pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Contributors' Collective  (Read 66803 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #150 on: May 05, 2009, 12:18 »
0
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.


hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #151 on: May 05, 2009, 12:20 »
0
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 :)

« Reply #152 on: May 05, 2009, 12:26 »
0
maybe it's one of those yes we can moments

« Reply #153 on: May 05, 2009, 12:28 »
0
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)

tan510jomast

« Reply #154 on: May 05, 2009, 12:33 »
0
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)

« Reply #155 on: May 05, 2009, 12:46 »
0
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?

m@m

« Reply #156 on: May 05, 2009, 13:00 »
0
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

tan510jomast

« Reply #157 on: May 05, 2009, 13:05 »
0
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.

tan510jomast

« Reply #158 on: May 05, 2009, 13:10 »
0
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

batman

« Reply #159 on: May 05, 2009, 14:12 »
0
tan,
Self interest, whatver, it's still a great motivational tool.  8) 

batman

« Reply #160 on: May 05, 2009, 14:21 »
0
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  ;)

« Reply #161 on: May 05, 2009, 14:44 »
0
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

tan510jomast

« Reply #162 on: May 05, 2009, 15:00 »
0
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
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 15:05 by tan510jomast »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #163 on: May 05, 2009, 15:07 »
0
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..

batman

« Reply #164 on: May 05, 2009, 15:17 »
0
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.

batman

« Reply #165 on: May 05, 2009, 15:24 »
0

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?

alias

« Reply #166 on: May 05, 2009, 15:40 »
0
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.


batman

« Reply #167 on: May 05, 2009, 15:56 »
0
..... 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

« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 16:16 by batman »

m@m

« Reply #168 on: May 05, 2009, 15:57 »
0
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.  ;)
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 15:59 by m@m »

tan510jomast

« Reply #169 on: May 05, 2009, 16:04 »
0
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.  ;)

« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 16:07 by tan510jomast »

batman

« Reply #170 on: May 05, 2009, 16:18 »
0
..... 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



batman

« Reply #171 on: May 05, 2009, 16:19 »
0


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


« Reply #172 on: May 05, 2009, 16:21 »
0
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  ;)    

batman

« Reply #173 on: May 05, 2009, 16:51 »
0
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?

« Reply #174 on: May 05, 2009, 17:09 »
0
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 Im 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 (lets 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, lets figure we are 50 photographers and we pitch 50$ in the bucket; thats 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


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
97 Replies
30647 Views
Last post May 17, 2009, 01:53
by travelstock
89 Replies
32031 Views
Last post April 25, 2011, 04:52
by admin
10 Replies
4727 Views
Last post January 22, 2014, 19:24
by cascoly
19 Replies
9392 Views
Last post May 23, 2014, 07:21
by Maximilian
0 Replies
628 Views
Last post January 23, 2024, 12:58
by Shuttershock

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors