By the way, if anyone has Linkedin, feel free to add me as a connection.

$150 For the Contributor

You will receive a 100% royalty rate for your first 100 sales.

how long till those 100 got into our account?? 

seriously pull the base for 50%, I am sure you know many new agencies "giving us" those numbers, best of luck

I guess I'm not sure what you're asking. But are you saying the lowest contributor rate should be 50%? I totally understand about those agencies saying different things. I'm curious to know if any of the stock sites have been built by contributors?

Quote from: wakecrazy on May 24, 2012, 21:19

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 24, 2012, 21:13

$150 For the Contributor

You will receive a 100% royalty rate for your first 100 sales.

how long till those 100 got into our account?? 

seriously pull the base for 50%, I am sure you know many new agencies "giving us" those numbers, best of luck

I guess I'm not sure what you're asking. But are you saying the lowest contributor rate should be 50%? I totally understand about those agencies saying different things. I'm curious to know if any of the stock sites have been built by contributors?

there is warmpicture, irockstock.. again my question is when will you return my 150$?

I would expect to see a return within the first month of the site being live. It also depends on how many images you load. The larger your portfolio, the faster you will be able to make that back (and more). For example, 100 downloads at an example price of $5 is $500, so you made more than double the original $150.

Quote from: wakecrazy on May 24, 2012, 21:19

I guess I'm not sure what you're asking. But are you saying the lowest contributor rate should be 50%? I totally understand about those agencies saying different things. I'm curious to know if any of the stock sites have been built by contributors?

I think he is saying 50% would be a good starting point. 50% is generally considered a fair rate, and many agencies offer that now. I really don't look at many new agencies to submit to unless they offer that (among other things). I know of a few agencies that were started by microstock contributors, and many contributors run their own personal sites (mine is in my signature). I guess in a way most of microstock was built by artists (both as owners, buyers and contributors).

That really is a great point. Well to be honest, all of your points are great. I really enjoyed looking at irockstock, I didn't realize that was run by you. You should be very proud. I really do appreciate all the feedback. I've just felt a lot of frustration from other contributors on big sites like istock and we all wanted to band together to actually make a difference out there. I do have several people involved in this, but again, they couldn't risk losing their exclusivity until this is a functioning site. You have to pay the bills at the end of the day you know?

I really enjoyed looking at irockstock, I didn't realize that was run by you.

That's not me. This is me:

http://mystockvectors.com/

Don't want any rumors to start at the water cooler. 

Quote from: Tabimura on May 24, 2012, 14:31

Nope, not interesting.

35% too low to attract anyone, even if you'd pay for uploading.
Then, I don't think you can make it. What do you offer to the buyers to attract them? Take a look at Stockfresh, people are starting to lose faith in them and some of them pulled their ports from the site (myself included). And this was started by the same guys who created Stockxpert which was great.
The video started boring and I couldn't watch it to finish. What's this, a microstock 101? We already know what it is, we've been at this for years. Why is the kid in the clip gesturing all the time and all the same?
You have to do better than this.

LE: yea, and music is too loud.

The Microstock 101 was to appeal more to the people looking at the project that don't know what it is. Believe it or not, a lot of people have no clue what goes on in this world.

Maybe you should be counting to get the support of the serious (professional) stock artists, rather than on the lot that has no clue about what's going on in this world. The vast majority of the valuable content on any agency comes from people who know their way around this business.

Just to let everyone know, we made some updates to the project (outlined our updated base contributor rate, etc...)

http://www.indiegogo.com/creativewarehouse

The thought of reviewing other people's images has never appealed to me.  I also think it's going to be hard for the average contributor not to just press the reject button on images similar to their own.  Editing and keywording my own images is enough work for me.  I would rather spend more time taking photos.

I was a reviewer for about 1 1/2 years, and don't ever want to do it again.  The idea of reviewing in exchange for higher royalties?  No way.  Nuh-uh.  Never again.     

Sharpshot makes a good point about average contributors, too.  On sites that have ratings systems, I've seen plenty of people give bad ratings to people they don't like, images that compete with theirs, or images that don't suit their particular taste, which in turn has decreased the sales potential for those images.  In the end, contributors end up losing income on perfectly acceptable images, all because of petty BS.  It wouldn't surprise me if the same kind of shenanigans happened with a contributor-based review system.  I can see it now...get in a fight with someone on a forum, and then go in and sabotage their portfolio.

The thing about actually hiring reviewers is the agency has control over this kind of nonsense.  If a reviewer is targeting contributors, the agency has a better chance of discovering it than if the reviewer is just a member of a huge community. 

In regards to a "community," I think the only folks that will appeal to are those who loved IS for its community and are sad it's gone so downhill.  Personally, I could care less.  I don't participate on forums, etc., for a sense of "community" or to be a part of some happen', cool website.  I participate strictly for business reasons, not fun and games.  Higher royalties isn't going to change that for me.

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 27, 2012, 10:13

Quote from: wakecrazy on May 27, 2012, 01:39

Just to let everyone know, we made some updates to the project (outlined our updated base contributor rate, etc...)

http://www.indiegogo.com/creativewarehouse

nice job, looking forward to see it live

The project is live

I got that, will we get there? 50k?

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 27, 2012, 10:27

Quote from: wakecrazy on May 27, 2012, 10:25

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 27, 2012, 10:13

Quote from: wakecrazy on May 27, 2012, 01:39

Just to let everyone know, we made some updates to the project (outlined our updated base contributor rate, etc...)

http://www.indiegogo.com/creativewarehouse

nice job, looking forward to see it live

The project is live

I got that, will we get there? 50k?

Lol it was a play on words now that I look back. I read it as live not as live (as in alive).

To answer your question, if we can get this viral I think we can raise $150k plus. It just has to have everyone onboard.

There is a news station in San Diego that might pick up the story and broadcast it. They want to cover a story about crowdfunding and I have a couple connections there.

best of luck, really appreciate your effort like I do on all agencies working for better royalties. Regarding us (contributors) in order to "contribute" to this project, I really don�t know but I would say quite hard once we have already many agencies paying nice royalties over 50% but not much return

p.s: I believe it is the first time we see an agency asking for money

Coming out of my forum retirement for a minute just to say that I've had the chance to speak with Sean and I'm impressed with what he's doing. Enough so to throw a few bucks into the project myself.

Creative Warehouse is the real deal. Sean and his team know what they're doing, they've got great ideas, and I think they're going to do well with this project. They're not trying to compete head-to-head with the likes of istock. They're doing things differently, they know this business, and they are contributors themselves who know how to do right by the contributor community.

This is not just another microstock clone start-up. Creative Warehouse is going to be doing things that have never been done in this business before.

hmmm.. thats what we want nice job on the 150$ too

not going live right?

just seen only 1430$ from 50k