to FlemishDreams that idea about 1 month exclusivity will never work!

He have me ignored because of cevapcici, some his crap image as well because he thinks he is so smart and that I am dumb ;-)

Thanks!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 08, 2009, 17:54
Can someone PLEASE tell to FlemishDreams that idea about 1 month exclusivity will never work!

He have me ignored because of cevapcici, some his crap image as well because he thinks he is so smart and that I am dumb ;-)

Thanks!


woa milinz friend,
this is a think tank, we shouldn't censor anything, or else we become no better than an IS forum.
all ideas are valid as they will morph into something workable.  let's leave our past differences at the door. we have to think as one FOR NOW. after the brainstorm , then we can start throwing cevapcici
at Flemish, if you like, i will help you throw the first. but l8 !
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: m@m on May 08, 2009, 18:32
Dunno if already mentioned:

[url]http://www.snapixel.com/[/url]

Own site, their bandwidth, 60/40 split...60 to contributor and basic credit is one Euro/$1.34US.

Anyone know about them?


Yes we have!...do a search on a previous thread on them.
"Please don't bring them back, unles they've something new to show and offer"  ;)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: Milinz on May 08, 2009, 19:44
Can someone PLEASE tell to FlemishDreams that idea about 1 month exclusivity will never work!

He have me ignored because of cevapcici, some his crap image as well because he thinks he is so smart and that I am dumb ;-)

Thanks!


woa milinz friend,
this is a think tank, we shouldn't censor anything, or else we become no better than an IS forum.
all ideas are valid as they will morph into something workable.  let's leave our past differences at the door. we have to think as one FOR NOW. after the brainstorm , then we can start throwing cevapcici
at Flemish, if you like, i will help you throw the first. but l8 !

AS the matter of fact we always may differ in our approach to microstock and stock photography, but final goal is always the same - to earn money! So, I believe that we all are on the right track here. Let the cevapcici image I sell be. It is something some people can't understand. Also, they may look like poo to some people but, they are specialty as Lobster in USA or French Wine or pizza....  When some people realise that knowledge and brain instead of ego makes sellable picture we'll all get along.
[EDIT] I am trying to find the best match for all in my plan which is to be introduced soon... I am sure it will make excellent results!
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: OM on May 08, 2009, 19:56
Dunno if already mentioned:

[url]http://www.snapixel.com/[/url]

Own site, their bandwidth, 60/40 split...60 to contributor and basic credit is one Euro/$1.34US.

Anyone know about them?


Yes we have!...do a search on a previous thread on them.
"Please don't bring them back, unles they've something new to show and offer"  ;)
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: OM on May 08, 2009, 19:56
deleted
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: OM on May 08, 2009, 19:57
Dunno if already mentioned:

[url]http://www.snapixel.com/[/url]

Own site, their bandwidth, 60/40 split...60 to contributor and basic credit is one Euro/$1.34US.

Anyone know about them?


Yes we have!...do a search on a previous thread on them.
"Please don't bring them back, unles they've something new to show and offer"  ;)



Oh well.
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: batman on May 08, 2009, 20:06
AS the matter of fact we always may differ in our approach to microstock and stock photography, but final goal is always the same - to earn money! So, I believe that we all are on the right track here. Let the cevapcici image I sell be. It is something some people can't understand. Also, they may look like poo to some people but, they are specialty as Lobster in USA or French Wine or pizza....  When some people realise that knowledge and brain instead of ego makes sellable picture we'll all get along.
[EDIT] I am trying to find the best match for all in my plan which is to be introduced soon... I am sure it will make excellent results!

not to worry Milinz, i understand what you say about cevapcici. as an intrepid traveller, i've tried literally everything that to the typical North American or British taster would gag if they ate anything other than spud or beef. but really, on the other side of the coin, i find the same displeasure displayed from those with more exotic palate when i mention what the average North Am or Brit eat.
poutine, cervice, acaraje, kebab, satay, chicharron, gado gado,risotto with scampi or peach bellini...
like valentino and his ladies, some love them all, while some others just love one  ;)   that's life !
Title: Re: Contributors' Collective
Post by: garymkrieg on May 12, 2009, 13:11
I'm so new at microstock that I feel guilty even responding to this discussion.  Be that as it may the links below are to two articles written by Dan Heller.  These articles are very thought provoking and may touch upon some of the issues that are being discussed here.

http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/meta-stock-agency.html
http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/virtual-stock-agency.html

Just my 2 cents!

Gary