Author Topic: An Idea, will it work? Start a microstock Co-op (Read 16833 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #25 on:** February 04, 2013, 20:46 »

Forget it. It's never going to work. The most successful microstock agency of recent times, by a country mile, is SS. Their financial report, prior to the IPO, is essentially the blueprint for that success. Even if our own co-op could possibly equal that success, by following the blueprint, the only gain to ourselves would be the 15-20% profit that that formula produced __ not much of a gain for the risk and the capital necessary to make it work (if indeed it did).

Whilst SS remains so strong (by virtue of our content) there's not a hope in hell that any contributor-led co-op could make an impact. SS probably spends $40M or so annually in marketing nowadays. How are you going to compete against that? Ever?

Short of some 'white knight' stumping up at least $100M to give it a go there's not a chance of it working. I reckon that's the absolute minimum stake required to play 'microstock agency' today with any chance whatsover of winning the game.

Even if I happened to be a billionaire, with $200M of spare cash to sink into such a venture (with most of it probably spent with Google), I'd still be aware that Google themselves could wipe me out overnight if they chose to grab some of that market themselves.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #26 on:** February 04, 2013, 20:54 »

Quote from: SC on February 04, 2013, 12:20

Been discussed many times
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/contributors'-collective/

Too many times and I'm guilty of bringing it back one of those times!

I'll guess hardly anyone except me remembers IGA stores. It was always amusing to me when I was a kid. "Independent Grocers Association" So lets see, we are an independent association? OK ISPA there it is. Independent Stock Photographers Association. More like a lobby, not a union.

No one and nothing will ever get a couple thousand independent artists, together into a union, co-op, group or anything else. First is the international diversity, next illustrations or photos or video (ignoring many other options) and third, Editorial, RF, RM, subjects and goals. Then people have different demands and desires. Nope, not going to happen. This doesn't even touch on financial questions!

Someone could start a co-op site, and even that never got past page one, before someone came up with no fees, 100% commissions, or everyone gets a share of all sales. Oops, project crashed before leaving the ground.

I'm smiling all the time because I can't hear a thing you're saying. Why I enjoy being a Senior

Ed · « **Reply #27 on:** February 04, 2013, 21:05 »

Why a "microstock" co-op?

People complain about declining royalties all the time. Why not start a co-op that pays better?

Why not a royalty free traditional co-op?

gostwyck · « **Reply #28 on:** February 04, 2013, 21:09 »

Quote from: Ed on February 04, 2013, 21:05

Why a "microstock" co-op?

People complain about declining royalties all the time. Why not start a co-op that pays better?

Why not a royalty free traditional co-op?

Go for it! Add yourself to the thousands that have tried to do exactly the same before you.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #29 on:** February 04, 2013, 21:10 »

Hi All,

We started a co-op agency between 21 photographers called Blend Images. Let me say that it was a very tough uphill climb and took 21 of the most flexible people I have ever met as well and many of the top shooters in the industry at the time of building. I would be happy to offer up reasons why it would be very difficult but not necessarily impossible. If I do see someone starting to put this together or you need any support I would be happy to share anything I can from my own personal experience to help in any way.

Cheers,
Jonathan

RacePhoto · « **Reply #30 on:** February 04, 2013, 21:13 »

How much did it cost to fund the project before it made any returns Jonathan? When did it start, when did it first break even for the investors?

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 04, 2013, 21:10

Hi All,

We started a co-op agency between 21 photographers called Blend Images. Let me say that it was a very tough uphill climb and took 21 of the most flexible people I have ever met as well and many of the top shooters in the industry at the time of building. I would be happy to offer up reasons why it would be very difficult but not necessarily impossible. If I do see someone starting to put this together or you need any support I would be happy to share anything I can from my own personal experience to help in any way.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #31 on:** February 04, 2013, 21:14 »

Kind of have to agree with you on most areas Racephoto.

Very tough and the depth of this topic has not even been close to being covered. There is soooo much that would have to take place and it would have to start with so many different pieces fitting together.

Good post,
Jonathan

gostwyck · « **Reply #32 on:** February 04, 2013, 21:18 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 04, 2013, 21:10

Hi All,

We started a co-op agency between 21 photographers called Blend Images. Let me say that it was a very tough uphill climb and took 21 of the most flexible people I have ever met as well and many of the top shooters in the industry at the time of building. I would be happy to offer up reasons why it would be very difficult but not necessarily impossible. If I do see someone starting to put this together or you need any support I would be happy to share anything I can from my own personal experience to help in any way.

Cheers,
Jonathan

And yet ... you actually chose to participate in the Getty/Google Drive deal ... that has sparked this whole debate! That was basically Blend hoisting the white flag of surrender to Getty.

I'll call you when we help to form an 'independent co-op' __ mainly to find out how not to do it.

admin edit: language

cthoman · « **Reply #33 on:** February 04, 2013, 21:21 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 04, 2013, 20:46

Forget it. It's never going to work. The most successful microstock agency of recent times, by a country mile, is SS. Their financial report, prior to the IPO, is essentially the blueprint for that success. Even if our own co-op could possibly equal that success, by following the blueprint, the only gain to ourselves would be the 15-20% profit that that formula produced __ not much of a gain for the risk and the capital necessary to make it work (if indeed it did).

Whilst SS remains so strong (by virtue of our content) there's not a hope in hell that any contributor-led co-op could make an impact. SS probably spends $40M or so annually in marketing nowadays. How are you going to compete against that? Ever?

Short of some 'white knight' stumping up at least $100M to give it a go there's not a chance of it working. I reckon that's the absolute minimum stake required to play 'microstock agency' today with any chance whatsover of winning the game.

Even if I happened to be a billionaire, with $200M of spare cash to sink into such a venture (with most of it probably spent with Google), I'd still be aware that Google themselves could wipe me out overnight if they chose to grab some of that market themselves.

Those are fancy numbers and yet I earned more at my own site than I did at Shutterstock last month. You don't have to be the biggest to be successful. You just have to earn money for your contributors.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #34 on:** February 04, 2013, 21:31 »

Hi Racephoto,

It was more about being able to have people in our group that had already been on the other side of the agency biz. They helped us out so much from making to many mistakes that you would never even think of, we still made our fare share

. The group put a lot of personal money into images that we did not have assurance would make us a dime. We did get great distribution thanks to those that had direct contact with the big players and also because our group had at the time a strong pull of respect for being able to produce content that would sell and release of niche at the right time.
I don't want to say the dates as it has been almost 8 years now but I can check on the turn over when we went from red to black and PM you later. So many details to cover about the issues a co-op would have but one, you would have to vote in a board. Only the board would make decisions for the group and I think with thousands involved it would get pretty hairy at times. You also have to pay your board because they are running the business the entire time and cannot produce content so the board can get expensive fast.
I could see several big Micro people getting together that really have the revenue to make it happen and start a co-op between twenty maybe forty on the high side and then delegate your board and start shooting like crazy ( the best stuff you can ) and wait in hopes that everyone else is going to pull their weight equally, positive side all exclusive content. This would be my approach as I see a several thousand member co-op as being pretty tough to manage and compete with the agencies already established in this market place.
All that said there is still an option for the right group of people to gather their strength and be a much more friendly site to photographers being that you would all understand the photographer side. Some of these big agencies do not understand how important it is to keep strong relations and open dialogue with your contributors. Now I am rambling but always happy to share my 2 cents, I hope it's worth something.

Cheers,
Jonathan

grsphoto · « **Reply #35 on:** February 04, 2013, 21:31 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 04, 2013, 14:40

Any kind of co-op or photographer held agency needs leadership and excellent management to make it thrive.

So - who is going to run the place??

The people at the top will make all the difference, they have to basically forgoe being photographers and focus on the business only.

Otherwise they have no chance of attracting customers.

Like any entrepreneurial endeavor - it is the entrepreneur that makes all the difference.

Great question!! I don't think it will be anyone in this initial discussion, and truthfully the first manager will be one of the most important hires for the organization.

gostwyck · « **Reply #36 on:** February 04, 2013, 21:33 »

Quote from: cthoman on February 04, 2013, 21:21

Those are fancy numbers and yet I earned more at my own site than I did at Shutterstock last month. You don't have to be the biggest to be successful. You just have to earn money for your contributors.

Maybe __ but what scale are we talking about and how many images do you have at each, etc? Is it a fair comparison?

The truth is that SS had about 150 employees in NYC a couple of years ago ... and now they have have about 250 ... and growing. I'd assume that those employees are actually required to deal with the sheer volume of work that becomes an agency dealing with XXX million sales per year? Where would 'our' co-op source and locate all the skilled people necessary to do a similar job? Maybe we could just have a couple of people operating out of their bedrooms instead?

grsphoto · « **Reply #37 on:** February 04, 2013, 21:34 »

Quote from: Microbius on February 04, 2013, 14:47

A lot more chance of this working:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/selling-rf-images-is-really-not-that-hard-php-developers-wanted/

Everyone can run their own shop, but linked up together for combined searches. Crowd sources the marketing aspect too.

I really like this idea, but I can see buyers hating it. There is no real quality control of the images. Solve that problem and I think this could be the way to go.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #38 on:** February 04, 2013, 21:38 »

Hi Gostywick,

The board made that disicion on the Getty deal, not me. Thank you this is a perfect example of what I was just saying and trying to point out about people having to get along, not surprised you attacked

Cheers,
Jonathan

grsphoto · « **Reply #39 on:** February 04, 2013, 21:41 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 04, 2013, 21:33

Maybe we could just have a couple of people operating out of their bedrooms instead?

I remember a quote from my business school days... " it takes as much or more effort to run a small company as it does to run a big one"

My thoughts are that to be useful this cannot be run as a "bedroom" agency but to be a player in the industry. We need to go big or don't bother.

gostwyck · « **Reply #40 on:** February 04, 2013, 22:12 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 04, 2013, 21:38

Hi Gostywick,

The board made that disicion on the Getty deal, not me. Thank you this is a perfect example of what I was just saying and trying to point out about people having to get along, not surprised you attacked

Cheers,
Jonathan

Are you not really annoyed that 'the board' made such an overty crass decision your behalf? You could have stuck those images on SS and probably generated $10 PER MONTH per image or thereabouts, not a one-time freebie license. Don't you think your 'board' are idiots? I do.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #41 on:** February 04, 2013, 22:24 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 04, 2013, 22:12

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 04, 2013, 21:38
Hi Gostywick,

The board made that disicion on the Getty deal, not me. Thank you this is a perfect example of what I was just saying and trying to point out about people having to get along, not surprised you attacked

Cheers,
Jonathan

Are you not really annoyed that 'the board' made such an overty crass decision your behalf? You could have stuck those images on SS and probably generated $10 PER MONTH per image or thereabouts, not a one-time freebie license. Don't you think your 'board' are idiots? I do.

Luckily, as a co-op, they can vote out the board next year I guess.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #42 on:** February 04, 2013, 22:31 »

Yes Sean,

We have that power to change the board as a group every year, I have never been on the board since the company was founded.

Best,
Jonathan

cthoman · « **Reply #43 on:** February 04, 2013, 22:55 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 04, 2013, 21:33

Quote from: cthoman on February 04, 2013, 21:21
Those are fancy numbers and yet I earned more at my own site than I did at Shutterstock last month. You don't have to be the biggest to be successful. You just have to earn money for your contributors.

Maybe __ but what scale are we talking about and how many images do you have at each, etc? Is it a fair comparison?

The truth is that SS had about 150 employees in NYC a couple of years ago ... and now they have have about 250 ... and growing. I'd assume that those employees are actually required to deal with the sheer volume of work that becomes an agency dealing with XXX million sales per year? Where would 'our' co-op source and locate all the skilled people necessary to do a similar job? Maybe we could just have a couple of people operating out of their bedrooms instead?

You are right. It is not apples to apples when it comes to image totals, but my point still stands. I'm not competing with Shutterstock, the giant company. I'm competing with MY earnings potential at Shutterstock or any other agency. And after a year of no growth in 2010 at SS and all the antics by IS and FT in the same year, I was a little wary of that potential being positive.

Microbius · « **Reply #44 on:** February 05, 2013, 04:11 »

Quote from: grsphoto on February 04, 2013, 21:34

Quote from: Microbius on February 04, 2013, 14:47
A lot more chance of this working:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/selling-rf-images-is-really-not-that-hard-php-developers-wanted/

Everyone can run their own shop, but linked up together for combined searches. Crowd sources the marketing aspect too.

I really like this idea, but I can see buyers hating it. There is no real quality control of the images. Solve that problem and I think this could be the way to go.

The way I understand it is that you can choose who is on your network for linked results, so on your network you would only allow quality pro contributors who you can trust to curate their work. Same as a co-op without the other hassles.

Poncke · « **Reply #45 on:** February 05, 2013, 13:11 »

Co-op schmo-op

grsphoto · « **Reply #46 on:** February 05, 2013, 13:42 »

Quote from: Poncke on February 05, 2013, 13:11

Co-op schmo-op

Very nicely put, a well thought out and distinct discussion starter....

grsphoto · « **Reply #47 on:** February 05, 2013, 13:53 »

The next step is to put some ideas down on "paper"

This can be in google docs or a WIKI someplace. I will look into setting something up someplace. I think the work we do should be available to all for comment.

I have been informed that there is at least one other group talking about doing something similar. This is GREAT!

In a day or two I will be asking for volunteers to help write some documents and solve some problems. This is where we will find out if there is a true interest in finding a solution, or if we would rather just bitch about the problems.

Glenn

Macantoisich · « **Reply #48 on:** February 07, 2013, 12:37 »

I stumbled across this thread and had to create an account and comment.

After years of working in contractual and license media production, we decided to take a spin at the "impossible" co-op policy you mention here. We address most the marketplace problems you list in this thread in our own policies at Nimia.

Nimia is made by and for producers, but the business wouldn't be possible without our team of IP, CS, and marketing ninjas. We have a rock star team here and we're working hard on tailoring our application and policies to the needs of the community. Nimia co-op, NMG, has a board of directors that is currently filled with directors, producers, technologists, a marketing director, and an IP specialist.

The Nimia application is in private beta, but we are already working with some extraordinary producers. We have the technology in place to manage still imagery, but we are focused on motion picture content at this time.

I don't want to litter this thread with all of the great benefits of Nimia and our group. If you are interested in learning more, feel free to reach out to us or browse our beta blog. We love comments, criticisms, and questions.

Cheers,
Zach
news.nimia.com

grsphoto · « **Reply #49 on:** February 07, 2013, 12:46 »

Quote from: Macantoisich on February 07, 2013, 12:37

I stumbled across this thread and had to create an account and comment.

After years of working in contractual and license media production, we decided to take a spin at the "impossible" co-op policy you mention here. We address most the marketplace problems you list in this thread in our own policies at Nimia.

Nimia is made by and for producers, but the business wouldn't be possible without our team of IP, CS, and marketing ninjas. We have a rock star team here and we're working hard on tailoring our application and policies to the needs of the community. Nimia co-op, NMG, has a board of directors that is currently filled with directors, producers, technologists, a marketing director, and an IP specialist.

The Nimia application is in private beta, but we are already working with some extraordinary producers. We have the technology in place to manage still imagery, but we are focused on motion picture content at this time.

I don't want to litter this thread with all of the great benefits of Nimia and our group. If you are interested in learning more, feel free to reach out to us or browse our beta blog. We love comments, criticisms, and questions.

Cheers,
Zach
news.nimia.com

This is the third such idea I have heard about in the last three days. I will take a look.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: An Idea, will it work? Start a microstock Co-op (Read 16833 times)

gostwyck

RacePhoto

Ed

gostwyck

Jonathan Ross

RacePhoto

Jonathan Ross

gostwyck

cthoman

Jonathan Ross

grsphoto

gostwyck

grsphoto

Jonathan Ross

grsphoto

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

Jonathan Ross

cthoman

Microbius

Poncke

grsphoto

grsphoto

Macantoisich

grsphoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors