MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Stocksy => Topic started by: leaf on February 07, 2013, 04:43
-
Wow.. a little bird whispered in my ear about a new start up that is arriving on the scene. A CO-OP microstock agency .. backed by none other than the grandfather of microstock.
I know only as much as the splash page reveals but I'm already as excited as a 5 year old at Christmas.
http://www.stocksy.com (http://www.stocksy.com)
If this doesn't lure the iStock exclusives away from their crown, I don't know what will!
-
Is that Billy Bob Thornton? :D
-
LOL
I love the choice of phrase 'Sustainable Stock'!
That can't be a coincidence. Hilarious!
This could be interesting...
-
By invitation only ... OK I sent my e-mail address, cause indeed I'm curious!
-
Great. That will be interesting.
-
Welcome news, especially if it pressures iStock into behaving responsibly.
-
I was very curious.
-
By invitation only ... OK I sent my e-mail address, cause indeed I'm curious!
+1
Let's see if it will be an option for low-performing hobbyists like me...
-
Perfect timing and looking forward to learning more.
-
"patronage performance returns to artists,"
This sounds rather weird wording. I am a little suspicious.
-
"patronage performance returns to artists,"
This sounds rather weird wording. I am a little suspicious.
From cubestat.com:
Index Info For: stocksy.com
Alexa Rank: 0
Quantcast Rank: 0
Compete Rank: 0
PageRank:
Backlinks: 0
Google Indexed Pages: 0
Google Indexed Images: 0
Yahoo Indexed Pages: 0
Live Indexed Pages: 0
Dmoz Listing: No
Dmoz Title:
Dmoz Description:
Dmoz Category:
Host IP: 107.23.110.93
Site Hosted in:
Owner:
ICANN Registrar: TUCOWS DOMAINS INC.
Site Age: 4 years
Created: 2009-07-19
Expires: 2013-07-19
Updated: 2012-10-23
Domain Suffix: Commercial
Archive: stocksy.com in the past
is this suspicious? I don't know, it only tells me that the idea has been around since 2009.
-
interesting..
-
Only half joking here, but this is the guy who sold us to the enemy in the first place ;D
Nevertheless, I entered my e-mail...
-
I'm guessing this isn't going to be for the masses since it's a co-ownership thing.
-
Very interesting. His non-compete must have expired. It's showtime!
-
Interesting. I guess "cool" has come back to stock. :)
Let´s see what he does.
-
"patronage performance returns to artists,"
This sounds rather weird wording. I am a little suspicious.
is this suspicious? I don't know, it only tells me that the idea has been around since 2009.
I'm guessing Bruce is like most people who like to build things online, they have a lot of domains that are just sitting there. They buy domains when they think of a domain name they like. Maybe they use it for a later project, maybe it expires.. who knows. On the other hand, if it was 2 years in the works.. all the better.
re: patronage performance returns to artists
Just guessing, but it possibly sounds like when there are profits they will be paid out as dividends to those who own shares in the company but also artists may get a year end 'bonus'. .. just a guess
-
Very interesting. His non-compete must have expired. It's showtime!
It has :) A couple of years ago.
-
i have some questions for Leaf :
i'm asking if IStock HQ know something about that ?
has someone access to the website? or is it by invitation only?
-
i have some questions for Leaf :
i'm asking if IStock HQ know something about that ?
has someone access to the website? or is it by invitation only?
I really don't know much more than anyone else and what I know is hearsay .. but...
Yes, I have heard that iStock knows about the site. If they don't, they do now.
Yes, photographers are uploading to the site and yes it is by invitation only.
-
Anyone know if it's only photos? Or will there also be illustration, video, etc.
-
Yes, this sounds very, very interesting.
-
who are the people that have received the invitation ?
-
Keep an eye on those crowns in 30 days or so :)
-
This is GREAT news and here is why. Some people feel Bruce left the ship and screwed us over. Well my friends he sold for a good profit as we all might do. It takes a certain personality to build from the ground up and Bruce has a proven track record on this! He probably had a no compete clause when he sold and my guess it that has expired. The commission is very fair and if anyone can pull this off with the contacts and knowledge it is Bruce. This is a good bet and if the site looks great then I say iStock is in for continued ride down. Let all sign up and see what happens, it's about time we had something positive to talk about!!!
-
Very exciting.
-
Interesting but nothing to say that he won't be a sellout again.
-
This really is interesting news - I'm very curious to see who the "chosen" photographers are going to be and how successful the venture as such will be.
When creating IStockPhoto, Bruce obviously was the right person in the right place at the right time. While he still may be the right person, I'm not sure that time and place are right for yet another stock agency. The model may be new from the contributor's side (co-op and highest payout and whatnot), but I think it needs similar radical ideas on the buyer's side to attract enough traffic and customers. In any case something to look forward and observe with interest :)
-
Don't fear the sell-out at this point!!! We need this now so lets be positive and change the industry! 50/50 sounds good to me!
-
Interesting but nothing to say that he won't be a sellout again.
It's a Co-op - owned by the members who are involved. He can't sell what he doesn't own. At least that's the message I get from the splash page.
Or in other words, he IS selling out, but he is selling what he has built to the artists themselves.
-
Look, I would leave istock for this project. Istock is looking to pay pennies to its contributors and doesn't even like the 80/20 split.
A co-op is what I mentioned as the only saving grace for the contributors. It can't be sold by one owner. Bruce lost 1 billion dollars selling when he did and I doubt he would do it again if he had the chance.
Something needs to challenge getty and it's not SS or the lot.
I would jump ship today!!
-
Interesting but nothing to say that he won't be a sellout again.
Even if he did, at minimum this could be a disruptive model to turn around the pattern of how contributors are being treated elsewhere.
But Bruce started something when nothing existed. Now there are a small group of sites with a stranglehold on the industry. He will need to come up with something pretty amazing to break back in and get decent market share.
-
LOL
I love the choice of phrase 'Sustainable Stock'!
That can't be a coincidence. Hilarious!
That was the first thing I thought as well. Love the choice phrase!
:)
Interesting but nothing to say that he won't be a sellout again.
I hate that people talk about guys like Bruce and the StockXpert guys as "sellouts". They made good deals, and at the time of the deals they had no reason to believe that their companies would be dismantled by Getty.
Any one of us would have done the same things they did if we were in those positions. You'd be a fool if you didn't. It was good value for the company at the time.
-
This is exciting news! With the benefit of experience behind him - good and bad - he has the potential to create a win win for contributors and buyers, and bring back the fun and inspiration that stock photography once was.
-
Anyone know if it's only photos? Or will there also be illustration, video, etc.
Hope t will be open to non-photographers as well. Probably starting out with just photographers, but hopefully that will change as they grow.
-
A co-op would have the very unique advantage of having every photographer advertising like crazy for it. it is great that we all have our own sites but we are all working independent of each other. If we were all part of a co-op it would be a massive advertising octopus with many many arms.
A co-op type agency would also appeal to other creatives in the industry as a great place to shop for images - ethically sourced.
-
I haven't been one of Bruce's fan boys in the past, he sold to Getty when Getty had a very long standing reputation for treating their contributors like dirt, but I am prepared to give this project a chance. It stands a good chance of success because a lot of people do have faith in him, and hopefully the coop model will prohibit another sell out.
Maybe he realizes what Getty did to his baby, and is making amends. In any case, I would give him a second chance.
-
I haven't been one of Bruce's fan boys in the past, he sold to Getty when Getty had a very long standing reputation for treating their contributors like dirt, but I am prepared to give this project a chance. It stands a good chance of success because a lot of people do have faith in him, and hopefully the coop model will prohibit another sell out.
Maybe he realizes what Getty did to his baby, and is making amends. In any case, I would give him a second chance.
I hope you're right. With all that's gone on, I'm still skeptical that he truly has photophers' best interests at heart and not just his wallet's. The funny thing is, he probably could've ended up making way more had he brought iStockphoto public instead of selling out to Getty. I have little respect for him.
-
will need to come up with something pretty amazing to break back in and get decent market share.
Surely a prestige collection ? But I cannot imagine many of the top end risking jumping ship unless some sort of solid distribution deal has already been negotiated, maybe with GI. Unless it is some version of RM (single use perhaps).
Bon courage to all those involved but never saying anything.
-
C'mon folks! If someone offered you $50 million for your website which one of you would have turned it down? Nobody.
Plus, if he didn't sell out he may not have enough money to do something like a Stocksy.
-
I haven't been one of Bruce's fan boys in the past, he sold to Getty when Getty had a very long standing reputation for treating their contributors like dirt, but I am prepared to give this project a chance. It stands a good chance of success because a lot of people do have faith in him, and hopefully the coop model will prohibit another sell out.
Maybe he realizes what Getty did to his baby, and is making amends. In any case, I would give him a second chance.
I hope you're right. With all that's gone on, I'm still skeptical that he truly has photophers' best interests at heart and not just his wallet's. The funny thing is, he probably could've ended up making way more had he brought iStockphoto public instead of selling out to Getty. I have little respect for him.
What we know:
Co-opt.
50%
100% on ELs
An history of efficiency and care for the photographers.
Maybe you respect more who pays around 20% and can change the rules at will.
-
C'mon folks! If someone offered you $50 million for your website which one of you would have turned it down? Nobody.
Plus, if he didn't sell out he may not have enough money to do something like a Stocksy.
If I had the opportunity to continue expanding on what I'd created, not sell out to a company that has a long standing history of screwing over its photographers, and raise even more money through an IPO, then no I wouldn't.
-
I believe at the time Bruce wanted more time with his family, you can't put a price on that! so I forgive him and move on! This is fresh air people!
-
Put me down as someone who would like an invite. (in case he's reading this thread)
-
Would be good to get an invite. Never liked sitting outside in the cold :)
-
Very interesting news. Seeing that, even the post about the announcement of Stocksy is removed from the facebook page of IS (istockphoto only), somebody is in panic I think.
-
bitter has no longer a folder at istockphoto. I knew he had left exclusivity, but I ignore when he deleted his is portfolio.
-
The fact that it is a co-op would imply artist exclusivity..... No?
-
The fact that it is a co-op would imply artist exclusivity..... No?
No reason to think that particularly.
They will properly offer image exclusivity, but artist exclusivity? I doubt it will be the case from the outset, most couldn't afford it
-
The Great Pumpkin is finally here! ::)
I hope he puts something good together, but I have trouble not being a little skeptical.
-
I used an e-mail addresses that's for when I'm not sure about a site - I hope this is on the level though.
It would be really nice to have a decent agency to work with after the last few years of unrelenting (almost) suckiness
-
Site is legit, Webcorelabs in WHOIS.
Has anyone received a reply yet to entering their email?
-
If given the opportunity either by invitation (doubtful in my case) or via a portfolio review I would drop my crown and give it a try. At this point I see nothing to lose by doing so and I'm not going back to subscription royalty rates elsewhere.
If nothing else this may give iStock the shot across the bow they so desperately need to 'encourage' them to get things turned around.
-
Hey! Hey! Pick me! Pick me!
;D
-
This sounds like it might be a very positive development. I added my name.
Bruce is a smart guy and obviously not just content to rest on his laurels, sipping margaritas on the beach somewhere. He's probably been developing this for a long time, and waiting for the right time to make it public. With all the disaffected Istock contributors looking for a life raft, this is the perfect time!
I would love to be involved in something like this. Left my e-mail. Hope this is a big success for Bruce and a positive turning point for contributors!
"Sustainable" stock indeed! :D
-
"Sustainable" stock indeed! :D
If that's not a shot across the bow of the sinking Calgary ship, I don't know what is...
:)
-
Signed in ;) this will be great, even though not sure if it will be open for amateurs like me :)
-
You can request to join the FB group here for Stocksy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/stocksy/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/stocksy/)
-
I see Rob Sylvan's on board from the Facebook admin group.
-
Good times at Ridgemont High :-)
-
PHP Zend Developer for Stocksy.com (Victoria, BC)
Job Description :
Stocksy, a new photography cooperative based in downtown Victoria, BC, is looking for an experienced web developer to enhance, develop and maintain our web application.
Roles and Responsibility
We are looking for an intermediate to senior developer to lead development initiatives within Stocksy. The successful candidate will enjoy the opportunity of working with a small, dynamic development team using agile methodologies and utilizing the latest web technologies. The successful candidate will work closely with the team and our site membership to lead and develop innovative and elegant software solutions.
Essential Skills and Experience:
- Extensive knowledge and experience in PHP web development
- Strong skills in HTML, Javascript and CSS
- Experience and knowledge with MySQL or other database platforms.
- Comprehensive understanding of software design concepts, preferably in a team environment
- Working knowledge of unit testing and bug management
- Willing to take bottom line responsibility for their work and deliver high quality output
- Problem solver mentality
Desired Skills and Experience
- Experience working with agile methodologies
- Experience implementing projects with Zend Framework or other MVC frameworks
- Experience with Javascript frameworks (Dojo or jQuery)
Send resumé or CV to bruce(at)stocksy.com. Candidates will be contacted for an interview.
Location: Victoria, BC
Compensation: $80,000/yr to scale based on experience
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
***********************************
Here is an ad posted on craigslist jan 14 2013. So it looks like the real deal to me and they are moving on it!
-
Just hope he doesn't hire Peebert.
-
Jut hope he doesn't hire Peebert.
That was one of my first thoughts!!
-
A co-op would have the very unique advantage of having every photographer advertising like crazy for it. it is great that we all have our own sites but we are all working independent of each other. If we were all part of a co-op it would be a massive advertising octopus with many many arms.
A co-op type agency would also appeal to other creatives in the industry as a great place to shop for images - ethically sourced.
Exactly. It would be supported by a MASSIVE viral marketing campaigns by the members. It may take time to get traction and momentum but it is the right direction with major potential. I think Bruce can do it. I feel he is highly motivated to do a smack down on Getty after what they did to iStock and their treatment of the contributors.
-
I see Rob Sylvan's on board from the Facebook admin group.
That is an excellent sign indeed. :)
-
Sean is on board too...
com'on Locke... spill the beans ;)
-
this is the best stock industry news I have heard in years! Gives me faith that the industry won't be imploding anytime soon!
-
I won't get an invite, but I wish the very best to all who do.
-
PHP Zend Developer for Stocksy.com (Victoria, BC)
Job Description :
Stocksy, a new photography cooperative based in downtown Victoria, BC, is looking for an experienced web developer to enhance, develop and maintain our web application.
Roles and Responsibility
We are looking for an intermediate to senior developer to lead development initiatives within Stocksy. The successful candidate will enjoy the opportunity of working with a small, dynamic development team using agile methodologies and utilizing the latest web technologies. The successful candidate will work closely with the team and our site membership to lead and develop innovative and elegant software solutions.
Essential Skills and Experience:
- Extensive knowledge and experience in PHP web development
- Strong skills in HTML, Javascript and CSS
- Experience and knowledge with MySQL or other database platforms.
- Comprehensive understanding of software design concepts, preferably in a team environment
- Working knowledge of unit testing and bug management
- Willing to take bottom line responsibility for their work and deliver high quality output
- Problem solver mentality
Desired Skills and Experience
- Experience working with agile methodologies
- Experience implementing projects with Zend Framework or other MVC frameworks
- Experience with Javascript frameworks (Dojo or jQuery)
Send resumé or CV to bruce(at)stocksy.com. Candidates will be contacted for an interview.
Location: Victoria, BC
Compensation: $80,000/yr to scale based on experience
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
***********************************
Here is an ad posted on craigslist jan 14 2013. So it looks like the real deal to me and they are moving on it!
They are looking on craigslist for quality people? Hmmm....
-
This is what I said a while back.
"We need a community owned "co-op" Sean lead with large input from leading contributors. Why Sean, he is smarter than istock lawyer for starters. Now that istock was gutted there is no reason to be exclusive anymore. But the other sites are not a good option for low payout. Many istock exclusives are not producing images for the greedy losers at getty.
I know of a few top exclusives who would be interested. A co-op would eliminate one entity selling the whole thing in five years and only them getting rich of others work. It would make selling images worth more than selling the website.
The contributors who build the site need to be protected. This is the only real way!!"
*************************************
Hopefully it is coming true. Otherwise the same thing that happened to singers will happen to us. As soon as digitial was available it was a reduction of payments to the singers. They went from selling a whole record to singles to itunes to pandora. One musician said they were paid $2000 for 1.8 million plays on spotify. And spotify owners get billions!! That sounds about as bad as the getty google deal. Especially since they want to monetize the views. This would funnel all the money to one entity or getty. NO 40% payout not even 15%.
Bruce also probably worried getty would crush istock if he said no to the buyout. Stocksy appears to be another great opportunity for us contributors.
-
I don't see this being open to everyone. They would have to have high standards or it would be filled with the 80% of crap all the sites now have. It could be successful if it gets QUALITY images at a fair price to the buyers. Perhaps 1000 or less of the top shooters would work. I am not saying I am in that group but... just sayin.
-
I don't see this being open to everyone. They would have to have high standards or it would be filled with the 80% of crap all the sites now have. It could be successful if it gets QUALITY images at a fair price to the buyers. Perhaps 1000 or less of the top shooters would work. I am not saying I am in that group but... just sayin.
If they have to have high standards, explain why my "crap" is still selling. High standards = high overhead = high prices for the images. The whole point of microstock is have affordable images for everyone at a couple of different price points. That said, I don't remember seeing if stocksy said they were going to be micro, mid or high quality.
-
Fingers crossed they'll show some love to illustrators too. That facebook group list gave me a warm and fuzzy flashback to 2003. I even missed Peebert for a moment. :) (Who am I kidding I've always missed Peebert.)
-
I don't see this being open to everyone. They would have to have high standards or it would be filled with the 80% of crap all the sites now have. It could be successful if it gets QUALITY images at a fair price to the buyers. Perhaps 1000 or less of the top shooters would work. I am not saying I am in that group but... just sayin.
If they have to have high standards, explain why my "crap" is still selling. High standards = high overhead = high prices for the images. The whole point of microstock is have affordable images for everyone at a couple of different price points. That said, I don't remember seeing if stocksy said they were going to be micro, mid or high quality.
Well, maybe your "crap" is not crap ;).
I am speaking from my creative director point of view as a buyer. A new site has to offer me more than what I am now getting from the micro sites -- which is 80% unusable crap shot by amateurs with no eye for design and little understanding of useful concept. Just bad execution. If you give me the "same old" ... why bother. Give me quality at a fair price. Weed out the junk and I am a loyal customer. Actually, I am going to contact Bruce regarding becoming an advisor for the site and perhaps get on the board.
OX
...so there
-
I don't see this being open to everyone. They would have to have high standards or it would be filled with the 80% of crap all the sites now have. It could be successful if it gets QUALITY images at a fair price to the buyers. Perhaps 1000 or less of the top shooters would work. I am not saying I am in that group but... just sayin.
If they have to have high standards, explain why my "crap" is still selling. High standards = high overhead = high prices for the images. The whole point of microstock is have affordable images for everyone at a couple of different price points. That said, I don't remember seeing if stocksy said they were going to be micro, mid or high quality.
Well, maybe your "crap" is not crap ;).
I am speaking from my creative director point of view as a buyer. A new site has to offer me more than what I am now getting from the micro sites -- which is 80% unusable crap shot by amateurs with no eye for design and little understanding of useful concept. Just bad execution. If you give me the "same old" ... why bother. Give me quality at a fair price. Weed out the junk and I am a loyal customer. Actually, I am going to contact Bruce regarding becoming an advisor for the site and perhaps get on the board.
OX
...so there
curious how 23k sales at iStock since 2005 made you feel that brilliant, whatever...
-
Good job Bruce and company! As an exclusive with 50% growth for each of the last 4 years I don't think I'll be joining just yet but I applaud your efforts and hope it will be so successful I won't be able to stay away for too long.
-
Good job Bruce and company! As an exclusive with 50% growth for each of the last 4 years I don't think I'll be joining just yet but I applaud your efforts and hope it will be so successful I won't be able to stay away for too long.
I didn't get around to responding while you had Tyler in your post (before you edited it) :) I was going to take a bow.... now what am I supposed to do.. :(
-
Nevermind I'm confussed.
-
Good job Bruce and company! As an exclusive with 50% growth for each of the last 4 years I don't think I'll be joining just yet but I applaud your efforts and hope it will be so successful I won't be able to stay away for too long.
I didn't get around to responding while you had Tyler in your post (before you edited it) :) I was going to take a bow.... now what am I supposed to do.. :(
Ha sorry I read a few of the early posts and wasn't sure you wanted to be named yet. Thanks Tyler and company!
now I'm confused.... I was just joking. At first I thought you had me mixed up, then thought you just made a mistake now I'm not sure what to think.
I don't have anything to do with this project (however you can feel free to show me where to sign up). I just heard the info and posted it here.
-
Oops. Well thanks for bringing it to my attention at least.
-
Good job Bruce and company! As an exclusive with 50% growth for each of the last 4 years I don't think I'll be joining just yet but I applaud your efforts and hope it will be so successful I won't be able to stay away for too long.
I didn't get around to responding while you had Tyler in your post (before you edited it) :) I was going to take a bow.... now what am I supposed to do.. :(
Ha sorry I read a few of the early posts and wasn't sure you wanted to be named yet. Thanks Tyler and company!
now I'm confused.... I was just joking. At first I thought you had me mixed up, then thought you just made a mistake now I'm not sure what to think.
I don't have anything to do with this project (however you can feel free to show me where to sign up). I just heard the info and posted it here.
Maybe he's getting you confused with Tyler Stalman, one of the admin there.
-
Maybe he's getting you confused with Tyler Stalman, one of the admin there.
Yep you're right, typing before thinking.
-
Wow. Exciting times! ;D
-
Just saw there are 2 Tyler Olson's member of the facebook Stocksy group, while I'm still waiting to get accepted. Tyler, what's your secret? (except of course that little detail that this forum is The Voice of Microstock :) ).
-
I am a small time stock photographer, I entered my email and asked to join the group.
If this is for the big guns only, then I wont be part of this, but I am hoping I can join too.
-
ditto
-
Exciting times, punched in my email and tried to join the group. This is the raft we always talked about and we should embrace it with both arms.
I believe if we only submit the very best shots from our portfolios then we probably have a good chance of creating a killer site quickly with the traffic necessary. Word of mouth will be automatic.
Video I hope will be in the cards, same for illustration.
Regarding the iStock sale we only have bits and pieces of what happened and I believe the creditors wanted their cash and Bruce had two options, go Public or sell to Getty. He chose the latter because it was in his view at the time the springboard necessary to get the site to grow while at the same time stay in control for years.
He didn't pocket the 50million he had to pay creditors which I believe was the majority of that share. But as I say we don't really know what happened. He did stay in the loop for years then came KK which did I believe a good job with the strings that grasped around him. The Getty machine was in full control and it really didn't matter who was in control.
-
Sites like this I'm certain are looking for upper tier, successful contributors. As they should. Why would they invest all that money to become another MS site (if MS is their product)? So for someone like me, I doubt I'd qualify. Am I bummed? Of course. But I am giddy for those of you who will get in. Stick that red hot poker up the other MS's bungs who continue to sponge our hard earned income. If the site is successful, people like Lisa, Joanne, Tyler, Sean, and the rest of you superstars can spend your shoot budgets on Stocksy and not on IS, SS, BS and whatever other S sites there are. These sites will suffer because they will be stuck with a larger volume of point and shooters and fewer photographers who know how to conduct a shoot, purchase props, get models, and have an eye for market needs. This is fantastic news for all of you who get in and my hat is off to you and my best wishes to Bruce and his co-op.
-
So many bad news are finally leading to a very good one!
-
Fi-na-lly the gray cloud gets a silver lining, its so good to see something positive happening!
After ditching FT and removing most of my istock portfolio MS future is looking bleak from here (BigStock port will go soon too). I do hope the smaller portfolio's will get a chance too, but if not i'm totally with Mantis, i hope some butts will get seriously kicked.
I'm very excited to see how this will unfold, the news did make my day!
Now let me in the FB group already 8)
-
Hmm, the facebook group was on 96 when I asked to join, now its on 100 but I am not in it :-\ Too bad.
-
I don't see anything on the site about it only being for the big contributors. I think that would be a mistake, as one of the strong points of microstock is diversity. Some of the smaller contributors have great images that any serious stock sites should want. Lots of new sites have started with the big contributors first before opening the doors to everyone.
-
I don't see anything on the site about it only being for the big contributors. I think that would be a mistake, as one of the strong points of microstock is diversity. Some of the smaller contributors have great images that any serious stock sites should want. Lots of new sites have started with the big contributors first before opening the doors to everyone.
Yea that's what I meant. Big as in "knows their crap", but port size shouldn't matter. What you produce should. Thanks for pointing that out.
-
Is this for everyone or just a few selected ones? sorry but I am quite new here.
-
I don't see anything on the site about it only being for the big contributors. I think that would be a mistake, as one of the strong points of microstock is diversity. Some of the smaller contributors have great images that any serious stock sites should want. Lots of new sites have started with the big contributors first before opening the doors to everyone.
Not all my port is good, but I do have some good sellers. I might even be inspired to start shooting and uploading again if I were in.
-
Patience guys. This is a huge challenge for those involved. Taking on the might of Getty, and potentially Google, will not be easy. I'm sure we will hear something soon. In the mean time I'd love to be a fly on the wall at iStock HQ
-
Just got accepted on the Facebook Group. ;D
Lots of good info regarding their plans but they admit they are really in early stages and kinda overwhelmed. More news to follow. I don't think they had plans for it to go viral so quickly. Looks like only photos initially. The energy feels just right. 8)
-
Let's keep in mind we built iStock, we can do it again and even better this time this is not starting from scratch, yes it will take some time but we can do it!
-
Let's keep in mind we built iStock, we can do it again and even better this time this is not starting from scratch, yes it will take some time but we can do it!
The Bugle Cavalry Charge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vna4AAC1bdE#)
-
They are looking on craigslist for quality people? Hmmm....
Surprisingly, a lot of companies are doing that lately. For about the last three years, all my recruiters would post on Craigslist first -- quicker response. And the last two major corps I worked for did that too -- I suspect it is sort of pre-screening before it gets to HR.
-
Let's keep in mind we built iStock, we can do it again and even better this time this is not starting from scratch, yes it will take some time but we can do it!
I think that is true, but it is definitely a different environment now. Other agencies already exist. Anybody can build a site with off the shelf parts. I would think it would be harder to build a giant micro site now. Stockfresh definitely didn't blow the doors off out of the gate.
I don't know what they have in mind for this, but I would think it would definitely be easier to build a small agency with less artists. Especially since they are a co-op. That insinuates that they have an obligation to the contributors they let in. So, they want to keep their members fat and happy. The most obvious solution to that is to keep their competition, other contributors, out.
It will be interesting to see what they come up with, and it could be a model for other sites. We'll see.
-
There is still a huge Gap in mid-stock, iStock has messed that model up so I can see Stocksy slipping right in. With the 50/50 split and the team they have started I think this could gain some steam! We all know Getty will squeeze every last dime out of us and leave us for broke! Of course it will take work and time but the others just don't get it. Looks like they are more than willing to be a community and that is where iStock dropped the ball. I am all for this even if they never offer video.
-
Saw this: "focusing on high quality, image exclusive artwork."
So on an image exclusive basis which means it can grow along side other avenues of revenue until its big enough to be a primary stop for artists.
-
OMG This rocks!!! is it just photos?
-
The poll results are in and Stocksy will be added to the right hand bar in no time!
All kidding aside, reading this shortly after the BS topic is quite a lift. Would love to be part of it. Hope they have a short runway to liftoff!
-
OMG This rocks!!! is it just photos?
They haven't set out all the details yet, but I believe it's photos to start
-
Well thats a big disappointment, I got rejected and can no longer see the facebook group. So its for big names only. Good luck to all that got in. I feel quite disappointed to be honest. Time to up my game I guess.
-
Sounds interesting to me. It´s not a new idea, but finally somebody had the guts to do it. And it´s not just "somebody". I think it´s probably the only new venture that might have a chance in microstock. But I´m not sure if it´s clever to only invite the biggest contributors. You need almost everybody because to start with you need the power of word of mouth. Contributors need to tell their designerfriends about the site to make them change their image outlet. Otherwise it will be much harder to get the customers to move to the new site. Not impossible, but much harder.
-
this is good timing, and might keep more fingers off the iStock reactivate button
-
In all the threads about co-ops etc. what has always been missing is a credible leader with the experience to organise it and the clout to make an impact on the industry. It looks as if that gap has been filled. I'm sure news that "Bruce is back" would go round design studios like wildfire.
Perhaps the biggest issue will be building a library of sufficient size. I don't have a folder full of saleable images that I've been saving up for a rainy day. It would take me a while to build up a good-size portfolio of exclusive images but if the collection lacked critical mass the excitement over Bruce's comeback would risk being dampened by disappointment with the scale of the product and could end up like the site started by the crew from StockXpert.
That said, this is one lifeboat I'll scramble aboard if I get the chance.
-
The line "own real equity in the company" suggests to me that you will pay to play. Subject to the details I'd go along with that but I wonder if others would.
-
this is good timing, and might keep more fingers off the iStock reactivate button
Good lord! The reactivate button? Admittedly I didn't deactivate much but I have uploaded 100+ files elsewhere that iStock won't be getting a sniff of now or ever.
"Shall we only threaten and be angry for an hour:
When the storm is ended shall we find
How softly but how swiftly they have sidled back to power
By the favour and contrivance of their kind?
Even while they soothe us, while they promise large amends,
Even while they make a show of fear,
Do they call upon their debtors, and take counsel with their friends,
To conform and re-establish each career?" - Kipling
-
The only chance this new agency has to make an impact in the stock world is to be as inclusive as possible both in the members allowed to upload as in the accepted themes, being top models posing in an airplane or isolated apples.
It must present top quality images but it must be inclusive.
Unless the plans are to create a niche agency competing in a specific segment of imagery like lifestyle, for example, which will not make any difference to the vast majority of us or the market, and is possibly dooming itself early for a semi-success if not failure...
A few years back an elitist project just like the one I mentioned in the previous paragraph was created and as far as I know was a total failure in terms of stock presence. It was also created by a high profile person in the stock industry but no one hears anything about them. I think it was called Vivozoom.
So I hope this will be an inclusive project because it will have the strength of tenths of thousand of motivated contributors pushing it forward, and the same time crippling severely its competition.
-
A few years back an elitist project just like the one I mentioned in the previous paragraph was created and as far as I know was a total failure in terms of stock presence. It was also created by a high profile person in the stock industry but no one hears anything about them. I think it was called Vivozoom.
http://www.vivozoom.com (http://www.vivozoom.com)
Looking at the standard of work it's not hard to see why it failed to make an impact. I'm imagining Stocksy might try a little bit harder, although I don't underestimate the steep hill they have to climb. The amount of interest in this in just a day or two does show the huge amount of disaffection amongst contributors to other sites though, so you can only wish them well.
-
The line "own real equity in the company" suggests to me that you will pay to play.
That'd be my guess too. It'd give the organisation capital up front for marketing and attracting customers, a stumbling block for all new entrants.
Paying per upload would force people to be selective but would also give further fuel to the current photographer abusers to justify their crummy royalties.
-
Yes, I am rejected too. Maybe they want to have only people that they know. Disappointing.
-
Yes, I am rejected too. Maybe they want to have only people that they know. Disappointing.
The link doesn't work for me and I haven't applied so maybe they aren't allowing non members to even apply now.
-
Yes, I am rejected too. Maybe they want to have only people that they know. Disappointing.
The link doesn't work for me and I haven't applied so maybe they aren't allowing non members to even apply now.
Oh, I was actually referring to the facebook group. There is a closed facebook group for people who are interested in knowing more about Stocksy. My request was rejected, so I can't even find the group at the moment.
I am a silver level exclusive cont. by the way, no IS spy or sth.
-
The FB group is no longer reachable. I guess they realised (or were told) they were a little premature. Some kind of pre-announcement from Stocksy would help.
-
Yes, I am rejected too. Maybe they want to have only people that they know. Disappointing.
The link doesn't work for me and I haven't applied so maybe they aren't allowing non members to even apply now.
Oh, I was actually referring to the facebook group. There is a closed facebook group for people who are interested in knowing more about Stocksy. My request was rejected, so I can't even find the group at the moment.
I am a silver level exclusive cont. by the way, no IS spy or sth.
Yes I was talking about the FB page as well. I guess they realized that they may have been a little hasty in letting people into the group without finding out exactly who they are.
-
I was also rejected in the facebook group.
I'm a gold member in IS, as well selling tenths of images in alamy per month, but it's true that the Facebook account I've used is not explicit of that, or my work in the stock business.
-
I don't think they are purely choosing people on sales volume at this time.
They probably want people who can give input and/ or influence others.
I noticed they had Lee (industry expert and blogger) for example in the group.
Also people from the SS forums that could only be there because they have a large following of contributors so good to have on side, rather than a lot of sales.
It's early days yet.
-
I'm starting a co-op stock site called crapsy. For all of those artists who get rejected by stocksy. Who's in?
-
Genuinely LOL'ed at that! I'm in.
-
I'm starting a co-op stock site called crapsy. For all of those artists who get rejected by stocksy. Who's in?
haha, well it depends ... what are your plans : micro, mid or macro stock ? And will you exclusively sell crap or are some average quality images allowed too? ;)
-
I swent my email addy last night but have heard nothing. I guess that means I'm out too.
I dislike Facebook intensely, so maybe it's all good. ;)
-
I friended a couple of people that were in my cn and hadnt talked to since i left istock, but i am shut out now too. Oh well.
-
I swent my email addy last night but have heard nothing. I guess that means I'm out too.
I dislike Facebook intensely, so maybe it's all good. ;)
I also sent the email request and requested to join on Facebook, but haven't heard anything either.
-
I think you can only added to the FB group if you know anybody who is inside and he can invites you. Then the admin can check you. I think the project is in a sensitive beginning phase and they must try to "save" as much as possible until the project can go official online. because of that the group is now "hidden". Its not because of "big members" or "family faces".
-
I friended a couple of people that were in my cn and hadnt talked to since i left istock, but i am shut out now too. Oh well.
I don't even see them active anymore. Maybe you're not shut out, just that they shut down the page for now or went stealth due to the overwhelming response we contributors gave them. Bruce might be viewed as a savior, but only for some individuals, not for microstock.
-
I'm starting a co-op stock site called crapsy. For all of those artists who get rejected by stocksy. Who's in?
haha, well it depends ... what are your plans : micro, mid or macro stock ? And will you exclusively sell crap or are some average quality images allowed too? ;)
I describe it as midmicromac. All average images will be sifted out by an army of inspector interns. I promise that you will receive 99% royalties until I run away to the Caribbean with your unpaid royalties. Crapsy!
-
I friended a couple of people that were in my cn and hadnt talked to since i left istock, but i am shut out now too. Oh well.
I don't even see them active anymore. Maybe you're not shut out, just that they shut down the page for now or went stealth due to the overwhelming response we contributors gave them. Bruce might be viewed as a savior, but only for some individuals, not for microstock.
The FB group did go private or secret, whatever that means. I think Rob is dealing with the 85 inches of snow they are going to get up north today, so approvals to the group will probably be slow.
-
50% commission + dividend from total cash flow, and an equal say in how the agency is run. This truly does sound like the co-op we have been dreaming on.
-
I'm sure Stocksy will only be for the big hitters - not least because only big sellers will be able to make back the possible considerable initial investment. Fair enough.
-
I'm sure Stocksy will only be for the big hitters - not least because only big sellers will be able to make back the possible considerable initial investment. Fair enough.
No, not really, because if it is a co-op then everything that is left over after the running expenses and the 50% commission should be divided equally among the members. That means that if I join and Sean Locke joins, then my feeble earnings will be bolstered by a slice of income from Sean.
That would be fine by me ;D
-
I friended a couple of people that were in my cn and hadnt talked to since i left istock, but i am shut out now too. Oh well.
I don't even see them active anymore. Maybe you're not shut out, just that they shut down the page for now or went stealth due to the overwhelming response we contributors gave them. Bruce might be viewed as a savior, but only for some individuals, not for microstock.
The FB group did go private or secret, whatever that means. I think Rob is dealing with the 85 inches of snow they are going to get up north today, so approvals to the group will probably be slow.
Sure it did. Tyler Stalman changed the group to 'Secret' saying they just "don't have a lot more to say at the moment" .. I'm guessing they start adding people to the group once that have more to share.
- no point in tons of people asking them questions when they can't give out any answers (yet)
-
I'm sure Stocksy will only be for the big hitters - not least because only big sellers will be able to make back the possible considerable initial investment. Fair enough.
Why have you jumped to those conclusions? I'll wait and see what their actual plans are. I hate trying to guess when we have no real information to go on.
-
I'm sure Stocksy will only be for the big hitters - not least because only big sellers will be able to make back the possible considerable initial investment. Fair enough.
Why have you jumped to those conclusions? I'll wait and see what their actual plans are. I hate trying to guess when we have no real information to go on.
Well said. They have really given very little information about the site other than what is on their splash page. Everything else is simply speculation.
The two bits of info that they did give via facebook is...
They would offer image exclusivity
They want to don't want to build a collection that looks like every other microstock site.
-
It's amazing they even responded at all! We need to be patient, this not like you and me just starting a website. They have time and money invested and have to do things right. I was surprised they even gave what they did. Sure it will be different as it should be and hey I may not fit the bill just yet but this is a huge positive for the industry! The 50/50 split I hope puts pressure on other sites. I am all for their success and if they offer video one day that would make me smile. We have been negative far to long because of the poor treatment we have gotten from IS. Now lets all take in a deep breath and wait.
-
Well said. They have really given very little information about the site other than what is on their splash page. Everything else is simply speculation.
Isn't that what we do best here on MSG....speculation? ;) :D ;D :o
-
It's amazing they even responded at all! We need to be patient, this not like you and me just starting a website. They have time and money invested and have to do things right. I was surprised they even gave what they did. Sure it will be different as it should be and hey I may not fit the bill just yet but this is a huge positive for the industry! The 50/50 split I hope puts pressure on other sites. I am all for their success and if they offer video one day that would make me smile. We have been negative far to long because of the poor treatment we have gotten from IS. Now lets all take in a deep breath and wait.
Way back in the thread I said I wouldn't get accepted, but I wished the very best to those who do. And I meant it.
-
It's amazing they even responded at all! We need to be patient, this not like you and me just starting a website. They have time and money invested and have to do things right. I was surprised they even gave what they did. Sure it will be different as it should be and hey I may not fit the bill just yet but this is a huge positive for the industry! The 50/50 split I hope puts pressure on other sites. I am all for their success and if they offer video one day that would make me smile. We have been negative far to long because of the poor treatment we have gotten from IS. Now lets all take in a deep breath and wait.
Way back in the thread I said I wouldn't get accepted, but I wished the very best to those who do. And I meant it.
Have you actually been refused or have you just not had an answer so assume you have been refused ?
-
I think I accidentally cancelled my request. :( I will wait with great anticipation for whats to come.
-
Thanks for the updates sean and others. I can imagine they will be inundated.
-
You can request to join the FB group here for Stocksy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/stocksy/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/stocksy/)
Group doesn't exist. When I click on the link, I get a "Content Not Found" message from Facebook. They must have changed settings to make it private by invite only.
-
Speaking as an exclusive at iStock (which is looking like a bad move on my part) and one who most likely will not be able to be a member of the new agency I'm not sure I see this as good news. With Bruce at the helm this venture has a good chance of succeeding although it will probably be a couple of years before it makes any impact on the industry. Once it starts taking away some of the market share from existing agencies those that are on the ropes will be negatively impacted and so will their contributors....iStock is on the ropes and I'm not convinced they can turn it around. Knocking them down another rung on the ladder truly will make it unsustainable.
Having said that I hope Stocksy succeeds, big time. I'm slowly working my way back to RM and this may be the incentive I need to get back to my roots in this business.
-
Well I know that two things are seldom the same but I keep thinking about NeXT.
I wonder if there will be an opportunity to invest.
-
With Rob Sylvan's permission, I'm posting a note he put into the Facebook group (now secret) this morning:
"Just a heads up. Some of you might have seen that we switched the status of this group to increase the privacy of those in the group. As a result it will appear to those not yet approved that it went dark. If you know of anyone who as requested access to this group, but is still pending, that it wasn't personal or anything to do with them specifically. We'll get more people added soon. We just don't have much more to say at this time, and were frankly overwhelmed at the interest level. All in good time. Thanks for understanding! :)"
So there will be a point at which they'll start adding people - no idea for a timeframe on that though
-
That really great news, thanks Jo Ann. If you can drop a comment in the group, tell em I said thanks.
-
The mere existence of this new agency and concept as well as our enthusiastic response to it is a win already! Many apparently are prepared to pull their images from other sites for this. Finally there is some pressure on the ever downward spiralling earnings on other sites.
Bruce is a brand already. He has an awesome start with lots of experience ahead of him. This could skyrocket and everyone smells it. Exciting times!
-
Thanks for posting the update, Jo Ann. It's good to hear things are still rolling behind the scenes. That Stocksy has received such an overwhelming response already shouldn't be a surprise. It's a sign that we contributors have been in need of something better for a long time.
-
So is he cherry picking portfolios right now when people submit their email? I guess someone who has the respect from the industry has a license to do so. I am interested to know more.
-
Why getting 2 mins for thanking someone? What is wrong with that?
-
I'm starting a co-op stock site called crapsy. For all of those artists who get rejected by stocksy. Who's in?
ooh goody, somewhere to park all my pictures of fruit. :)
-
Thanks Jo Ann. I didn't actually apply for anything, just gave an email addy for more info, and didn't hear back.
-
Do you need a Facebook account to be considered for this? I've deliberately avoided all social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) as I've enough distractions in my life without adding more.
As to cherry-picking people's port via their e-mail, how would this be done? I do use the same e-mail address at all agencies I upload to, but how can you identify these sites and your individual port solely from an e-mail address?
-
You cant find any portfolios by simply an email. The email is to get a newsletter of some sorts. SOmeone is making an assumption about cherry pikcing
As for Facebook, to join the facebook group you need a facebook account. To join the site, you most likely do not.
-
From the little info listed, you would think it is more a modern version of blend. A group of photographers who work together to sell their files. I wouldn´t be surprised if macro agencies approach them to license the content.
If they just sell directly from their site, it will probably take 2 years before they have enough customers to pay out large amounts of money.
I´d love to learn more about it, but for all those looking for a simple alternative to the micros, this probably isn´t it.
-
Well, we know very little details on this one and it's a long way to your first payout. Forgive me if I'm intrigued but nothing else at this stage. Click of the fingers and everyone wants to send in all the images they have spent years creating. Fair enough it may promise a better deal than some of the bad news at the moment, but it's going to take a huge effort to compete with what is out there.
Back to working for the less equitable agencies who are in a position to pay me my slim percentage of something....Knights died out in the Middle Ages...
-
Well, we know very little details on this one and it's a long way to your first payout. Forgive me if I'm intrigued but nothing else at this stage. Click of the fingers and everyone wants to send in all the images they have spent years creating. Fair enough it may promise a better deal than some of the bad news at the moment, but it's going to take a huge effort to compete with what is out there.
Back to working for the less equitable agencies who are in a position to pay me my slim percentage of something....Knights died out in the Middle Ages...
Yah seeing files sold to google for $60 and contributors getting a whopping $12 on 2 million+ downloads makes me feeling like running for the exits of the getty properties. And no $.38 subs is not good enough. SO, when a guy who slayed the getty monster speaks, I get excited. What would your thoughts of his chances of creating istock been in 1999?
-
Rob Sylvan at Stocksy United just reported that iStock/Getty is canceling his account in 30 days and only referred to the ASA stating they can do so.
-
Rob Sylvan at Stocksy United just reported that iStock/Getty is canceling his account in 30 days and only referred to the ASA stating they can do so.
My how times & relationships change.
-
Great, I'll Stocksy to the list of exclusive clubs I can't join. Fun reading about them though.
-
?? So are they going to ban all the contributing members of the stocksy co op?
Why do they allow the photographers from Blend to upload? They also sell from their own site.
Very strange.
I will miss him. Rob Sylvan did so much for the istock community. It is hard to imagine they kicked him out.
Really bizarre.
Do they have any idea how this will backfire? A lot of people are still under shock from the getty google deal.
Something like this really makes you wonder what is coming next???
-
Rob Sylvan at Stocksy United just reported that iStock/Getty is canceling his account in 30 days and only referred to the ASA stating they can do so.
I don't find this all that surprising, really. If he's going to have a role in the competition at (I assume) some administrative level, then it seems perfectly reasonable they'd delete his account. I can think of others that have had the same circumstances.
-
Maybe they know something we don´t. But the site hasn´t even opened it´s doors yet.
But from what the site says it is just a coop, not a regular stock agency. And what has been shared so far is that it is going to work on an image exclusive basis, so all the contributors will probably still be uploading to all the other sites as well.
But looking from the outside this seems like a knee jerk reaction without considering the effect on the companies reputation.
-
Rob Sylvan at Stocksy United just reported that iStock/Getty is canceling his account in 30 days and only referred to the ASA stating they can do so.
I don't find this all that surprising, really. If he's going to have a role in the competition at (I assume) some administrative level, then it seems perfectly reasonable they'd delete his account. I can think of others that have had the same circumstances.
Rob has been independent for a long time. A number of us independents who are part of WarmPicture, including the guy who started it haven't been kicked out. What's the difference between WarmPicture and any other new cooperative? At this point I don't see anything other than arbitrary and personal reasons versus rational policy applied across the board.
-
Finally excited about stock photography again! Hope it isn't too exclusive, I want in!!
-
Warmpictures, Blend images, various photography groupings on Photoshelter come to mind. Also all the smaller webshops were two or three artists pool their content to sell together but also send content to other agencies.
A coop of course will have people working in administration, but why would they have their portfolios deleted from other sites?
Are images uploaded to stocksy more dangerous than images uploaded to shutterstock?
You would think istock/getty are concerned by losing all the marketshare to Shutterstock. I mean there are even customers on the forum openly talking about it.
Why would they be so scared of a coop that is not even open for business?
Bruce is a clever man, but he can´t create miracles.
stocksy will take years to build and might never ever become a real threat to anyone.
-
I don't have any choice but to take a wait and see attitude, but I'm not all that excited about Bruce's new venture. I wasn't all that thrilled with iStock even before the sale to Getty. Getting 20% as an independent was hardly good treatment, their upload process was somewhere between tedious and agonizing, and their upload limits meant it didn't take all that long for my iStock income to fall behind Shutterstock. Bruce's iStock treated most of us like poor stepchildren. I appreciate what he did in giving microstock life, but wonder what fresh hell he'll unleash on whomever he decides to make second class citizens.
Of course, I could be all wrong about this. We'll see.
-
I don't have any choice but to take a wait and see attitude, but I'm not all that excited about Bruce's new venture. I wasn't all that thrilled with iStock even before the sale to Getty. Getting 20% as an independent was hardly good treatment, their upload process was somewhere between tedious and agonizing, and their upload limits meant it didn't take all that long for my iStock income to fall behind Shutterstock. Bruce's iStock treated most of us like poor stepchildren. I appreciate what he did in giving microstock life, but wonder what fresh hell he'll unleash on whomever he decides to make second class citizens.
Of course, I could be all wrong about this. We'll see.
I think it's all image exclusive and all 50% royalty rate so no exclusive/nonexclusive issues.
-
Rob has been independent for a long time. A number of us independents who are part of WarmPicture, including the guy who started it haven't been kicked out. What's the difference between WarmPicture and any other new cooperative? At this point I don't see anything other than arbitrary and personal reasons versus rational policy applied across the board.
Yeah, I'm aware he's been independent. I've never heard of WarmPicture, but it still seems irrelevant to me - I'd give him the boot too if I was running iStock.
-
Rob Sylvan at Stocksy United just reported that iStock/Getty is canceling his account in 30 days and only referred to the ASA stating they can do so.
I don't find this all that surprising, really. If he's going to have a role in the competition at (I assume) some administrative level, then it seems perfectly reasonable they'd delete his account. I can think of others that have had the same circumstances.
Rob has been independent for a long time. A number of us independents who are part of WarmPicture, including the guy who started it haven't been kicked out. What's the difference between WarmPicture and any other new cooperative? At this point I don't see anything other than arbitrary and personal reasons versus rational policy applied across the board.
Give it time, it will happen. I doubt our co-op is on anyone's radar in Canada. I'll give 100% for our contributors, but I'm not Bruce Livingstone. He's a real threat, obviously. And anyone who stands next to him at Stocksy will be a prime target for release from IS. At this point, does anyone care if their relationship ends with IS?
-
I've never heard of WarmPicture, but it still seems irrelevant to me
You're not the only one 8)
-
Here is what I think will happen:
1) Black Diamonds, Diamonds and Golds at IS or other sites that apply will have open gates to upload only exclusive images but also their very best. So a Portfolio of 3000 images will get to upload 1/10th or 300 images at first. This will of course have to be done by breaking exclusivity or being non exclusive already.
2) Since it will take some time to get traction it will be pertinent for contributors to spread around and upload their non Stocksy worthy content elsewhere for the foreseeable future. It will lessen the impact while the site grows and will create a system that will be sustainable as it grows. God knows almost no-one will cease to contribute on other sites until Stocksy is huge.
3) They will build an initial library of a million or so files that will be outstanding and only available there. The inspection will be brutal and probably will create some discontent but this is a way of attracting customers that only want the best and will not waste time wading thru 99 generic shots to get to that truly special one.
4) Once the site is running and oiled it will probably start accepting more contributors with less track record of sales and will also only accept outstanding files. Silvers, Bronze or Grey canisters will be able to give it a try.
5) By Only accepting the outstanding stuff it will be a one stop shop for clients who want the very best exclusive images. Now That will leave gaps for more generic stuff which might be partially filled in time as they create collections that are lower priced, but there are tons of other sites that will carry these files in the meantime.
6) Vector and Video might be available as options a couple of years after it generates enough traffic. It will need different inspection and much more storage space. Audio maybe in the future too.
My Hopes: Is that contributors will be able to prove their case for images by the download number on other sites and or peer review. We all know what files in our portfolio are the gems and which are the run of the mill stuff. And we want a good home for the best files, and one that wont give them away on the net.
I also hope that contributors are able to set a tiered price per image which will create a better open market system that earns more for the best files and offers opportunity for buyers to also get files at a lower price. Placing of course a minimum and maximum price by Stocksy so it doesn't scare away buyers or creates a race to the bottom for prices which some contributors will try to exploit by lowering the stuff to get sales. Maybe a % of slots in low mid and hi price to allocate as the contributor see fit with no chance of unbalancing the sales potential for everyone.
We'll know more soon enough, being based in Victoria BC Canada is a plus, since it will be a better fit for international contributors for tax purposes.
I'm excited and expect to be surprised many times as this progresses.
-
Interesting news.... I don't like exclusivity though, even image one. Will be a tough sell unless they are planning to bring in enough customers to make it work right from the start.
-
It's great to see someone starting an ethical company. Just iStock led the way so many years ago, I hope this becomes the new leader for the industry to follow over time. That would be good news for all of us, regardless of whether we're part of Stocksy or not.
-
At this point, does anyone care if their relationship ends with IS?
A lot of people still make a lot of money at IS, whatever your experience may be. Many people rely on their IS income to pay their rent and mortgage and feed their family. If my income from there was cut off with 30 days notice it would be a disaster, so perhaps a little more empathy wouldn't go amiss.
-
I must be tired to find this so amusing, but I checked out the Christmas Tree (6900 dls) they spoke of on FB by Silvanworks and IS suggests to also look at another one... when I clicked their suggestion it was no longer available for purchase! ??? A D-day deactivation perhaps? Haha, they've lost their bestest Christmas trees.
-
I am not so sure the big IS players will be that ready to move since most are getting 40% commission now and an extra 10% to move to a new micro site (or mid tier) with little awareness and momentum may not be appealing. Sure, we all hate Getty but it comes down to money in most cases.
I would love to know what Stocksy's business plan is regarding content ingestion. This is not 2001 and the landscape has changed. But I feel that there is a strong momentum for something like this to flourish -- but it will take time and a nurturing mindset by all.
-
IS suggests to also look at another one... when I clicked their suggestion it was no longer available for purchase!
I think you misunderstand how those links work, that is a link provided by the photographer, not IS.
-
I thought Stockfresh might get a lot of the old Stockxpert buyers but that hasn't happened. Having exclusive images only might be more attractive to buyers. I don't think it's a good idea to only have high quality from the start. It would take a long time to get enough exclusive images to attract buyers. Who's going to upload high quality exclusive content to a site that doesn't have many buyers? So I think they will need all of us from the start and they will have to keep their acceptance rates similar to the big sites. They can always start their version of Vetta when they have enough images.
As istock was open to everyone that could pass their contributor test, I don't see why Stocksy wouldn't be? I think they will need as many contributors as possible because we don't all have vast amounts of exclusive images and I doubt the big exclusives with istock could take the risk until Stocksy is established.
How many exclusive images will they need to get buyers interested? I would think at least 500,000. That's not going to be easy to get quickly and sites that don't get going fast seem to drift to the bottom of the earnings poll here.
-
Many people rely on their IS income to pay their rent and mortgage and feed their family. If my income from there was cut off with 30 days notice it would be a disaster
Then why do you insist to have your "all eggs in one basket" ? Why not want to secure your income and spread the risks if you are depending on microstock income?
-
I thought Stockfresh might get a lot of the old Stockxpert buyers but that hasn't happened. Having exclusive images only might be more attractive to buyers. I don't think it's a good idea to only have high quality from the start. It would take a long time to get enough exclusive images to attract buyers. Who's going to upload high quality exclusive content to a site that doesn't have many buyers? So I think they will need all of us from the start and they will have to keep their acceptance rates similar to the big sites. They can always start their version of Vetta when they have enough images.
As istock was open to everyone that could pass their contributor test, I don't see why Stocksy wouldn't be? I think they will need as many contributors as possible because we don't all have vast amounts of exclusive images and I doubt the big exclusives with istock could take the risk until Stocksy is established.
How many exclusive images will they need to get buyers interested? I would think at least 500,000. That's not going to be easy to get quickly and sites that don't get going fast seem to drift to the bottom of the earnings poll here.
I agree, to a certain point. I agree with the all exclusive library. They have to distinguish themselves from the other agencies. But, I believe they need to keep the quality high, but draw from a large pool of contributors, not just the top earners. You're right, in that they won't get enough images from the top earners alone to attract buyers. They need all of us, just not all of our images.
-
Then why do you insist to have your "all eggs in one basket" ? Why not want to secure your income and spread the risks if you are depending on microstock income?
If only it was that easy! I have been at iStock for 8 years, I have a portfolio of 4000+ images and a weekly income of 4 figures. My income is rising too, not reaching what it was 2 years ago or so, but rising. I know from others experience that giving up exclusivity would mean an immediate large drop in income of up to 75%. That would mean my weekly income might drop by, lets say $750, possibly more. That is a lot of money and an amount I could not possibly afford to lose. I could start to upload at other sites but how long would it take me to (a) upload 4000 images and (b) equal my income at IS? People I know who have given up exclusivity suggest it might take 2 years or more and may never equal the exclusivity income I now have. Some have given up exclusivity and returned to IS within a year, because the income drop is impossible to manage, and then, when they return to IS, have to fight to climb back to their previous figures. If I were starting out now I would definitely choose non exclusivity but I haven't and I continue for the present to reap the financial rewards, but with the negative aspects that come with that too. IS has changed and not for the better, but it is easy to be glib and suggest people spread risks, without really understanding the implications of that statement. Hope my explanation may go some way to explaining why myself, and probably many more people, are stuck with exclusivity for the time being.
-
If all the top contribs, with 5,000 images or more each submit 1000-5000 images to Stocksy they need to get about 300 top contributors to get to 500,000 images. And then you will probably only have people in situation images and travel images. That will only attract a very limited amount of buyers and you will be competing with the likes of Yuri's people images.
If you want to make it attractive, you need all kinds of contributors. But if you make the review process like Istock or Shutterstock you are guarenteed to have a high quality varied library. Which will benefit buyers and sellers.
-
If only it was that easy! I have been at iStock for 8 years, I have a portfolio of 4000+ images and a weekly income of 4 figures. My income is rising too, not reaching what it was 2 years ago or so, but rising. I know from others experience that giving up exclusivity would mean an immediate large drop in income of up to 75%.
Yes, I can definitely understand your side of the story too. Your main problem is that you should have quit exclusivity a long time ago, before you had become too dependent on microstock income (I quit exclusivity back in 2006). Of course thinking about the past doesn't help here...
-
-- double post, sorry --
-
I doubt the big exclusives with istock could take the risk until Stocksy is established.
Suppose it is not RF. Or suppose it is not only RF. Suppose they introduced, say, a simplified off the shelf single use non exclusive RM licence. From the customer perspective this would be just as easy to licence.
The Istock exclusive agreement does not restrict people from submitting RM.
-
Then why do you insist to have your "all eggs in one basket" ? Why not want to secure your income and spread the risks if you are depending on microstock income?
If only it was that easy! I have been at iStock for 8 years, I have a portfolio of 4000+ images and a weekly income of 4 figures. My income is rising too, not reaching what it was 2 years ago or so, but rising. I know from others experience that giving up exclusivity would mean an immediate large drop in income of up to 75%. That would mean my weekly income might drop by, lets say $750, possibly more. That is a lot of money and an amount I could not possibly afford to lose. I could start to upload at other sites but how long would it take me to (a) upload 4000 images and (b) equal my income at IS? People I know who have given up exclusivity suggest it might take 2 years or more and may never equal the exclusivity income I now have. Some have given up exclusivity and returned to IS within a year, because the income drop is impossible to manage, and then, when they return to IS, have to fight to climb back to their previous figures. If I were starting out now I would definitely choose non exclusivity but I haven't and I continue for the present to reap the financial rewards, but with the negative aspects that come with that too. IS has changed and not for the better, but it is easy to be glib and suggest people spread risks, without really understanding the implications of that statement. Hope my explanation may go some way to explaining why myself, and probably many more people, are stuck with exclusivity for the time being.
You need to get out no matter what. If IS falls over this year, you are screwed. Why not get out before its really becomes a disaster. You have no control over what happens to IS, you do have control over your images. Well with Getty you dont, but thats another discussion.
-
Until 3 months ago, it definitely made no sense to leave istock exclusivity... but with the drop of at least 50% of revenues since December, it may not be the case anymore.
Further, there is no sign that things will go better, and looking at the massive ban (from Lobo the Psycho) on istock forum that is being rolled over since the beginning of this week, we can expect a big news not in favor of exclusives!
Then why do you insist to have your "all eggs in one basket" ? Why not want to secure your income and spread the risks if you are depending on microstock income?
If only it was that easy! I have been at iStock for 8 years, I have a portfolio of 4000+ images and a weekly income of 4 figures. My income is rising too, not reaching what it was 2 years ago or so, but rising. I know from others experience that giving up exclusivity would mean an immediate large drop in income of up to 75%. That would mean my weekly income might drop by, lets say $750, possibly more. That is a lot of money and an amount I could not possibly afford to lose. I could start to upload at other sites but how long would it take me to (a) upload 4000 images and (b) equal my income at IS? People I know who have given up exclusivity suggest it might take 2 years or more and may never equal the exclusivity income I now have. Some have given up exclusivity and returned to IS within a year, because the income drop is impossible to manage, and then, when they return to IS, have to fight to climb back to their previous figures. If I were starting out now I would definitely choose non exclusivity but I haven't and I continue for the present to reap the financial rewards, but with the negative aspects that come with that too. IS has changed and not for the better, but it is easy to be glib and suggest people spread risks, without really understanding the implications of that statement. Hope my explanation may go some way to explaining why myself, and probably many more people, are stuck with exclusivity for the time being.
-
I'm starting a co-op stock site called crapsy. For all of those artists who get rejected by stocksy. Who's in?
ooh goody, somewhere to park all my pictures of fruit. :)
At Crapsy we love old pictures of fruit but what we really need is more pictures of flowers. We love photographs of flowers from your home garden. Crapsy!
-
If only it was that easy! I have been at iStock for 8 years, I have a portfolio of 4000+ images and a weekly income of 4 figures. My income is rising too, not reaching what it was 2 years ago or so, but rising. I know from others experience that giving up exclusivity would mean an immediate large drop in income of up to 75%.
Yes, I can definitely understand your side of the story too. Your main problem is that you should have quit exclusivity a long time ago, before you had become too dependent on microstock income (I quit exclusivity back in 2006). Of course thinking about the past doesn't help here...
Unless you live under a rock, signs of an epic fail from istock have been showing for a couple of years now. I dont understand this "i depend on this income to feed my family." EVERYONE depends on whatever income they make. It is never easy changing jobs, it is a lot of work and a lot of stress. This didnt all just come about with the google getty deal. How many "naysayers", as they frequently get called, predicted this a long time ago? everyone made a choice. If you chose not to listen and "kept hoping", based on nothing, i dont think its fair to expect too much empathy. Some empathy will be given, as for anyone down on their luck, but not a whole lot. Time for a plan b!
-
If only it was that easy! I have been at iStock for 8 years, I have a portfolio of 4000+ images and a weekly income of 4 figures. My income is rising too, not reaching what it was 2 years ago or so, but rising. I know from others experience that giving up exclusivity would mean an immediate large drop in income of up to 75%.
Yes, I can definitely understand your side of the story too. Your main problem is that you should have quit exclusivity a long time ago, before you had become too dependent on microstock income (I quit exclusivity back in 2006). Of course thinking about the past doesn't help here...
Unless you live under a rock, signs of an epic fail from istock have been showing for a couple of years now. I dont understand this "i depend on this income to feed my family." EVERYONE depends on whatever income they make. It is never easy changing jobs, it is a lot of work and a lot of stress. This didnt all just come about with the google getty deal. How many "naysayers", as they frequently get called, predicted this a long time ago? everyone made a choice. If you chose not to listen and "kept hoping", based on nothing, i dont think its fair to expect too much empathy. Some empathy will be given, as for anyone down on their luck, but not a whole lot. Time for a plan b!
It's really not that simple though is it. I feel really sorry for the exclusives in this position. Normally when you change jobs you are straight away on the same salary or more but with this it will take a long while to get back to anything like what they are earning as an exclusive. The money to pay the bills has to come from somewhere.
-
If you chose not to listen and "kept hoping", based on nothing, i dont think its fair to expect too much empathy.
Choose not to listen to whom? You? Are you some great expert on microstock? I see an embittered contributor with a negative outlook on everything IS related when I read your opinion. I am quite happy with my position as an exclusive AT THE MOMENT. I emphasise the last bit, it may change
but with the drop of at least 50% of revenues since December, it may not be the case anymore.
This is certainly not my experience, my income has been on a gently rising slope since the beginning of this year. I have taken my biggest payout this week since the middle of last year.
If IS falls over this year, you are screwed.
I just have to laugh at comments like this. You have been in the business a few months, probably earn a few hundred dollars a year, but feel free to pontificate about just about everything to do with microstock, with very little real experience.
-
I honestly don't understand what's all the fuss around exclusive images! People, we're talking about RF!
There's not a single thing about exclusive in this licensing model, and in 2013 no one will be producing content that isn't available at other sites through similar images and concepts, or that will be replicated the next day. The only images that could take advantage of the exclusiveness should be under the RM license. But RF... c'mon...
Stocksy doesn't need to reinvent the wheel or enter in the "fake" exclusiveness concept to attract a large number of buyers and be successful. It just needs:
1 - Competitive prices
2 - A good site working properly
3 - Good customer service
4 - A very large, diverse and quality collection from high value productions to isolated apples
5 - Tenths of thousand of motivated photographers advertising for free all around the world valuing millions in the traditional advertising
6 - And finally, to promote the sustainable concept of the agency near the buyers.
The last point is absolutely critical for the success of this agency.
If a buyer has good prices, a good site and service, plus a large collection of high quality images, which means all the things he probably get from other agencies, but on top of that he understands that he's helping the producers of the content - which will be able give him more quality photos in the future - I have no doubt many buyers will go to Stocksy.
So, I personally don't feel that the exclusivity of images is anything important in distinguish Stocksy from other agencies. Just offer the same as the best ones plus something they cannot equal: totally motivated contributors and a positive feeling to the buyers for doing a good and fair thing.
After all this I don't doubt that stocky will start to have exclusive content, but that will happen because people will stop supplying other agencies voluntarily.
-
^^^There's sites doing all that already and they can't make an impact on the big 4. I think they do need a USP and as there isn't an exclusive images only microstock site, that's one idea that might work.
-
If IS falls over this year, you are screwed.
I just have to laugh at comments like this. You have been in the business a few months, probably earn a few hundred dollars a year, but feel free to pontificate about just about everything to do with microstock, with very little real experience.
Laugh at me all you want. It has nothing to do with how much experience I have. I made over 3000 dollar profit since I started selling photos 10 months ago. I guess I am doing just fine next to my 56.000 dollar day job. I am a fast learner.
It has everything to do you with what you said yourself and common sense.
You say you cant leave IS because it will be a disaster. So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income. Thats why me and other people say its best to spread the risk. How tough that may be, you better get started before its too late. THis doesnt apply to micro stock, but to any situation in life. And I have plenty experience with that.
I didnt attack you dude, I just made an observation. No need to get personal imo.
-
I dont understand this "i depend on this income to feed my family.
Nice.
Some empathy will be given, as for anyone down on their luck, but not a whole lot.
Empathy is not something to give. It's something which people feel. Some.
Anyhow - nobody is down on their luck. There are two sorts of contributors: those doing great work and those on the verge of doing great work. Nobody else matters. You are talking about a very talented pool of (mostly) upbeat and self motivated people.
-
What some don't understand is that a Plan B may not involve spreading work to other micros. It might not involve micros, or indeed selling images at all.
So for some people it may be worth staying exclusive and focussing on getting their ducks in a row, or whatever that saying is, in other areas of their lives, rather than wasting time on the other micros.
There are not only two options, and everyone's port, expectations and are different. People can read all the infor about the different micros here and made their own decision. What's right for 'you' or 'me' isn't necesarily right for Tom, Dick, or Harry.
-
^^^There's sites doing all that already and they can't make an impact on the big 4. I think they do need a USP and as there isn't an exclusive images only microstock site, that's one idea that might work.
Are there sites doing the same thing? I have no doubt, but have they given origin to a discussion the size this one already has, and it's just in the beginning? Did they have someone notorious and experienced in the stock world to carry things forward? Or the funding this one may have? Or have they've been created in the exact time as this one is being created with everyone reaching the breaking point over the known agencies? Did any of those started to create the buzz this one is creating among IS exclusives?
I bet they don't have a cent of the initial push Stocksy already has, even without people knowing anything in concrete. And that makes all the difference.
Plus, mentioning exclusive content in the RF segment is a total parody. A complete non-sense. How many exclusive images at IS cannot be found through similars in about 10 or 15 other agencies by tenths of contributors? But I might be wrong. Maybe there are buyers that are gullible enough to buy that advertising...
-
What some don't understand is that a Plan B may not involve spreading work to other micros. It might not involve micros, or indeed selling images at all.
So for some people it may be worth staying exclusive and focussing on getting their ducks in a row, or whatever that saying is, in other areas of their lives, rather than wasting time on the other micros.
There are not only two options, and everyone's port, expectations and are different. People can read all the infor about the different micros here and made their own decision. What's right for 'you' or 'me' isn't necesarily right for Tom, Dick, or Harry.
Exactly.
I dont need the income from photography, but I do like the extra money. I sell micro, macro, POD, direct and do freelance. Its all adding up. And if one fails, there is still the others.
-
Laugh at me all you want.
I wasn't laughing at you per se, it was the suggestion that iStock is going to 'fall over' this year. I think someone here mentioned once that you sound very immature, I'd have to agree with that
I have no idea if $56k is an impressive income or not, but as you mention it I assume it must be. My income is measured in 's so is not directly comparable.
You say you make $300 a month from microstock. Although it's less common now, I used to think it was a bad week if I made less than that a day. I'm not boasting, I'm just trying to demonstrate that the exclusive/not being exclusive argument appears very different from different financial perspectives.
So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income.
IF IS falls over, as you suggest it may, I would be inconvenienced but not, as you put it, screwed, as I have freelance income. I have been in the business a long while and have a number of regular freelance clients.
I suppose I feel I am trying to explain an alternative scenario to the one that assumes being exclusive at IS is an unmitigated disaster and everyone
should/must leave ASAP, but it is rather like swimming against the tide.
-
I don't feel that comfortable as a non-exclusive. Several sites are almost as bad as istock. SS is so dominant that they hold most of my eggs. I hoped there would be a few years before SS started cutting commissions but having seen the BigStock announcement, I have no confidence in that anymore. So I'm not going to be critical of an exclusive that earns more than 99% of the people who post here. We're all in a difficult situation at the moment and I hope things will improve for everyone but its hard to be optimistic at the moment.
-
I don't feel that comfortable as a non-exclusive. Several sites are almost as bad as istock. SS is so dominant that they hold most of my eggs. I hoped there would be a few years before SS started cutting commissions but having seen the BigStock announcement, I have no confidence in that anymore. So I'm not going to be critical of an exclusive that earns more than 99% of the people who post here. We're all in a difficult situation at the moment and I hope things will improve for everyone but its hard to be optimistic at the moment.
Yes I agree. Although SS aren't as prominent for me as they seem to be for most people as I do very well at DT also, it still feels very precarious with us being stabbed in the back by virtually all sites.
-
If all the top contribs, with 5,000 images or more each submit 1000-5000 images to Stocksy they need to get about 300 top contributors to get to 500,000 images. And then you will probably only have people in situation images and travel images. That will only attract a very limited amount of buyers and you will be competing with the likes of Yuri's people images.
If you want to make it attractive, you need all kinds of contributors. But if you make the review process like Istock or Shutterstock you are guarenteed to have a high quality varied library. Which will benefit buyers and sellers.
Building on what Poncke said, Bruce would be very wise to NOT lock out the masses, but maybe take this simple approach. If joe-photographer can meet our acceptance criteria, joe photographer has two options: image exclusivity which will be put in our premium priced collection. If no, it goes into our general collection at a lower price point. I am not super familiar with licensing but is there any way Bruce could differentiate the Stocksy collection via how the licenses are written? I think it's wise to consider "other differentiators" in addition to image quality, "who the photographer is". The have to be very careful to not fall into the trap of having all these Vetta-style images which have limited value. This is not to suggest that Vetta images are "Crapsy" just that most are heavily pushed in PS and are more specialized than generic images. I have many huge sellers that are generic, non-Vetta quality that Stocksy would be foolish to not have in their collection if their goal is to attract buyers...and the same with practically everyone in this forum.
The flip side is that they have a different clientele in mind that would preclude such generic images, a niche clientele of sorts. Just thinking out loud. I am on 14 MS sites (well 13, been approved at Veer for awhile but their image processing is so clunky and time consuming that I've just not uploaded anything yet) and if the Stocksy model was a fit (win-win for both me and Stocksy), I would consider moving most or all of my best sellers there as exclusive images once they have a proven clientele.
-
I must be tired to find this so amusing, but I checked out the Christmas Tree (6900 dls) they spoke of on FB by Silvanworks and IS suggests to also look at another one... when I clicked their suggestion it was no longer available for purchase! ??? A D-day deactivation perhaps? Haha, they've lost their bestest Christmas trees.
LOL maybe it was mine, I deleted several Christmas trees and all of my best selling images.
-
Laugh at me all you want.
I wasn't laughing at you per se, it was the suggestion that iStock is going to 'fall over' this year. I think someone here mentioned once that you sound very immature, I'd have to agree with that
I have no idea if $56k is an impressive income or not, but as you mention it I assume it must be. My income is measured in 's so is not directly comparable.
You say you make $300 a month from microstock. Although it's less common now, I used to think it was a bad week if I made less than that a day. I'm not boasting, I'm just trying to demonstrate that the exclusive/not being exclusive argument appears very different from different financial perspectives.
So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income.
IF IS falls over, as you suggest it may, I would be inconvenienced but not, as you put it, screwed, as I have freelance income. I have been in the business a long while and have a number of regular freelance clients.
I suppose I feel I am trying to explain an alternative scenario to the one that assumes being exclusive at IS is an unmitigated disaster and everyone
should/must leave ASAP, but it is rather like swimming against the tide.
Its not an impressive salary, I am not boasting either, I am just saying I am doing just fine as is. It was related to your patronizing comment I just make a few dollars a year doing photography. For you its your day job, if you make 10k a month being exclusive then kudos to you. I can only dream of that. But 10k says nothing without knowing your overhead, still its impressive.
I see where you are coming from now, but still I would look for other options to spread the risk in case something bad does happen. Tough job, I wouldnt want to be in your shoes.
Good luck.
-
I don't feel that comfortable as a non-exclusive. Several sites are almost as bad as istock. SS is so dominant that they hold most of my eggs. I hoped there would be a few years before SS started cutting commissions but having seen the BigStock announcement, I have no confidence in that anymore. So I'm not going to be critical of an exclusive that earns more than 99% of the people who post here. We're all in a difficult situation at the moment and I hope things will improve for everyone but its hard to be optimistic at the moment.
Exactly, I know five IS exclusives ranging in downloads from 60K to past black diamond who have stopped uploading because of the loss of faith in IS. I was warned of what getty does to contributors before the changes. With their desire to find out how to cash out with paying the artist I am hoping for their demise in microstock.
But you cannot have your images competing against each other lowering the price with a click away. I believe Yuri's problem is he has 60K awesome images floating around out their available for pennies on the dollar compared to his site. If he removed all his images from the competition, then he would have a great chance to become a giant. The other sites must be starved of content.
You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images. IS has agreed to this when asked.
A co-op would reward fairly and capture the community feel sucked out by 1 owner getting very rich off the the contributors like Jon and Getty. That is not a community no matter what rebecca tells you.
-
It was related to your patronizing comment I just make a few dollars a year doing photography.
If I sounded patronising I apologise, sometimes I write without thinking. I'd also add I don't make 10k now, that was then, this is now, sale are down overall for everyone pretty much at IS.
I see where you are coming from now, but still I would look for other options to spread the risk in case something bad does happen.
Believe me, I do look, I do plan, I am in this with my eyes wide open and no illusions about the desire of big business to screw every dollar out of us.I pretty much gave up on freelance work when earnings were highest, I'm now doing a lot more again, and happy to do so and be less beholden to any microstock company. Lets just agree to hold slightly differing views on things whilst realising we all must try and gain strength from each other. :)
-
At this point, does anyone care if their relationship ends with IS?
A lot of people still make a lot of money at IS, whatever your experience may be. Many people rely on their IS income to pay their rent and mortgage and feed their family. If my income from there was cut off with 30 days notice it would be a disaster, so perhaps a little more empathy wouldn't go amiss.
While I appreciate your position, the only people wholly dependent on IS for their earnings are those who chose to be in that position. There have been multiple warning signs over the last several years, none of which many exclusives heeded.
It's like buying stock at $200 and ignoring terrible earnings calls while it drifts to $20, and then trying to blame the market or asking your broker to keep you afloat. Sorry, but nobody put a gun to your head and made you stay exclusive through all the warning signs. I don't owe anything to a company which has worked to exploit photographers for multiple years.
If they go down, you get a job somewhere else. I'm not cheering for Wal-Mart to outsell local businesses just because a lot of people work there and might need to find other employment if Wal-Mart failed.
-
It was related to your patronizing comment I just make a few dollars a year doing photography.
If I sounded patronising I apologise, sometimes I write without thinking. I'd also add I don't make 10k now, that was then, this is now, sale are down overall for everyone pretty much at IS.
I see where you are coming from now, but still I would look for other options to spread the risk in case something bad does happen.
Believe me, I do look, I do plan, I am in this with my eyes wide open and no illusions about the desire of big business to screw every dollar out of us.I pretty much gave up on freelance work when earnings were highest, I'm now doing a lot more again, and happy to do so and be less beholden to any microstock company. Lets just agree to hold slightly differing views on things whilst realising we all must try and gain strength from each other. :)
And since none of you know anyone elses personal financial positions, maybe empathy could be extended to EVERY contributor who has lost income from these agencies. Even this "embittered" contributor who lost money she needed to pay bills with when she decided to implement her plan b. i just had a jump on you, i did it a year ago. ;)
-
I honestly don't understand what's all the fuss around exclusive images! People, we're talking about RF!
There's not a single thing about exclusive in this licensing model, and in 2013 no one will be producing content that isn't available at other sites through similar images and concepts, or that will be replicated the next day. The only images that could take advantage of the exclusiveness should be under the RM license. But RF... c'mon...
Stocksy doesn't need to reinvent the wheel or enter in the "fake" exclusiveness concept to attract a large number of buyers and be successful. It just needs:
1 - Competitive prices
2 - A good site working properly
3 - Good customer service
4 - A very large, diverse and quality collection from high value productions to isolated apples
5 - Tenths of thousand of motivated photographers advertising for free all around the world valuing millions in the traditional advertising
6 - And finally, to promote the sustainable concept of the agency near the buyers.
The last point is absolutely critical for the success of this agency.
If a buyer has good prices, a good site and service, plus a large collection of high quality images, which means all the things he probably get from other agencies, but on top of that he understands that he's helping the producers of the content - which will be able give him more quality photos in the future - I have no doubt many buyers will go to Stocksy.
So, I personally don't feel that the exclusivity of images is anything important in distinguish Stocksy from other agencies. Just offer the same as the best ones plus something they cannot equal: totally motivated contributors and a positive feeling to the buyers for doing a good and fair thing.
After all this I don't doubt that stocky will start to have exclusive content, but that will happen because people will stop supplying other agencies voluntarily.
Great post. Good to see some common sense being written on this subject. Exclusivity of images is not particularly valued by buyers whereas keen prices, relevance of search results and variety most definitely is.
I think having to pay a nominal amount per upload (it could be as little as 20c to cover inspection costs) would be a practical and cost effective means of stopping individual contributors 'spamming' the library with multiple similars or LCV work.
-
Bruce would be very wise to NOT lock out the masses, but maybe take this simple approach. If joe-photographer can meet our acceptance criteria, joe photographer has two options: image exclusivity which will be put in our premium priced collection. If no, it goes into our general collection at a lower price point.
If it follows the business model that many co-ops have, there might be a financial investment required from all members to get the model up and running. I wouldn't begin to guess on a number, if that is indeed the case. But I guarantee a lot of photographers will be screened out by their unwillingness to make such a commitment.
Most people here would, I think. But I believe the discussion at MSG is by and large carried on by people in the top 20%, and many cases top 1% of contributors. The photographer not on these boards, who uploads maybe 50 or 100 images to DT or SS and then forgets about it, content to make payout once or twice a year, won't even know about Stocksy let alone have an interest in making that type of time/fiscal investment.
If Stocksy were composed of 90% MSG contributors, it would probably be the highest quality microstock collection in existence.
-
Exactly, I know five IS exclusives ranging in downloads from 60K to past black diamond who have stopped uploading because of the loss of faith in IS.
And a quick shifty over there yielded at least 5 BD indies and 5 BD exclusives who are uploading like nothing had happened.
-
Bruce would be very wise to NOT lock out the masses, but maybe take this simple approach. If joe-photographer can meet our acceptance criteria, joe photographer has two options: image exclusivity which will be put in our premium priced collection. If no, it goes into our general collection at a lower price point.
If it follows the business model that many co-ops have, there might be a financial investment required from all members to get the model up and running. I wouldn't begin to guess on a number, if that is indeed the case. But I guarantee a lot of photographers will be screened out by their unwillingness to make such a commitment.
Most people here would, I think. But I believe the discussion at MSG is by and large carried on by people in the top 20%, and many cases top 1% of contributors. The photographer not on these boards, who uploads maybe 50 or 100 images to DT or SS and then forgets about it, content to make payout once or twice a year, won't even know about Stocksy let alone have an interest in making that type of time/fiscal investment.
If Stocksy were composed of 90% MSG contributors, it would probably be the highest quality microstock collection in existence.
Good post. And I agree. And depending on the model and the buyer base, I'd be willing to invest something, say in the range of $5 to $10k. Of course I'd have to do some form of cost benefit, be privy to inside information via non-disclosure, etc.
-
You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images. IS has agreed to this when asked.
If this was correct at any point in the past, I would not expect it now, in the current environment.
-
I don't share the excitement about stocksy that was commonly expressed on the first pages of this thread.
I mean I have no problems to believe in good intentions and good payment share - but getting the buyers is difficult these days. Looking at the smaller agencies; and looking at the 2ns attempt of Stockxpert guys I don't have much optimism about the possible future of stocksy.
I would be glad to be wrong with that expectation :)
-
The solution in the long term would be this: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/selling-rf-images-is-really-not-that-hard-php-developers-wanted/msg296884/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/selling-rf-images-is-really-not-that-hard-php-developers-wanted/msg296884/?topicseen#new)
I wish Stocksy all success but I have my doubts that it will work out the way many here hope.
-
If IS falls over this year, you are screwed.
I just have to laugh at comments like this. You have been in the business a few months, probably earn a few hundred dollars a year, but feel free to pontificate about just about everything to do with microstock, with very little real experience.
Laugh at me all you want. It has nothing to do with how much experience I have. I made over 3000 dollar profit since I started selling photos 10 months ago. I guess I am doing just fine next to my 56.000 dollar day job. I am a fast learner.
It has everything to do you with what you said yourself and common sense.
You say you cant leave IS because it will be a disaster. So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income. Thats why me and other people say its best to spread the risk. How tough that may be, you better get started before its too late. THis doesnt apply to micro stock, but to any situation in life. And I have plenty experience with that.
I didnt attack you dude, I just made an observation. No need to get personal imo.
What you fail to understand, given your lack of experiencie in the field, is that the risk, the risk of saturation, the risk of falling income, the risk of being betrayed by the site owners, is global. Micro sites are all in the same habitat. Diversifying, not having all egss on one basket means to spread your work at your income out af micro, and even out of RF or RM. That's what I did years ago, even if having a really healthy monthly income at istock.
-
If IS falls over this year, you are screwed.
I just have to laugh at comments like this. You have been in the business a few months, probably earn a few hundred dollars a year, but feel free to pontificate about just about everything to do with microstock, with very little real experience.
Laugh at me all you want. It has nothing to do with how much experience I have. I made over 3000 dollar profit since I started selling photos 10 months ago. I guess I am doing just fine next to my 56.000 dollar day job. I am a fast learner.
It has everything to do you with what you said yourself and common sense.
You say you cant leave IS because it will be a disaster. So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income. Thats why me and other people say its best to spread the risk. How tough that may be, you better get started before its too late. THis doesnt apply to micro stock, but to any situation in life. And I have plenty experience with that.
I didnt attack you dude, I just made an observation. No need to get personal imo.
What you fail to understand, given your lack of experiencie in the field, is that the risk, the risk of saturation, the risk of falling income, the risk of being betrayed by the site owners, is global. Micro sites are all in the same habitat. Diversifying, not having all egss on one basket means to spread your work at your income out af micro, and even out of RF or RM. That's what I did years ago, even if having a really healthy monthly income at istock.
I do not fail anything. I know you all love to bash the newbie, but at least make sure you got all facts before you to the bashing.
I dont need the income from photography, but I do like the extra money. I sell micro, macro, POD, direct and do freelance. Its all adding up. And if one fails, there is still the others.
-
If IS falls over this year, you are screwed.
I just have to laugh at comments like this. You have been in the business a few months, probably earn a few hundred dollars a year, but feel free to pontificate about just about everything to do with microstock, with very little real experience.
Laugh at me all you want. It has nothing to do with how much experience I have. I made over 3000 dollar profit since I started selling photos 10 months ago. I guess I am doing just fine next to my 56.000 dollar day job. I am a fast learner.
It has everything to do you with what you said yourself and common sense.
You say you cant leave IS because it will be a disaster. So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income. Thats why me and other people say its best to spread the risk. How tough that may be, you better get started before its too late. THis doesnt apply to micro stock, but to any situation in life. And I have plenty experience with that.
I didnt attack you dude, I just made an observation. No need to get personal imo.
What you fail to understand, given your lack of experiencie in the field, is that the risk, the risk of saturation, the risk of falling income, the risk of being betrayed by the site owners, is global. Micro sites are all in the same habitat. Diversifying, not having all egss on one basket means to spread your work at your income out af micro, and even out of RF or RM. That's what I did years ago, even if having a really healthy monthly income at istock.
I do not fail anything. I know you all love to bash the newbie, but at least make sure you got all facts before you to the bashing.
I dont need the income from photography, but I do like the extra money. I sell micro, macro, POD, direct and do freelance. Its all adding up. And if one fails, there is still the others.
Well, that's the correct way. If the main source of income fails, extra money don't pay the expenses if you only had this main source of income besides the extra money. Doing so many things besides microstosk and your day job must be titanic. Although is possible to do much more that the sum of all having the knowledge and one big and focused rf micro portfolio. Today, true. Tomorrow never knows.
-
Ok, I am done talking in this thread. I wish all the veterans good luck. I am sorry for having an opinion. ;)
-
You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images. IS has agreed to this when asked.
If this was correct at any point in the past, I would not expect it now, in the current environment.
I'm not saying to do it but it can be done by creating a company then transferring your istock account to the company. The company is exclusive with istock but you personally are technically only an employee of the company and not exclusive. When you shoot for the company they go to istock exclusively and when you shoot under your own name you can do what you wish.
-
You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images. IS has agreed to this when asked.
If this was correct at any point in the past, I would not expect it now, in the current environment.
I'm not saying to do it but it can be done by creating a company then transferring your istock account to the company. The company is exclusive with istock but you personally are technically only an employee of the company and not exclusive. When you shoot for the company they go to istock exclusively and when you shoot under your own name you can do what you wish.
And they can terminate your account as they wish.
-
You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images. IS has agreed to this when asked.
If this was correct at any point in the past, I would not expect it now, in the current environment.
It was asked and approved 3 months ago by a big fish
-
You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images. IS has agreed to this when asked.
If this was correct at any point in the past, I would not expect it now, in the current environment.
It was asked and approved 3 months ago by a big fish
I would love to hear more details ( you can PM me ). Again, though, 3 months ago is not "now".
-
You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images. IS has agreed to this when asked.
If this was correct at any point in the past, I would not expect it now, in the current environment.
It was asked and approved 3 months ago by a big fish
I would love to hear more details ( you can PM me ). Again, though, 3 months ago is not "now".
If it's ok as part of Istock's policy then it shouldn't be sensitive information, I'd also like to hear the details or do you have a link to the discussion?
-
You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images. IS has agreed to this when asked.
If this was correct at any point in the past, I would not expect it now, in the current environment.
It was asked and approved 3 months ago by a big fish
Please share this very valuable information.
-
They've shrugged at similar
scams arrangements in the past - where a husband and wife team put essentially the same stuff on iStock exclusively and elsewhere as independents. Of course, they were standing side by side when they clicked their shutters, or one would press the button and move away from the tripod to let the other one press the button. Entirely right and proper, no doubt, and a great way for a family to get all the exclusive perks plus all the benefits of being independent.
But they can, as someone pointed out, terminate your membership whenever they like without having to provide a reason, so you'd better be very clear about it being OK before trying something like that.
-
If only it was that easy! I have been at iStock for 8 years, I have a portfolio of 4000+ images and a weekly income of 4 figures. My income is rising too, not reaching what it was 2 years ago or so, but rising. I know from others experience that giving up exclusivity would mean an immediate large drop in income of up to 75%.
Yes, I can definitely understand your side of the story too. Your main problem is that you should have quit exclusivity a long time ago, before you had become too dependent on microstock income (I quit exclusivity back in 2006). Of course thinking about the past doesn't help here...
Unless you live under a rock, signs of an epic fail from istock have been showing for a couple of years now. I dont understand this "i depend on this income to feed my family." EVERYONE depends on whatever income they make. It is never easy changing jobs, it is a lot of work and a lot of stress. This didnt all just come about with the google getty deal. How many "naysayers", as they frequently get called, predicted this a long time ago? everyone made a choice. If you chose not to listen and "kept hoping", based on nothing, i dont think its fair to expect too much empathy. Some empathy will be given, as for anyone down on their luck, but not a whole lot. Time for a plan b!
Thanks Cathy, I am glad to hear someone say it. It's pretty darned rich to hear Vlad the Imp crying poormouth and asking for empathy. This is the single biggest Istock apologist in the forums who had only sarcasm and derision for everyone else who complained or tried to stand up against Getty/Istock's gutting of our incomes over the last couple of years.
I have plenty of empathy for most of us here, Istock exclusives and independents alike, but as far as Vlad goes, I say "you made your bed, now lie in it".
-
They've shrugged at similar scams arrangements in the past - where a husband and wife team put essentially the same stuff on iStock exclusively and elsewhere as independents. Of course, they were standing side by side when they clicked their shutters, or one would press the button and move away from the tripod to let the other one press the button. Entirely right and proper, no doubt, and a great way for a family to get all the exclusive perks plus all the benefits of being independent.
But they can, as someone pointed out, terminate your membership whenever they like without having to provide a reason, so you'd better be very clear about it being OK before trying something like that.
I've often wondered why people don't (perhaps they DO and I'm unaware) simply have one body of work they upload as an exclusive to iStock and then just upload other stuff to the range of other micros under a different user name. This would be fantastically easy I'd think, if you had a cooperative wife or husband for ID and banking purposes.
-
I just hope Saatchi don't kick out Bruce ;D
-
I just hope Saatchi don't kick out Bruce ;D
His resume on Linkedin says he left Saatchi in 2011. Don't know if that's accurate, but I'd assume so.
-
I just hope Saatchi don't kick out Bruce ;D
His resume on Linkedin says he left Saatchi in 2011. Don't know if that's accurate, but I'd assume so.
ooooops my bad, was checking his portfolio there, last files from 2011
-
What some don't understand is that a Plan B may not involve spreading work to other micros. It might not involve micros, or indeed selling images at all.
So for some people it may be worth staying exclusive and focussing on getting their ducks in a row, or whatever that saying is, in other areas of their lives, rather than wasting time on the other micros.
You hit that one on the nail for me, Sue. Micro is so saturated its time to work smarter not harder, i.e. don't spread your work around, upload more and such.
-
I have pleny of empathy for most of us here, Istock exclusives and independents alike, but as far as Vlad goes, I say "you made your bed, now lie in it".
Come on you've been bad mouthing everyone that disagrees with you, calling people shills and apologists just because they are doing well and don't see things your way. I don't see Vlad putting anyone down but I do see you calling people names.
-
We have always had a joint account with the micros, and joint copyright. A couple of months before the RC's came in, IS wrote to us and said that under Canadian law, we could only have one name on the copyright. We could choose just one name, or split our portfolio and have two accounts.
We decided to put just one name on the copyright, to save them the work of doing the split.
Early last year, when we were thinking of going independent, we thought about splitting the portfolio and going independent with just one half, staying exclusive with the other. I should say that we produce two entirely different sets of images, so there would have been no chance of similars on other sites. We wrote and asked if they would do this for us.
They deleted the request without answering. So, I guess it depends who you are.
-
Bruce would be very wise to NOT lock out the masses, but maybe take this simple approach. If joe-photographer can meet our acceptance criteria, joe photographer has two options: image exclusivity which will be put in our premium priced collection. If no, it goes into our general collection at a lower price point.
If it follows the business model that many co-ops have, there might be a financial investment required from all members to get the model up and running. I wouldn't begin to guess on a number, if that is indeed the case. But I guarantee a lot of photographers will be screened out by their unwillingness to make such a commitment.
Most people here would, I think. But I believe the discussion at MSG is by and large carried on by people in the top 20%, and many cases top 1% of contributors. The photographer not on these boards, who uploads maybe 50 or 100 images to DT or SS and then forgets about it, content to make payout once or twice a year, won't even know about Stocksy let alone have an interest in making that type of time/fiscal investment.
If Stocksy were composed of 90% MSG contributors, it would probably be the highest quality microstock collection in existence.
Good post. And I agree. And depending on the model and the buyer base, I'd be willing to invest something, say in the range of $5 to $10k. Of course I'd have to do some form of cost benefit, be privy to inside information via non-disclosure, etc.
I was wondering if a small "pay-to-play" fee approach might work. It costs a dollar to upload an image. That dollar buys a share of the co-op. The dollar would tend to discourage to many similars and other bad content. The co-op would have a supplementary income for early operations and advertising. If things go well co-op earnings can be returned as distributions later based on the shares held.
-
Bruce would be very wise to NOT lock out the masses, but maybe take this simple approach. If joe-photographer can meet our acceptance criteria, joe photographer has two options: image exclusivity which will be put in our premium priced collection. If no, it goes into our general collection at a lower price point.
If it follows the business model that many co-ops have, there might be a financial investment required from all members to get the model up and running. I wouldn't begin to guess on a number, if that is indeed the case. But I guarantee a lot of photographers will be screened out by their unwillingness to make such a commitment.
Most people here would, I think. But I believe the discussion at MSG is by and large carried on by people in the top 20%, and many cases top 1% of contributors. The photographer not on these boards, who uploads maybe 50 or 100 images to DT or SS and then forgets about it, content to make payout once or twice a year, won't even know about Stocksy let alone have an interest in making that type of time/fiscal investment.
If Stocksy were composed of 90% MSG contributors, it would probably be the highest quality microstock collection in existence.
Good post. And I agree. And depending on the model and the buyer base, I'd be willing to invest something, say in the range of $5 to $10k. Of course I'd have to do some form of cost benefit, be privy to inside information via non-disclosure, etc.
I was wondering if a small "pay-to-play" fee approach might work. It costs a dollar to upload an image. That dollar buys a share of the co-op. The dollar would tend to discourage to many similars and other bad content. The co-op would have a supplementary income for early operations and advertising. If things go well co-op earnings can be returned as distributions later based on the shares held.
Stan, that's another good idea.
There's also the possibility of taking less than the full commission in cash, and using the rest as an investment.
-
It's pretty darned rich to hear Vlad the Imp crying poormouth and asking for empathy
"Crying poormouth" I don't even understand what that means. What I have been trying to do is counter the anti IS bias that exists here, promulgated particularly by bitter people such as yourself. I don't particularly love IS myself, my income and commission have both dropped and IS have made some particularly bad decisions which have impacted on buyers and sellers alike, however, I was pointing out that it's still possible to earn money there and that , from my point of view, income was also rising, albeit gradually rather than spectacularly.
I was also, in my posts, pointing out the reality of being an exclusive, both positive and negative, and that people who glibly suggest others give up on IS or drop exclusivity often do so from a different position professionally and financially from mine.
Come on you've been bad mouthing everyone that disagrees with you, calling people shills and apologists just because they are doing well and don't see things your way. I don't see Vlad putting anyone down but I do see you calling people names.
I see that comment has attracted more likes than your attack on me, maybe a time for self-reflection on your part might be in order. I am reassured that some people appreciate that I am here to provide some sort of balance to the arguments.
-
I love the idea and It is strikingly similar to something I discussed with IS management back 4 years ago and strikingly similar to a business model we have been developing for www.peopleimages.com (http://www.peopleimages.com). hmmm...
Our only problem and something that have caused almost a full-stop actually and that we have been trying to solve for the interim is: how do you market, promote and service a platform for which you are not making any money? With a Co-Op owned site you can't even get VC investment.
This site will portray Bruce as a gregarious individual and a community supporter, but that might just be the primary outcome. Sales don't just "appear".
It was Getty's team that drove Istock to the success it is today. Istock had a revenue of 10mil USD when sold to Getty despite being a first mover in microstock and having been around for 5 years.
-
I love the idea and It is strikingly similar to something I discussed with IS management back 4 years ago and strikingly similar to a business model we have been developing for [url=http://www.peopleimages.com]www.peopleimages.com[/url] ([url]http://www.peopleimages.com[/url]). hmmm...
Our only problem and something that have caused almost a full-stop actually and that we have been trying to solve for the interim is: how do you market, promote and service a platform for which you are not making any money? With a Co-Op owned site you can't even get VC investment.
This site will portray Bruce as a gregarious individual and a community supporter, but that might just be the primary outcome. Sales don't just "appear".
It was Getty's team that drove Istock to the success it is today. Istock had a revenue of 10mil USD when sold to Getty despite being a first mover in microstock and having been around for 5 years.
There seem to be companies that invest in coops http://www.coopcapital.coop/coopcapital (http://www.coopcapital.coop/coopcapital)
-
I love the idea and It is strikingly similar to something I discussed with IS management back 4 years ago and strikingly similar to a business model we have been developing for [url=http://www.peopleimages.com]www.peopleimages.com[/url] ([url]http://www.peopleimages.com[/url]). hmmm...
Our only problem and something that have caused almost a full-stop actually and that we have been trying to solve for the interim is: how do you market, promote and service a platform for which you are not making any money? With a Co-Op owned site you can't even get VC investment.
This site will portray Bruce as a gregarious individual and a community supporter, but that might just be the primary outcome. Sales don't just "appear".
It was Getty's team that drove Istock to the success it is today. Istock had a revenue of 10mil USD when sold to Getty despite being a first mover in microstock and having been around for 5 years.
If it was a coop 10 million USD profit (after expenses incl. marketing etc.) would be an acceptable dividend to divide among the coop, taking into account that the "owners" had already received the income form their sales on an ongoing basis.
ETA oops, reread the post, revenue not profit, really that low?
-
Yuri, the difference between a co-op and Getty would be that in Getty the profits go to shareholders, in a co-op the profits go to members. In either case, the profit is distributed after all the expenses have been deducted, so there is nothing to stop a co-op marketing and promoting itself the same as Getty does.
They are talking about a 50% commission rate, which is lower than Alamy had up until this year and Alamy still had the resources to grow as well as having sufficient profits to fund its cancer research project on top.
Given that Bruce has extensive experience in funding and running a stock agency and dealing on a daily basis with some of the biggest players in the business, it seems unlikely that he is plunging into a new project without having thought through a viable way of securing the necessary funding. You don't announce a business plan until you are confident you have that particular detail sorted out.
I'd be fascinated to hear exactly what words iStock's management used when you suggested giving all the money to the artists instead of keeping it for the managers and shareholders. Was it a short discussion, by any chance?
-
Yuri, the difference between a co-op and Getty would be that in Getty the profits go to shareholders, in a co-op the profits go to members. In either case, the profit is distributed after all the expenses have been deducted, so there is nothing to stop a co-op marketing and promoting itself the same as Getty does.
They are talking about a 50% commission rate, which is lower than Alamy had up until this year and Alamy still had the resources to grow as well as having sufficient profits to fund its cancer research project on top.
Given that Bruce has extensive experience in funding and running a stock agency and dealing on a daily basis with some of the biggest players in the business, it seems unlikely that he is plunging into a new project without having thought through a viable way of securing the necessary funding. You don't announce a business plan until you are confident you have that particular detail sorted out.
I'd be fascinated to hear exactly what words iStock's management used when you suggested giving all the money to the artists instead of keeping it for the managers and shareholders. Was it a short discussion, by any chance?
I'd also like to know if Yuri got special treatment over the Google deal after his legal discussion with Getty. I tried reading through older posts where this was mentioned but can't find any posts that answer this. Maybe we'll never know.
-
I'd also like to know if Yuri got special treatment over the Google deal after his legal discussion with Getty. I tried reading through older posts where this was mentioned but can't find any posts that answer this. Maybe we'll never know.
It's probably sub judice (which I have just learned via wikipedia applies under Canadian law but not US law, so files uploaded via iS, yes; via Getty, no).
In any case, if you know which images he had there, you could check if they were removed or are still there; and you could, if very interested, check if any go up in future.
-
Actually I would use your PeopleImages project as an example. You began the project with connections and a highly sought after portfolio, did a few interviews to help get your domain out there, and by your accounts it sounds like an early success.
Bruce Livingstone should have quite a few connections with buyers, and potentially an extensive buyer list to recruit from.
I agree with you completely that starting a new site from scratch is extremely challenging in a very saturated marketplace. My efforts at Warmpicture have suggested as much, though I hardly have Bruce's skills nor much financing to work with. Stockfresh seems to have been a big disappointment for others. And the recent Google Images changes are a significant roadblock too. If this is to work, I believe it will take someone with Bruce's skills to make it work.
Regardless of the odds, the potential of this project is far too great not to give it 100% effort to make it work.
I love the idea and It is strikingly similar to something I discussed with IS management back 4 years ago and strikingly similar to a business model we have been developing for [url=http://www.peopleimages.com]www.peopleimages.com[/url] ([url]http://www.peopleimages.com[/url]). hmmm...
Our only problem and something that have caused almost a full-stop actually and that we have been trying to solve for the interim is: how do you market, promote and service a platform for which you are not making any money? With a Co-Op owned site you can't even get VC investment.
This site will portray Bruce as a gregarious individual and a community supporter, but that might just be the primary outcome. Sales don't just "appear".
It was Getty's team that drove Istock to the success it is today. Istock had a revenue of 10mil USD when sold to Getty despite being a first mover in microstock and having been around for 5 years.
-
It's pretty darned rich to hear Vlad the Imp crying poormouth and asking for empathy
"Crying poormouth" I don't even understand what that means. What I have been trying to do is counter the anti IS bias that exists here, promulgated particularly by bitter people such as yourself. I don't particularly love IS myself, my income and commission have both dropped and IS have made some particularly bad decisions which have impacted on buyers and sellers alike, however, I was pointing out that it's still possible to earn money there and that , from my point of view, income was also rising, albeit gradually rather than spectacularly.
I was also, in my posts, pointing out the reality of being an exclusive, both positive and negative, and that people who glibly suggest others give up on IS or drop exclusivity often do so from a different position professionally and financially from mine.
I see that comment has attracted more likes than your attack on me, maybe a time for self-reflection on your part might be in order. I am reassured that some people appreciate that I am here to provide some sort of balance to the arguments.
Please explain to me how you are in such a unique position professionally and financially? WE ALL NEED MONEY TO PAY BILLS! I just don't get why you keep separating yourself as someone special? And that makes the rest of us bitter? People are only trying to give you some suggestions, in response to your "woe is me, I'm exclusive and have to feed my family." If you don't want to take the suggestions, don't!
The balance you provided in the past to the arguments weren't even realistic. To me, you fell into the "drinking the koolaid" category. It has only been here in the last couple of weeks where you have even added "well I do admit they have made some pretty bad mistakes" into your posts. Of all the people to call bitter, lisafx? She has tried to remain neutral as long as humanly possible, but that just goes to show how disgusting Getty is when they can push her over the edge!
This is my last post about this, since it is so OFF-TOPIC. Back to debating Bruce's good and bad points... :D
-
I love the idea and It is strikingly similar to something I discussed with IS management back 4 years ago and strikingly similar to a business model we have been developing for [url=http://www.peopleimages.com]www.peopleimages.com[/url] ([url]http://www.peopleimages.com[/url]). hmmm...
Our only problem and something that have caused almost a full-stop actually and that we have been trying to solve for the interim is: how do you market, promote and service a platform for which you are not making any money? With a Co-Op owned site you can't even get VC investment.
This site will portray Bruce as a gregarious individual and a community supporter, but that might just be the primary outcome. Sales don't just "appear".
It was Getty's team that drove Istock to the success it is today. Istock had a revenue of 10mil USD when sold to Getty despite being a first mover in microstock and having been around for 5 years.
There seem to be companies that invest in coops [url]http://www.coopcapital.coop/coopcapital[/url] ([url]http://www.coopcapital.coop/coopcapital[/url])
Didn't Bruce make $50 million or something on the deal? Maybe he's using his own money for startup?
-
Of all the people to call bitter, lisafx? She has tried to remain neutral as long as humanly possible, but that just goes to show how disgusting Getty is when they can push her over the edge!
True, dat! :(
-
Didn't Bruce make $50 million or something on the deal? Maybe he's using his own money for startup?
As reparation for selling us down the river?
-
Didn't Bruce make $50 million or something on the deal? Maybe he's using his own money for startup?
As reparation for selling us down the river?
I doubt reparation has anything to do with it. I think it's a little old money thing. But if we assume for a minute that things that might have been promised to Bruce in the Getty deal were lies, then maybe he feels a little revenge coming on? I have no idea...I'm making this stuff up...I watch too much television. ;D
-
Didn't Bruce make $50 million or something on the deal? Maybe he's using his own money for startup?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IStockphoto#History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IStockphoto#History)
On February 9, 2006 iStockphoto was acquired by Getty Images for $50 million USD.
-
Didn't Bruce make $50 million or something on the deal? Maybe he's using his own money for startup?
As reparation for selling us down the river?
I doubt reparation has anything to do with it. I think it's a little old money thing. But if we assume for a minute that things that might have been promised to Bruce in the Getty deal were lies, then maybe he feels a little revenge coming on? I have no idea...I'm making this stuff up...I watch too much television. ;D
That would be even better. 8)
-
Of all the people to call bitter, lisafx?
I have no wish to prolong the argument, but I have to respond to the quote above.
This is what someone else said about Lisafx....
Come on you've been bad mouthing everyone that disagrees with you, calling people shills and apologists just because they are doing well and don't see things your way. I don't see Vlad putting anyone down but I do see you calling people names.
Did you read that quote? It has 6 people agreeing ( and no, I'm not one of them) and is now a 'Great post'.
All I did initially was respond to the usual litany of posts here calling on others to give up exclusivity, drop IS etc etc, pointing out how some peoples position as exclusives at IS, whilst not perfect, were, for the time being, the right solution for them, and explaining in more detail, why.
I see no point in carrying on the argument, we have all made our respective points clear, maybe we can all move on.
-
I see no point in carrying on the argument, we have all made our respective points clear, maybe we can all move on.
Agreed, thank you
-
With no intention of reviving the discussion, I have to respectfully add my support of Lisa's comments regarding vlad. Vlad is exactly where he deserves to be today, after a long run of fighting anyone who had anything negative to say about istock exclusivity.
Ill leave it at that, just didn't want to see this pile-on continue without adding my voice to the debate. I think Lisa is right and justified in her comments.
-
With no intention of reviving the discussion
But in fact going on to do just that.
Vlad is exactly where he deserves to be today, after a long run of fighting anyone who had anything negative to say about istock exclusivity
And where is that exactly? Is that supposed to be a barbed comment, because it means nothing? I'm in a reasonable space professionally and financially. I am busy working on freelance work. I am making plans for the future.
I've asked Leaf to cancel my account as I'm spending too much time arguing and getting annoyed by others, and I'm sure annoying others too.
Good luck to us all!
-
double post
-
double post
That was a great post, I can relate to a lot of that. Where has it gone?
ETA Put it back please :)
-
And where is that exactly? Is that supposed to be a barbed comment, because it means nothing? I'm in a reasonable space professionally and financially. I am busy working on freelance work. I am making plans for the future.
I've asked Leaf to cancel my account as I'm spending too much time arguing and getting annoyed by others, and I'm sure annoying others too.
Good luck to us all!
So it was your intention to watch your istock earnings decline and take up freelancing to make up the difference?
You made your choices, and never hesitated to mock the opinions and decisions of others here along the way. If it was your goal to not continue making a living at this, then good for you. Happy to hear you are on to other things that you prefer to do.
But I doubt that's true, and I find it a little funny that while you mocked me and others for our decisions in this business, people like me are still here, still making a living doing this full time, still watching our earnings increase year after year.
I think you are right where you deserve to be. You thought you knew better than everyone. Look where that got you.
-
Almost wish Lobo was here to lock this thread.
-
Almost wish Lobo was here to lock this thread.
Glad you said almost. Don't need Lobo, Leaf is more than capable of locking it if it gets out of hand. Vlad has said he cancelled his account. Looks like the discussion on that should be winding down.
Back to debating Bruce! ;D
-
Almost wish Lobo was here to lock this thread.
Agree. It seems that some people needs maket his point on an on (and on) even when the theme is already cancelled.
-
I had no intentions of leaving exclusivity, the middle of 2012 I notice a lot more Getty business practices and control. I had an increase every year until 2012. I have notice the negative vibe out of iStock especially the last six months. The negative vibe has hurt my creativity and slowed me down. I just can't afford this direction any more. I do have ALL of my good video's loaded on ShutterStock and Pond5 waiting for me to flip the switch which I plan on doing this year. If Stocksy gives you the boost you need mentally then run with it. I remember all the doom sayers when I stepped out of the medical field as a Cat Scan Technologist to shoot stock video. Well I wouldn't trade the last 3 years for anything! There is demand for our hard work so don't listen to the nay sayers. I know people who make a decent wage selling from their own site! Anything is possible if you put your mind to it. iStock has given me tools for which I am very thankful for! They are changing in ways I don't agree so I must change as well. Stocksy deserves support because of the fair pay to the artist, I may never get the chance to shoot for Stocksy but I will support it! Lets move on people, Getty dose not own us nor do they care how you might feel. Time for some sunshine and good shoots :-)
-
this thread has derailed big time... exclusivity is not the subject here.
-
Didn't Bruce make $50 million or something on the deal? Maybe he's using his own money for startup?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IStockphoto#History[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IStockphoto#History[/url])
On February 9, 2006 iStockphoto was acquired by Getty Images for $50 million USD.
A) Assuming he had no debt and no investors and owned the whole company, then yes he sold for $50 million and paid taxes. B) Assuming he really had debt and investors to pay off, he walked away with much less. (I assume the answer is B)
-
Initial Stocksy Investments should come from interested contributors.
-
Ok, well, we are no longer discussing Stocksy here.. just hashing back and forth between various things unrelated to the topic so I'll lock this thread.