Some interesting ideas but you're thinking like a contributor not a stock agency business owner. If you were on the other side of the business you'd feel differently.

Change can only come with dialogue . I am sure some CEOs are reading these comments in forums, to get the feel of the current sentiments of contributors (and buyers, as I am sure there are some buyers here too).
We cannot change what we have no control. We can, though, change the way we operate on our end. Be it cutting off a few agencies we don't agree with; increasing upload and concentrating on the one we like, or of course, joining some new ventures that may or may not succeed . We only know that anything can happen. One good example already is how Stockxpert went from one of the most promising and most cherished sites to a dead duck. So really, to think that some sites are immuned to  fall from grace is absurd.
Even if dialogue fails to bring some vital changes to the micro fabric, what have we got to lose? If we don't do what we are doing here to open dialogue and to get a feel of how our peers are feeling, we won't see any changes either. So really, at least, you can say we tried, we let off some steam,
and if things get worse, we can all safely go home and find a job tossing burgers. 
If that happens, we can safely rejoice for not having Atilla wreck our lives , or receive another condescending  rejection notice like , "this is a snapshot", "your image did not reach our level",
and other assinine vagueries.

have a good weekend  all ! kick butt !

So TRUE!!!  We work to attract artists/photographers, but the artists have to be patient while the new or growing agency then works to get the word out to buyers. Photographers can�t be out for just the fast buck, ready to jump ship if they don�t have sales right away.

We all know this industry is synergistic�without photos there is no money for the agency and without the agency there is no money for the photographer. Both sides are equally important and we have to work together to succeed.

Lisa the problems are not when the new websites are building the business and everyone is communicating well, with a mutual goal and on a good footing, but at some point 'the community feel' has to move to a pure business footing.
Despite best intentions the owners of the websites do not achieve their goals, they often have not realised the full cost of of going to market and the marketing and projected sales have not been realised, venture capital is looked for and promised margins or the whole model need to be adjusted.
The only real option is to trim the artists commissions or fold, this causes a rift and bad feeling in the 'partnership', leaving the artists feeling that the trust they put in the website and owners has been lost and they have been screwed.

David's blog also talks about networking which I think is vital. But it seems nowadays people seem to be concerned more with �privacy� than with getting to know others. I think it�s counterproductive to keep my email address secret when I am in business to sell something! I am curious: Why do so many artists hide their email addresses? One of our artists blogged about this on our site a few days ago, in a blog post about badly designed web sites. So I am not the only one wondering!  :

This one is easy, some contributors may submit to several websites, microstock and macrostock with different credentials, not many are full time microstock and may have a studio or do assignment work, they would not want a google search to show the stock business, as the next wedding party may want images for $1.
Another is there are webbots that scrape webpages and retreive email addresses and add them to marketing databases, then your inbox becomes full of viagra emails.
Then there is not wanting direct emails from other forum users to your business account, or just wanting to remain a mystery.  

I would agree about the photographers not doing enough networking, I was reading this post by Larry lcjTripod, it is worth a read about half way down the first page, he says how he works to promote his portfolio on BigStock by uploading local images and contacting local organisations to promote them, I am sure people would say he should have his own website and send them there, but buyers may be happy purchasing through BigStock.
new-search-options-on-BigStock-great

David

I would agree about the photographers not doing enough networking, I was reading this post by Larry lcjTripod, it is worth a read about half way down the first page, he says how he works to promote his portfolio on BigStock by uploading local images and contacting local organisations to promote them, I am sure people would say he should have his own website and send them there, but buyers may be happy purchasing through BigStock.
new-search-options-on-BigStock-great

I agree completely.  Since most of my footage is shot "locally", I spend time every month marketing to local news stations, production houses, etc... and that promotion has paid off for me.  And I don't mind passing that business off to my favorite agency.  Dealing with a web site, etc.. is a major PITA.

I've also been somewhat successful at referrals of watermarked images posted on my Flickr and Facebook accounts resulting in some really nice sales.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 11, 2009, 07:22

Some interesting ideas but you're thinking like a contributor not a stock agency business owner. If you were on the other side of the business you'd feel differently.

Change can only come with dialogue . I am sure some CEOs are reading these comments in forums, to get the feel of the current sentiments of contributors (and buyers, as I am sure there are some buyers here too).
We cannot change what we have no control. We can, though, change the way we operate on our end. Be it cutting off a few agencies we don't agree with; increasing upload and concentrating on the one we like, or of course, joining some new ventures that may or may not succeed . We only know that anything can happen. One good example already is how Stockxpert went from one of the most promising and most cherished sites to a dead duck. So really, to think that some sites are immuned to  fall from grace is absurd.
Even if dialogue fails to bring some vital changes to the micro fabric, what have we got to lose? If we don't do what we are doing here to open dialogue and to get a feel of how our peers are feeling, we won't see any changes either. So really, at least, you can say we tried, we let off some steam,
and if things get worse, we can all safely go home and find a job tossing burgers. 
If that happens, we can safely rejoice for not having Atilla wreck our lives , or receive another condescending  rejection notice like , "this is a snapshot", "your image did not reach our level",
and other assinine vagueries.

have a good weekend  all ! kick butt !

I probably didn't provide enough detail to get across the point I was making. An example being image exclusivity. While it sounds great for contributors to submit exclusive images why do you think that is? Right, so a contributor can submit a similar series of "exclusive" images to different sites. That dilutes the purpose of exclusivity and makes it almost impossible for an agency to police images. The agency has little choice but to go with contributor exclusivity.

Let's face it. While a lot of us are a decent group of people, when people are given the smallest loophole to take advantage of, most people will take advantage of it and then somehow justify it as not being a big deal. From the perspective of an agency it's always the best and easiest choice to close the loophole. And somewhere in the middle of this tug of war of fairness is (hopefully) something that works out for both parties.

Like everybody else here I also want the best deal for myself and contributors as a whole. But a lot of the posts I see here seem to be coming from creatives and not businesspeople. If you ran an agency you might better understand why some of the policies are necessary.

About voicing our opinions, that's great and everything but it's venting and little else. Change only happens when the entire group gets offended enough to take a collective action. And even then, some of the sites still don't care. It's your choice whether or not to continue supporting them. And after all of the complaining how many of you still go along with whatever raw deal is dished out?

 Hi All,

 I am wondering if a Niche agency that specializes in Lifestyle at a higher quality level but still a broad user base of concepts like Vetta. The collection does not need 4 million photos to compete. They just need to produce the best of the best. A group of 100 ( random number ) of the best high production lifestyle shooters with a return of 50% to the image providers could be enticing to some.
 Only the content shot from a particular shoot would be exclusive, the photographers would still be able to submit to other agencies. There are people working on this concept as we speak. 100 shooters producing 1000 top quality images a year would build a strong collection fast that wouldn't be to deep for the clients to get lost in. If it was edited to be the best I think the buyers would find that of value.
 Besides I think you'll find that some of the biggest Micro sites make the bulk of their revenue from a small percentage of their providers.When you have 10,000 or more image providers a small percentage is still quite a few. Finding the 100 shooters that would commit to such a quality and quantity level would be the hardest part.

Just my two cents.

Best,
Jonathan

Hi All,

 I am wondering if a Niche agency that specializes in Lifestyle at a higher quality level but still a broad user base of concepts like Vetta. The collection does not need 4 million photos to compete. They just need to produce the best of the best. A group of 100 ( random number ) of the best high production lifestyle shooters with a return of 50% to the image providers could be enticing to some.
 Only the content shot from a particular shoot would be exclusive, the photographers would still be able to submit to other agencies. There are people working on this concept as we speak. 100 shooters producing 1000 top quality images a year would build a strong collection fast that wouldn't be to deep for the clients to get lost in. If it was edited to be the best I think the buyers would find that of value.
 Besides I think you'll find that some of the biggest Micro sites make the bulk of their revenue from a small percentage of their providers.When you have 10,000 or more image providers a small percentage is still quite a few. Finding the 100 shooters that would commit to such a quality and quantity level would be the hardest part.

Just my two cents.

Best,
Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,
This is then traditional as the prices would have to be high to make it worthwhile, good exclusive lifestyle why not Getty, Corbis, Istock Vetta, and the many other variants that will be launched over the next few months, these collections and your concept will fall outside the term 'Microstock' which is to have a large amount of asset downloads with many micropayments, it does not make sense to have a niche agency with micropayments.
The big websites also make a lot of money from the contributors that never make the payout, it is hard to work out at times who is supporting who and where the bigger margins are.

There is one thing that is needed more than a new niche agency, that is an association or organisation to open it's doors to all microstock shooters, one that is respected and can represent artist, there is an elitism at the moment with organisations like SAA where you need a professional qualification and the affiliate rates are set to high and exclude part-time and microshooters, I have emailed them to ask about the changes in the industry where more professionals are looking at microstock as a viable option, if they are going to include microshooters as an affiliate and how they would represent them.
If you look at businesses like farming etc:, their suppliers have assiociations that represent the suppliers when setting industry wide minimum product prices and other rules for the industry, big stores like to work within this framework and have the associations logo as part of marketing, models and actors have a guild, microshooters are now a large enough body to have their voice either as part of an existing body or in their own right.  

I see that many do think along the same lines in all aspects of the industry, the problem is that we all stand on different street corners on our soap box, until we can stand united there is little hope of a united voice that would be listened to, it would be good if in 3 years time a new contributor to any big stock site joined a representative association first.  

David

neevr mind. (deleted)

Greetings to all:

I recently came across this wonderful site and posted a question about what is it that photographers are looking for in a stock house. Someone directed me to this post and I can say this is the most detailed-well-informed compilation I have ever found in regards to this matter. What I like the most is the fact that you, as professional photographer gather to discuss this ideas.

I am a "CEO" (yes, I rather use quotes ) of an emerging stock video site, but before I decided to pursue this dream (I had it for the longest time) I was a contributor to all major stock video houses, big and small and continue to be a contributor. I'm able to see (probably in a limited way) both sides of the coin. This has helped me to draw some excellent ideas we have implemented to our site and make it "contributor friendly".

Going back to square one, many of our video contributors are also photographers and suggested us to expand to images, which we would like to do,  however, we wanted to make sure we continue that "contributors friendly tradition" by learning more about what contributors are looking for.

I will take many of your ideas to my drawing table and make it part of our site strategy.

Before that, for the sake of the openness this site offer and to contribute to the understanding of how stock house operate (at least small one like site ours) here are my 2 cents is respond to the main ideas.

Perry's ideas are valid considering where he is coming from, and many of you have realized, is not necessarily if the ideas are good or bad, what is even more valuable is that he brought this discussion to the table. Here are my thought on his take:

1) Exclusive images:
As a contributor I don't want to limit my range of income source by going exclusive. In most instance it is not profitable to get, let say, just 60% as exclusive than various percentages from several sites.

As a stock house, selling only exclusive will limit the material quantity driving customers to sites that have the most variety and royalty flexibility. Of course, this does not mean there is not a market for that.


2) Prevent Photographers submitting similar images to other sites
This correlate with point #1, as contributor, I would be limiting my options...
As a stock house, the only way to prevent you from selling in other sites, is to make you sign a legal document agreeing to that. I personally don't like unnecessary legal documents (as many people do)

3) The photographers could pull out their images whenever they want.
As contributor I like this flexibility however, I wouldn't pull out any image as it will limit my income possibilities, that is not even considering the time and effort I put to keywording etc.

As a stock house, I want you to feel flexible, it makes you comfortable, but pulling out may compromise clients who, let say, have items in their bins and counting on them. If you remove them, this customer will not be happy and this is no good. I believe the current standard is fair... Ranging from 14 to 30 days and in some cases 3-6 month.

4) Moderately easy on the technical side
As a contributor: I like this idea.
As a stock house:  Although we are as flexible as you want, I do understand where the other sites are coming from. Many of them are using a business model either inherited by the "old ring" who targeted high end productions, or copied the concept when the microstock was still considered "non threatening". Now they are becoming more flexible in that sense.

In our case we don't limit or reject unless the video is extremely bad. This decision was made when we realized "there is market for everything".  I did a test by shooting myself walking from the leg down... By all standard this video was doom to failure, but surprisingly it got sold 3 times in its life time.

5)  Easy License

I agree in both sides.

6) Clever algorithm that few clicks images sink to bottom
As a contributor, I like the idea. I recall that for a time I was one of the top sellers at 2 different sites, so I know the feeling of having good material + appropriated keywording. However, those the site realized they couldn't prioritize so it became more "even".

As a stock house this would be unfair to other contributors regardless of their inexperience keywording. We would like all people to sell, not just a few ones. The ones who sales will be happy, but the majority of those who don't sell will feel the site is not making them revenue.

7) Easy uploading
Agreed in both counts. We try to minimize that by using templates which make the submission process in just 2 steps, but it has it limitations. This is something there is no scape (at least for now) as information have to be entered.

Fair commission
I agree in both counts. I can say that in video it seems to be more fair, probably because it requires more work. Depending on the site it goes from 35% to 50% as non exclusive and the most I have seen is 60% as exclusive. These are fair values considering the operational expenses. We offer 50% and it will be the same if we decided to make it into the images market.

About other comments I read:

Keyword limitations:
As a contributor I would like to have freedom to use the keyword I see fit for my material, but
as a stock house I want to make sure there is no profanity or anything that can offend anyone in any way. We don't limit keyword unless is rude, crude, or profane. There are some gray areas that require consultation.

Paying in advanced for royalties:
As a contributor I experienced it first hand. This particular site was emerging and quickly died. (It is now being revamped its features and will come back to the market) I did enjoyed the benefit of having a quick commission but I ended up having the feeling of being "trapped". A year later I  returned the money so I can feel "free". Hopefully they will do better this time.

As a stock house and depending on the amount of money and/or contributors, it would take a chunk of money that can be used in other areas that will benefit the business and by default the contributor.

Photoshow also brought some great point, which are great ideas but are somewhat tricky to implement depending on the business model...

1) By invite only site will limit the amount of photographers as well as the amount of clients. Although this has been used in the past by the "old ring" such as Getty Images, they have "change their mind" or better yet, they now understand the market trend and ended up acquiring IStockPhoto (and video) as well as Jupiter Images (with all their agencies such as stockxpert)

2) Approved Camera List
The idea is good, but has it flaws. As a professional in the television and post production industry I can tell you that it is the talent, not the camera. I have seem many material shot on "crappy camera" that look professional, I have seen "crappy material" shot on "expensive as hell" cameras.

Also, a far as I can tell, no agency have the capability of controlling this. What will prevent you from saying you used an "approved camera" when in fact you did not? How will a company know for sure which camera you did used? They have to go by what you say.

As I contributor I once did a sequence of videos that was done in a non-approved video camera. I knew it will get rejected if I mentioned, but I also knew this material was going to sell like hotcakes... I ended up finding the closest pro camera compared to the one I used and that is was approved by the site. Well, it was approved, it did sell like hotcake and it is still selling good in all sites. At the end of the day, I make them money, and I make money myself.

3) Agent that understand contributors are the backbone

I agree in both counts (as contributor and as stock house) This is in fact what we are trying to build. Most of us (internal team) are either filmakers, 3D animators, motion designers and graphic designers... We all know the industry, we understand the industry and we've been making a living on this industry for the past 10-30 years (combined).

Because two of us are contributors to other sites, we understand what is going on from within. We want to implement a functional solution where the contributor is not only a contributor but an integral part of the business, reaping additional benefits as the site grows.

I do agree with points 4, 5, and 6.

7) This is a good idea, but it has a cost. As a contributor I rather gain 3% and submit my own metadata, at the end of the day after an image is submitted that is it, no more work with it, of course this is long term.  Now, there are many agencies that do the submission for you, but they require you to sign a 3-7 years contract. I have material in two of such sites, and I understand the cost of having the employees to do the work. It cost money and they want to protect that investment by signing contracts.

For a small startup business like us this is a big overhead. This is the reason why microstock implemented the idea and soon the big boys joined the concept.

10) One Model Release for all related Material
This idea is great, it was suggested to us while a go by one of our contributors, we are in the process of implementing this.

11) The image rejection in a "yes or no manner" can backfire and it does not offer flexibility to the contributor. As a contributor, I want to be able to submit an image after I took the time to make the necessarily adjustments, images that I know for a fact is selling great in other sites... As a stock house I want contributors to have that freedom... How can they feel they are the backbone if they are being treated with limitations?

12) This is what has been done in the past 15 years (or more). But the new trend in business is community base, the freedom to chat with fellow artists, exchange ideas, discuss equipment... All that has a business value, and of course as an agency we benefit from it... (it may also backfire)  That is even aside from the fact that having forum can increase awareness, reduce non-important technical support inquiries and just have the feeling of being part of something. We are social beings, it is embedded in our nature.

When I decided to open as a business, due to respect, I had to cut back from posting on the sites I contribute material. For a while it made me sad because I became so part of it... This has a value and is very well appreciated by contributors and the agencies.

As I final thought, my comments are by no means written on stone, these are just my perceptions on how I see things from both sides. 'The only permanent thing is change" so these comments may well be obsolete very soon.

This thread has added much value to the information I was looking for in consideration to start offering images in our website. Thank you for having this information available!

I'll just comment on this, because reading all of that was starting to hurt my melon: "As a stock house, selling only exclusive will limit the quantity and we all know we like to shop in places where you can find more options than just a few."

Another site selling the same stuff everyone else has isn't going to break into any new markets, or be any more successful than anything out there, and will probably be a lot less so.

My apologies... I think I went too far. Sometimes I start to write all my ideas and I forget to be concise, specially with so many ideas in this thread.

What you are saying is completely correct. But you may be underestimating that a simple idea can make a difference, and yet, that idea may not be posted here...(for a reason) Maybe some businesses rather not be "more successful than" and just be successful for the time being... The tread was focused on what a photographer wants from an agency, and the idea of being exclusive is not "ground breaking" and its been there for the longest time. My opinion in that particular case as a contributor, is that you can make more money in the long run by being non exclusive.

But, as mentioned, this is my perception, I might be wrong. Here is my case...

Stock Agency 1: 45%
Stock Agency 2: 50%
Stock Agency 3: 35%
Stock Agency 5: 35%
Stock Agency 6: 40%
Stock Agency 7: 50%
Stock Agency 8: 40%

This is a 295% Against exclusive for 60%..... I still have a 235% to compensate for any loss don't sell on those sites. The difference between exclusive and non exclusive (in terms of percentage) is so small that it is not worth it at least for the microstock photographer. Those who are running exclusive images are the same big group who, in great majority, run the microstocks sites. Those exclusive sites are so exclusive that many of us, microstock contributors would not be accepted in the first place.

I'm not saying one is bad and the other is good, I'm saying this is the path the microstock has taken as it has been proven to work..... so far.

Regards.

But, as mentioned, this is my perception, I might be wrong. Here is my case...

Stock Agency 1: 45%
Stock Agency 2: 50%
Stock Agency 3: 35%
Stock Agency 5: 35%
Stock Agency 6: 40%
Stock Agency 7: 50%
Stock Agency 8: 40%

This is a 295% Against exclusive for 60%..... I still have a 235% to compensate for any loss don't sell on those sites.

Hi photovideo,
The choice of some artists to go exclusive is nothing to do with the commision percentage but the higher amount of revenue that was being returned, one of the biggest agencies pays just 20% non exclusive up to 40% exclusive, this is one of the biggest not because of the poor commission percentage but due the size of the customer base, slightly higher pricing but sheer volume of sales, and it's main competitor is a subscription based service, so it is quite attractive to go exclusive for the extra 20% and less work uploading and waiting for revenue.

Some of the other services with higher percentages have a very low volume and non existent or very slow revenue streams, which makes them less attractive, we all know 20% - 40% of something is better than 50% of nothing, so your perceptions are wrong until on percentages are turned to an amount of revenue that negates the reason for going exclusive.

For a new service we need to know where you pricing is set, and most important is where the customers are coming from, and there needs to be something unique about a new agency other than price point as these are all covered already by existing agencies or collections, why should a new customer use this new service, you say that your existing video clip artists have suggested you start licencing images as well, that is not a big enough reason to move into the market as they will not be your main customers, also they can already contribute images with other website, how big is this existing businesses in the video market, and how many regular customers do you have, how many of these customer could be your potentail market, have you done a survey and asked your customers how many also use images and where they shop.

David 

I would install an IQ-test in front of any constributors upload.
Most of constributors never ever read and understand what they agree to.

Then i would paste and copy some of the threads here and on some other microsites to show the constributors who failed why this was a good idea to protect them from thereselfs.

Afterwards, i would like to give them a little introduction in marketing, advertising, copyrigths and customer sattisfiying...but, thats just for my own fun because nobody would read this anymore after beeing thrown out.

Hi photovideo,
The choice of some artists to go exclusive is nothing to do with the commision percentage but the higher amount of revenue that was being returned, one of the biggest agencies pays just 20% non exclusive up to 40% exclusive, this is one of the biggest not because of the poor commission percentage but due the size of the customer base, slightly higher pricing but sheer volume of sales, and it's main competitor is a subscription based service, so it is quite attractive to go exclusive for the extra 20% and less work uploading and waiting for revenue.

Some of the other services with higher percentages have a very low volume and non existent or very slow revenue streams, which makes them less attractive, we all know 20% - 40% of something is better than 50% of nothing, so your perceptions are wrong until on percentages are turned to an amount of revenue that negates the reason for going exclusive.

For a new service we need to know where you pricing is set, and most important is where the customers are coming from, and there needs to be something unique about a new agency other than price point as these are all covered already by existing agencies or collections, why should a new customer use this new service, you say that your existing video clip artists have suggested you start licencing images as well, that is not a big enough reason to move into the market as they will not be your main customers, also they can already contribute images with other website, how big is this existing businesses in the video market, and how many regular customers do you have, how many of these customer could be your potentail market, have you done a survey and asked your customers how many also use images and where they shop.

David 
[/quote]

-------------------------------------

Hi David,

You are correct, there are some contributors that have chosen to be exclusive, which is another option available, I do not discourage exclusive, my position was why many choose not going exclusive, it will  depend on personal experience as well as other factors. But it would be wise to choose exclusive based on your proposed scenario.

About selling images I couldn't agree more, but I also think that some things at some point don't have to have a "big enough reason" sometimes "any reason" is just enough.

Thanks for your comment! very much appreciated