Quote from: cuethesun on February 24, 2013, 07:04

Quote from: cardmaverick on February 24, 2013, 01:09

I feel like the only way this place can really generate good income for photographers is if they do an image / photo set exclusivity deal - very different from being totally prohibited from selling at other places. The reality is that when you have thousands of photographers tossing images across a ton of sites, all they can really compete on after a while is better pricing. If all the agencies have exclusive images, they don't have to engage in price wars. I'm hoping they have enough sense to figure this out...

As I understand it, that is exactly the approach stocksy is taking. Image exclusivity, but not artist.

And what's the use of that? Everyone goes off and shoots all the same old stock motifs, all the pictures are original and exclusive but overall the collection looks exactly the same as everyone else. Or are you going to tell me that nobody is going to submit a jumping goldfish or a handshake this time?

As long as buyers like it, who cares?  I don't know if it will work but it has to have a better chance than all the other new sites that have exactly the same images as everyone else.

With image exclusivity, Stocksy has the advantage that every single image in the collection can only be found at Stocksy.  But on the other hand it also means that their collection will grow very slowly.  I cannot imagine that many independents will cancel their accounts, or delete a large part of their (best) files in order to move them to Stocksy.  I do expect they will send Stocksy lots of good new stuff, simply because its easier.  But if most contributors only send new stuff, it will take quite a while before Stocksy reaches its first million images.
What will buyers do?  Even if they really believe in the co-op concept, they will not just cancel their account(s) with their old agency(ies) and jump over to Stocksy, simply because Stocksy does not have all subjects covered (yet).  Hopefully they will put Stocksy on top of their list, start every search there.

I can't imagine that Bruce et al wouldn't have considered this and believe that they have a good chance of attracting enough contributors at an early stage to make it feasible.  I assume that they've been working hard behind the scenes to get some established contributors on board and will open with a broad range of subjects.  Either that, or they anticipate having such unique imagery that buyers will be happy to use 2 agencies as a matter of course - Stocksy for the really high quality stuff (if that's the market they're going for) and whatever other agancy for everything else.

I've sent a link to my portfolio, but like most others, don't hold out much hope....it's hard to try and align yourself to what they're looking for when we don't yet know what that is!

If March 25 is the launch date then the crowns and badges will be coming off this week ?

Indeed, it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at iStock this week.

Exclusive image is a trouble, but I think that this is the right way. Stocksy needs some big players with good images first of all. The big and famous microstocker ensure both number of images and quality. The portfolio will growth slowly but what care contributors are earnings. So as always the other important thing is to have customers.
With all the agencies that have over 15 milions of pictures, the exclusive images doing the difference. Next years I think that all the agencies get this path, not exclusive photographer, but exclusive images. If we thinks that even now the exclusive is reward, is easy to understand that this is only a steph forward. Photolia and Dreamstime accept exclusive images and provide them benefith in search, in istock exclusive contributor are advantaged, not exclusive files within a few years will disappear from the first ten pages of search.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 24, 2013, 09:14

The trouble, Anyka, is that I will still need to supply my main outlets while I find out if Stocksy can go anywhere. I can't afford to put all my work into one new site and neglect the others. Am I going to put my best work on a site with no track record as an exclusive offering or am I going to put the best stuff at the proven money-makers and put second-rate stuff with stocksy?

That's indeed the trouble BaldricksTrousers, but it's not just YOUR (or my) trouble, it's also Stocksy's problem.  If they want unique photos and a high volume collection, they need to find a way to attract people like you, make you want to send your best stuff even before they become a big success.

I'm sure Bruce recognises what he needs, which is why I doubt whether the assertion that it is going to be an image exclusive agency is right. I don't think anyone has had any details at all, have they?
And I also think that any exclusive who handed in a crown this week without knowing exactly what Stocksy is and how it will work would be as mad as a hatter.
I'm waiting for details and to see if they want me as part of it. If they do, then I'll almost certainly join but then I don't have to sacrifice anything to do so.

It's funny to see the reaction of SS and IS/getty to this start up. Jon says being exclusive is bad for (photographers and the industry).   While getty boots out anyone who is known to be involved with stocksy.   

What does that tell you about the top two agencies.   

It says Jon got paid $400 million convicing you not to be exclusive with IS.   And getty says "oh crap" we cannot compete and have to buy our competition and load them up with old getty owned junk at very high prices.  And both don't want to pay you much for your work.   

I can't believe as a artist you would not run to stocksy if they become as good as the Bruce owned IS was with a larger payout. 

  The way a co-op works is they pay you a split of the profits that come based on how much you sell.   While paying you 50% of the sale price of an image.  Didn't getty say paying us 40 and 20 percent was unsustainable?

It would expose getty/SS and who ever esle for the rip offs they are.     

   

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on February 24, 2013, 12:12

It's funny to see the reaction of SS and IS/getty to this start up. Jon says being exclusive is bad for (photographers and the industry).   While getty boots out anyone who is known to be involved with stocksy.   

What does that tell you about the top two agencies.   

It says Jon got paid $400 million convicing you not to be exclusive with IS.   And getty says "oh crap" we cannot compete and have to buy our competition and load them up with old getty owned junk at very high prices.  And both don't want to pay you much for your work.   

I can't believe as a artist you would not run to stocksy if they become as good as the Bruce owned IS was with a larger payout. 

  The way a co-op works is they pay you a split of the profits that come based on how much you sell.   While paying you 50% of the sale price of an image.  Didn't getty say paying us 40 and 20 percent was unsustainable?

It would expose getty/SS and who ever esle for the rip offs they are.     

   

There are a few things wrong with this.  First, Stocksy is not meant to compete with Istock, they have already said that and judging from the people they have turned down it seems clear that they want different content.  Second, there are a few sites that already pay 50% like Pond5 or Alamy.

SS didnt have a response to the Stocksy start up either.

There are a few things wrong with this.  First, Stocksy is not meant to compete with Istock, they have already said that and judging from the people they have turned down it seems clear that they want different content.  Second, there are a few sites that already pay 50% like Pond5 or Alamy.

In that case they're not going to attract many current exclusives. They'd have to give up exclusivity, but not to be able to port over any of their current stock files, which would then earn much less on iS, especially if they've currently got a lot of good-selling Vetta or Agency files. Then they'd have to create new, different stuff (currently unknown) to put onto Stocksy.

Won't matter to me, I haven't even had the email yet; but it would be a big thought to those who might have been involved, particularly if Stocksy was going to be RM, or partly RM. That way exclusives could keep their work at iStock on a higher %age for the interim while they and Stocksy build up steam.

Although they say they don't want to be like the other stock sites, have they said what they do actually want? Have they described their price point/s for sale? Subs and/or single sales?

judging from the people they have turned down it seems clear that they want different content.

Who have they turned down? I've missed anyone being turned down.

Quote from: tickstock on February 24, 2013, 12:19

judging from the people they have turned down it seems clear that they want different content.

Who have they turned down? I've missed anyone being turned down.

I only remember Dan from http://www.warmpicture.com

I must admit that, if I was invited and the terms were favorable, I'd give iStock the boot in favour of Stocksy.  I don't have a big portfolio at IS, but it brings in a reasonable amount of money - however, I'm less and less happy about leaving my images there. 

I've looked at the other microstock sites, and I'm really not that keen.  A lot of them seem to be going down a similar route and I think that the photographer is going to end up being squeezed, whatever site they're with.  At the moment I'm averaging well over $10 a download on IS and I'm really not that keen to hand them over to the other microstock sites to sell them for a lot less.  For me personally, I'd rather cut my losses at IS, and put my content with a site which valued it's contributors and paid them a fair commission, even if it would take a while to build up sales.  OK, I'd have to have confidence that the site could build up those sales by attracting customers, and for once I feel like we may have found that with Stocksy. 

If I'm invited, of course, which I'm not overly hopeful of....

Quote from: cuethesun on February 24, 2013, 07:04

Quote from: cardmaverick on February 24, 2013, 01:09

I feel like the only way this place can really generate good income for photographers is if they do an image / photo set exclusivity deal - very different from being totally prohibited from selling at other places. The reality is that when you have thousands of photographers tossing images across a ton of sites, all they can really compete on after a while is better pricing. If all the agencies have exclusive images, they don't have to engage in price wars. I'm hoping they have enough sense to figure this out...

As I understand it, that is exactly the approach stocksy is taking. Image exclusivity, but not artist.

And what's the use of that? Everyone goes off and shoots all the same old stock motifs, all the pictures are original and exclusive but overall the collection looks exactly the same as everyone else. Or are you going to tell me that nobody is going to submit a jumping goldfish or a handshake this time?

I understand what you're saying. If they are serious about Stocksy, they will need to be far more selective about what they take and only a small group of photographers will be accepted for submitting content.