MicrostockGroup

We have started a new site, under the name NoEquivalent Art, which specializes in selling unique edition art and stock photography images.  While we are not selling to consumers yet we have launched a preview version of our store to gather feedback on our business model as well as allow interested artists to join.

You can find us at artist.noequivalent.com.  Feel free to let us know what aspects of our business model you like as well as the ones you find challenging.  A quick preview of the advantages we offer artists would include features like:
    -  Selling to multiple industries through a single artist control panel
    -  A limited size collection that offers an artist significant long term financial earnings

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Um. no way.

Here's the domain info. I still can;t stop laughing 

Registrant:
   NoEquivalent Art Ltd.
   5863 Leslie St. Suite 445
   Toronto, Ontario M2H 1J8
   Canada

   Domain Name: NOEQUIVALENT.COM
      Created on: 18-Sep-07
      Expires on: 18-Sep-09
      Last Updated on: 18-Sep-08

   Administrative Contact:
      Lai, Sean 
      NoEquivalent Art Ltd.
      5863 Leslie St. Suite 445
      Toronto, Ontario M2H 1J8
      Canada
      6472997326      Fax --

this is really crazy. If you think selling the exclusive use of an image at these prices is "selling at a premium" you have no understanding of this market.

I think the comments are a little bit arrogant. Sure you shouldn't give them pictures that really your heart hangs on but you all do Microstock and now you cite earnings possibilities from RM and traditional RF . Come on to be honest with most pictures at Microstock you will never earn more than 500$ in a life-span (sure there are exceptions but they are really rare compared to the rest). Also with more and more pictures in the Microstock-Database the feasible life-span earning of a picture will sink drastically. You must be really naive if you think you can make a lot of money from the pictures you produce now in 10 years they will have no value at all in 10 years.
That said i don't think this concept will be a success either but i didn't like the comments on it. Maybe Eugene can comment why he thinks this will be a success that market research he did for this concept is there really a need from the buyers side for this concept etc.?

The reason I compared this site to macro agencies is because on noequivalent website they compare themselves to getty, corbis and alamy.

The average image on microstock won't earn $320 (40% of $800) but the 10% of images in a portoflio that carries the weight will earn each earn well over that amount in their lifetime.  On this site, the MAX your 'best seller's will ever earn are $320 because they will only be sold once.

grp, are you connected to this new venture in some way?

No why are you thinking? Do you really believe in good lifespan earnings for pictures you produce now or in the future? There may be some really really rare exceptions but in general you will have a rude awakening if you really believe this.

edited this answer was a response to whatalife.

I was just curious.

I do commissioned illustrations for clients who get a RM agreement. The illos are mine, not theirs. I make $4-600 on their license. When their terms are up, I am free to do what I want with the image. If I ever chose to outright sell an image, I would never give an agent 60% of the selling price.

I do not expect to make hundreds on every image I create for microstock, though I have some which have made that and more. But we are not talking microstock, are we?

I agree that it will be harder to get images accepted at Micros (we all know this is happening right now ). I agree that it will be possible to make the a living in the future of Stock (but it will be harder). But RPI and lifespan earnings will be go down in general. Maybe we should check this thread and our numbers in 1,2,5 and 10 years 

lol 

Hey Eugene, where do you get your data for those optimistic graphs on the 'Reward' page from?

The top graph shows your company earning from $50 million to $250 million. How do you arrive at those figures? When do you plan on achieving them? End of the year? Next year? 10 years time? Next century?

The bottom graph makes no sense. What does it mean?

But the graphs look impressive, I'll grant you, with your contributors appearing to earn handsome sums.

Only thing is, are they based on any sort of reality?

I think that this is a deal killer, unless there's some reason why someone should pay $200 (40% of $500) and own exclusive rights to someones photo? I understand the theory and the basics of the contract. No similar shots, all copies destroyed. I think their intention is that a buyer has a true exclusive.  Licensed images get a year, why would someone want to buy all the rights to a photo for life? Why would an artist give up all rights forever?

About the question of earnings from one photo over it's lifetime. Here are some IS numbers (http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/) that I roughed out.

Of the ten Black Diamonds, which I think everyone will agree are the cream of the crop, Ave. DL per file is 80. I understand there are more sites, but they don't produce as many sales or the higher commission. Very rough calculations say that over ten years one of these photos, on IS from one of these top sellers, will earn $280. I don't know if the Ave. DLs will drop or stay the same or increase, so I based that on DLs staying the same.

Ave. DL per photo, entire site IS. 16  Ave DL per file middle users 11 times.

What grp and most others are saying is true. In the life of a single Micro photo, it will probably never equal one exclusive sale. But these aren't going to be stock shots from the impression I get of the site. They will be unique shots.

The agent taking 60% and the lifetime copyright are just a bit much. I'd still have to see why a buyer would want this type of photo, for what use? How much of a demand is there? If the shot is that unique, why would I want to give it up? Microstock there are many "not so unique" photos, so I can't say that comparing them is fair.

If someone wants to buy a "unique" one of a kind photo, highest quality, for lifetime exclusive, I'd think they would be willing to pay more than a microstock price for it.

If Eugene ever comes back after his one post, maybe he can explain the market and the intentions better. I'm trying to understand where the demand is for this type of contract and this type of artwork? It seems unusual that there's something beyond Licensed Exclusive that some buyer needs to have?