Author Topic: I need help launching a new stock site paying 80%+ commission (Read 18587 times)

jonalex88 · « **on:** April 01, 2017, 09:55 »

(note: members requested a little more info about who we are. I've given more info on a post on page 2 of this thread - Reply #29, 4 April at 16:14

Hi there!

I am hoping that the MSG community can help me out!

We are looking to launch a stock image service which pays 80%-90% commission to contributors. Before we launch, we’d like to test some assumptions that we’ve made about the image supply side of the business; that's where you come in.

We think that we can do something really cool in the stock photography world, and at the same time, make sure that the cash paid for images gets into the hands of the people who created them.

We would really appreciate your feedback; it will help us to get going. As a gesture of thanks, if you complete all questions (including the ‘optional’ ones), we will give you an extra 5% commission for the first year post-launch - make sure your email is correct so we can keep our promises!

Some of the information in this survey is sensitive (i.e. not usually something you share with just anyone), however I can assure you that no responses will be shared outside of our small team. In a way, once you complete this survey, you become a partner to our business. If our commission structure says anything, it’s that we value our partners.

Thank you so much for your time - we look forward to getting to know you.

https://goo.gl/forms/Wxk6xBT6UMSgIGux2

Questions: 23 (mostly quick, multiple choice)

Time to complete: 5 - 10 minutes

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #1 on:** April 01, 2017, 10:22 »

No one should be clicking a goo.gl link as it could lead anywhere and there's a spate of viruses doing the rounds at the moment in this way. Maybe post the actual link?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** April 01, 2017, 11:02 »

What's your USP? I.e., Why would a buyer care what you are doing?

cthoman · « **Reply #3 on:** April 01, 2017, 11:33 »

I'm sure there are a lot of photographers, vector artists and video, etc. that are willing to partner on something new. I'm probably at that point where I can't really continue doing the same old same old. That said, it has to be the right opportunity.

trek · « **Reply #4 on:** April 01, 2017, 11:46 »

I would love to see a stocksy co-op style site for all. Not just the chosen (admittedly talented) few.

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** April 01, 2017, 12:08 »

Of all the days in the year to do this, is April fools day really the best one

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #6 on:** April 01, 2017, 12:20 »

My fear is that they plan to compete on price, thinking they can sell for less as they pay us a bigger percentage. Result being the big boys will also cut prices and we won't be able to leave because they make up a much bigger chunk of our income. That is what I am guessing the "assumption" is.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #7 on:** April 01, 2017, 12:22 »

Quote from: trek on April 01, 2017, 11:46

I would love to see a stocksy co-op style site for all. Not just the chosen (admittedly talented) few.

Wouldn't work. If you want to have higher prices you have to have the best content.

trek · « **Reply #8 on:** April 01, 2017, 15:37 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on April 01, 2017, 12:22

Quote from: trek on April 01, 2017, 11:46
I would love to see a stocksy co-op style site for all. Not just the chosen (admittedly talented) few.
Wouldn't work. If you want to have higher prices you have to have the best content.

I think artists should control their own pricing. Tomatoes should be priced like tomatoes. The "best content" should demand more. Exclusivity should be optional.

I would like to see a big tent co-op that would compete with the mega libraries. Stocksy has the boutique artsier than thou angle covered.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #9 on:** April 02, 2017, 00:58 »

I think it would only work if you were still selective about who got in, then people could be trusted to price their own work from there. Otherwise it would very quickly be inundated with garbage.

dpimborough · « **Reply #10 on:** April 02, 2017, 01:30 »

80 to 90% is not practical you'd be out of business in no time either that it's a hook to get people involved before your slash royalties down to 30%

Pauws99 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 02, 2017, 01:32 »

Of course we would all like higher commission but these levels are not sustainable.......seems to me many contributors hugely underestimate marketing costs which is actually the key component of what Agencies do. You can set up your own site and pay yourself 100% but unless you spend a large proportion of your time (therefore $$$) on marketing and are at the exceptional range of the talent spectrum you will make very little.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #12 on:** April 02, 2017, 03:27 »

I think 70 to 80% would be perfectly sustainable if it wasn't for the history involved. Getty's aggressive stiving for monopoly over the years means photographers have found themselves tied to agencies paying a much lower percentage. New agencies can't compete paying a higher percentage because they will be out spent.

jonalex88 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 02, 2017, 06:15 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on April 01, 2017, 10:22

No one should be clicking a goo.gl link as it could lead anywhere and there's a spate of viruses doing the rounds at the moment in this way. Maybe post the actual link?

Its a link to a google form, so that is the actual link

jonalex88 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 02, 2017, 06:16 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 01, 2017, 11:02

What's your USP? I.e., Why would a buyer care what you are doing?

I have 2 or 3 which i am developing, however I'd like to keep them on the DL for the time being. What is pretty positive is that the USP for the buyer actually leads to higher revenue for the contributor.

jonalex88 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 02, 2017, 06:18 »

Quote from: cthoman on April 01, 2017, 11:33

I'm sure there are a lot of photographers, vector artists and video, etc. that are willing to partner on something new. I'm probably at that point where I can't really continue doing the same old same old. That said, it has to be the right opportunity.

thanks for the comment. The point of this survey is to understand (1) what that opportunity looks like for you (and people like you), and importantly, what the barriers are for you to try it out (i.e. free listing, greater revenue percentage, etc). In other words, why *wouldn't* you try a new stock site / what is the actual overhead / time commitment, etc.

jonalex88 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 02, 2017, 06:20 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on April 01, 2017, 12:20

My fear is that they plan to compete on price, thinking they can sell for less as they pay us a bigger percentage. Result being the big boys will also cut prices and we won't be able to leave because they make up a much bigger chunk of our income. That is what I am guessing the "assumption" is.

Competing on price alone is a bad business model when the bigger guys have more money than you. Our strategy is not to compete on price, although this may factor in. Remember, i can't pay you more and then charge less, because the small percentage we collect would be to small then.

jonalex88 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 02, 2017, 06:23 »

Quote from: trek on April 01, 2017, 15:37

I think artists should control their own pricing. Tomatoes should be priced like tomatoes. The "best content" should demand more. Exclusivity should be optional.

I would like to see a big tent co-op that would compete with the mega libraries. Stocksy has the boutique artsier than thou angle covered.

I like this idea in that the better photos should cost more, however I don't think the pricing should be set by the contributors, as this will lead to pricing that is hard to plan for / understand for the buyer. The plan is to have tiers within the site (think iStock + Getty under a single domain) with different pricing per tier. Which tier the photo falls into will be up to us though.

jonalex88 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 02, 2017, 06:26 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on April 02, 2017, 01:30

80 to 90% is not practical you'd be out of business in no time either that it's a hook to get people involved before your slash royalties down to 30%

We have run the numbers and are comfortable with paying a higher percentage. Our team also includes stock photographers, and we are passionate about ensuring that contributors don't get fleeced (I think contributors do get fleeced by current agency options).

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #19 on:** April 02, 2017, 07:18 »

Quote from: jonalex88 on April 02, 2017, 06:20

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on April 01, 2017, 12:20
My fear is that they plan to compete on price, thinking they can sell for less as they pay us a bigger percentage. Result being the big boys will also cut prices and we won't be able to leave because they make up a much bigger chunk of our income. That is what I am guessing the "assumption" is.

Competing on price alone is a bad business model when the bigger guys have more money than you. Our strategy is not to compete on price, although this may factor in. Remember, i can't pay you more and then charge less, because the small percentage we collect would be to small then.

My bold. I think I would need more information before considering. Will you be releasing full terms before asking for content?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 02, 2017, 08:06 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on April 02, 2017, 03:27

I think 70 to 80% would be perfectly sustainable if it wasn't for the history involved. Getty's aggressive stiving for monopoly over the years means photographers have found themselves tied to agencies paying a much lower percentage. New agencies can't compete paying a higher percentage because they will be out spent.

Yes but the history is involved we are where we are not where we would like to be.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #21 on:** April 02, 2017, 08:07 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 02, 2017, 08:06

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on April 02, 2017, 03:27
I think 70 to 80% would be perfectly sustainable if it wasn't for the history involved. Getty's aggressive stiving for monopoly over the years means photographers have found themselves tied to agencies paying a much lower percentage. New agencies can't compete paying a higher percentage because they will be out spent.
Yes but the history is involved we are where we are not where we would like to be.

Absolutely agree.

Copidosoma · « **Reply #22 on:** April 02, 2017, 09:16 »

Get buyers for the images and you will have no issues with getting image volume.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #23 on:** April 02, 2017, 10:16 »

Quote from: jonalex88 on April 02, 2017, 06:23

Quote from: trek on April 01, 2017, 15:37

I think artists should control their own pricing. Tomatoes should be priced like tomatoes. The "best content" should demand more. Exclusivity should be optional.

I would like to see a big tent co-op that would compete with the mega libraries. Stocksy has the boutique artsier than thou angle covered.

I like this idea in that the better photos should cost more, however I don't think the pricing should be set by the contributors, as this will lead to pricing that is hard to plan for / understand for the buyer. The plan is to have tiers within the site (think iStock + Getty under a single domain) with different pricing per tier. Which tier the photo falls into will be up to us though.

I don't want to be negative, and I've thought that some sort of co-op is an answer, where contributors share, after expenses. Here's your first problem. 1 million uploads a week, who's going to review and set the prices for those?

Big problem! Product intake and evaluation.

Good luck.

jonalex88 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 03, 2017, 02:17 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on April 02, 2017, 07:18

Quote from: jonalex88 on April 02, 2017, 06:20
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on April 01, 2017, 12:20
My fear is that they plan to compete on price, thinking they can sell for less as they pay us a bigger percentage. Result being the big boys will also cut prices and we won't be able to leave because they make up a much bigger chunk of our income. That is what I am guessing the "assumption" is.

Competing on price alone is a bad business model when the bigger guys have more money than you. Our strategy is not to compete on price, although this may factor in. Remember, i can't pay you more and then charge less, because the small percentage we collect would be to small then.
My bold. I think I would need more information before considering. Will you be releasing full terms before asking for content?

Yes, 100%, the terms will be clear. The objective (from a supplier perspective) is to provide a far better structured, better designed relationship and technical solution than what is currently available. But thank you for highlighting the importance of this so we can factor in your concern (you just helped us build our business

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I need help launching a new stock site paying 80%+ commission (Read 18587 times)

jonalex88

Justanotherphotographer

Sean Locke Photography

cthoman

trek

sharpshot

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

trek

Justanotherphotographer

dpimborough

Pauws99

Justanotherphotographer

jonalex88

jonalex88

jonalex88

jonalex88

jonalex88

jonalex88

Justanotherphotographer

Pauws99

Justanotherphotographer

Copidosoma

YadaYadaYada

jonalex88

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors