pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Following on from the Photographers Collective thread how to proceed

Join together for leaverage
23 (31.9%)
Create a Collective Website
26 (36.1%)
Not Interested Wate of Time
23 (31.9%)

Total Members Voted: 59

Author Topic: Photographers - Collective which Direction  (Read 18530 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

alias

« Reply #25 on: May 09, 2009, 17:34 »
0
Can I mention the broker model again? Works well in other industries.

Definitely add that to my mix ^ above.

We need to break down what an agency actually does before we can find another way of constructing a model which can achieve the same result in a different way.


« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2009, 18:36 »
0
I thought we had an option of teaming up with another site?

« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2009, 00:57 »
0
You didn't add one crucial part in your pool:

4. Stop supporting rip-off agencies ;-)

This option is already a choice every photographer has, the collective is to find a way for photographers to get the best return and have a more contractual price base, when you sign for a website you agree to the T&C at that time, part of these is that the site owners can change the price structure without consultation although you agreed to the prices at the time, if they change them to a level you do not like, then you can leave.

We will not be able to change what the industry charges the client for an image and we would not want to price an image out of the market, so the idea is to find the best return 

David  ;)

« Reply #28 on: May 10, 2009, 01:32 »
0
Can I mention the broker model again? Works well in other industries.

Photographers put images on their own sites.
Photographers set own prices.
Brokers emerge (independent of us and each other)
Brokers catalogue (sorry, I'm Aussie) range of sites and provide search and purchase interface for customer
Broker takes 10% commission for brokering the sale, photographer gets 90%.



I agree with some of this option, we would have to agree a format for this to work.

I have another thread on this forum to discuss this model here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/software-general/using-amazon-s3-for-storage-and-a-proof-of-concept-website/
David
« Last Edit: May 10, 2009, 03:07 by Adeptris »

alias

« Reply #29 on: May 10, 2009, 03:08 »
0
photographers we will just be backing up our images in a structure and to a template for online storage in a format that will allow sales to be generated.

This definitely makes sense. It also makes sense for the photographers to pay for the storage and to need to set up their accounts. This way the bandwidth overheads are shared.

It would be for the 'brokers' to do the QC ?

We need a better word than 'brokers' but I am hesitant to call them agencies :)

« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2009, 03:10 »
0
photographers we will just be backing up our images in a structure and to a template for online storage in a format that will allow sales to be generated.


This definitely makes sense. It also makes sense for the photographers to pay for the storage and to need to set up their accounts. This way the bandwidth overheads are shared.

It would be for the 'brokers' to do the QC ?

We need a better word than 'brokers' but I am hesitant to call them agencies :)


We were posting at the same time, I have a concept thread on this forum here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/software-general/using-amazon-s3-for-storage-and-a-proof-of-concept-website/

David

« Reply #31 on: May 10, 2009, 03:21 »
0
I'm going to keep saying this every few pages in any thread about this subject until I am officially told to shut my gob :)

I do not believe that we should be looking for another agency. I believe that we should be looking for a different model. One that provides an infrastructure, or links existing infrastructure, such that photographers sell direct to the clients.

When the right model emerges all RF images will be sold that way. Possibly all images. It would be something like a set of protocols.
That's excellent idea, but it has it's flaws. Imagine how many of us will try to cheat. I will explain. When I make some photo I have to send it to review. Reviewer will inspect it and hopefully approve it. When the photo is approved, the agency can keep my photo safe from further alterations, so buyers can buy exactly what they saw in thumbnail. Now, imagine I am keeping my photos at my place. I have to send it somewhere for review. After review, the photo must be deleted by reviewer for example, because I will keep the original, and it should be only at my place. After some time, I notice the photo would look better if I apply some noise reduction (for example). Who will stop me of applying noise reduction, or altering the photo in some other way?
Personally I would never do it, but I bet there are many people that will try something like this. Also, there are many people that will try to cheat in some other way. Imagine how many of us has pretty slow internet connection. How many of us will try to re-save their files at lower quality because they want to send them faster to buyers. If sell 20 images today, and every image has 4Mb, I will need approximately 90min. to send them. If this number grows,  I will be in real trouble because I won't be able to upload my new images anymore.

« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2009, 03:37 »
0
You didn't add one crucial part in your pool:

4. Stop supporting rip-off agencies ;-)

This option is already a choice every photographer has, the collective is to find a way for photographers to get the best return and have a more contractual price base, when you sign for a website you agree to the T&C at that time, part of these is that the site owners can change the price structure without consultation although you agreed to the prices at the time, if they change them to a level you do not like, then you can leave.

We will not be able to change what the industry charges the client for an image and we would not want to price an image out of the market, so the idea is to find the best return 

David  ;)

Terms and conditions can also be changed to avoid changes in future made only by agency. It should be our term that they cannot change the price if we don't allow it.

alias

« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2009, 03:51 »
0
That's excellent idea, but it has it's flaws. Imagine how many of us will try to cheat.

I have a potential solution to the problem of cheats. Which is some sort of rating / feedback system. A bit like eBay.

Also - there is no reason why perhaps people could not link to the same image at any of the existing agencies as evidence at least that those sites have already inspected the file.

That is not a flawless solution, I know.

« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2009, 03:56 »
0
That's excellent idea, but it has it's flaws. Imagine how many of us will try to cheat.

I have a potential solution to the problem of cheats. Which is some sort of rating / feedback system. A bit like eBay.

Also - there is no reason why perhaps people could not link to the same image at any of the existing agencies as evidence at least that those sites have already inspected the file.

That is not a flawless solution, I know.

That's a good idea (about rating like on eBay). But now I'm a bit confused about the other part. Aren't we gonna delete our images at other agencies after all?

Milinz

« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2009, 04:03 »
0
That's excellent idea, but it has it's flaws. Imagine how many of us will try to cheat.

I have a potential solution to the problem of cheats. Which is some sort of rating / feedback system. A bit like eBay.

Also - there is no reason why perhaps people could not link to the same image at any of the existing agencies as evidence at least that those sites have already inspected the file.

That is not a flawless solution, I know.

That's a good idea (about rating like on eBay). But now I'm a bit confused about the other part. Aren't we gonna delete our images at other agencies after all?

I already have deleted my images on some extreme agencies as CS or VS... You should start with that too...

BTW, Since I deleted my images from those two I got jump on sales of my images on other places. Also, some ELs and single sales appeared to raise...
That might be coincidence, but it is surely connected with my strong decision not to sell my work cheapest possible!

« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2009, 04:15 »
0
"Aren't we gonna delete our images at other agencies after all?"

This is going to be the hard part...

If all of us are gonna have our own site, how are buyers going to manage the searches among all different layouts and server-speeds?

Thay are already complaining about the existing sites searches. 

I have a really hard time beliving in this.  Its like building the Eiffeltower sitting on a caf ;)




« Reply #37 on: May 10, 2009, 04:20 »
0
"Aren't we gonna delete our images at other agencies after all?"

This is going to be the hard part...

If all of us are gonna have our own site, how are buyers going to manage the searches among all different layouts and server-speeds?

Thay are already complaining about the existing sites searches. 

I have a really hard time beliving in this.  Its like building the Eiffeltower sitting on a caf ;)





Is it possible to keep all previews at one place, and originals at different places, so buyers can browse easily and look at previews?

« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2009, 04:40 »
0
Not with a zoom-feature I guess

« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2009, 04:43 »
0
Lets make a DVD instead?   " Best price - Real Shutterstock and Istock stock Photos" :D   

« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2009, 05:33 »
0
"Aren't we gonna delete our images at other agencies after all?"

This is going to be the hard part...

If all of us are gonna have our own site, how are buyers going to manage the searches among all different layouts and server-speeds?

Thay are already complaining about the existing sites searches. 

I have a really hard time beliving in this.  Its like building the Eiffeltower sitting on a caf ;)

We could all use the same website template and use a few selected servers in our own countries that will be fast to access for local buyers.  I also think a peer to peer system would be worth considering as then all we would have to do is make sure the images are available on a few different hard drives.  It works great for music and those files are similar sizes.

« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2009, 05:36 »
0
"Aren't we gonna delete our images at other agencies after all?"

This is going to be the hard part...

If all of us are gonna have our own site, how are buyers going to manage the searches among all different layouts and server-speeds?

Thay are already complaining about the existing sites searches. 

I have a really hard time beliving in this.  Its like building the Eiffeltower sitting on a caf ;)

We could all use the same website template and use a few selected servers in our own countries that will be fast to access for local buyers.  I also think a peer to peer system would be worth considering as then all we would have to do is make sure the images are available on a few different hard drives.  It works great for music and those files are similar sizes.

Again, if you don't have 15 Kilobytes per second upload speed like me. Imagine some buyer trying to zoom at my image, while some other buyer downloading some other image from me. I wouldn't wait in their place. I would move to another photographer.


« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2009, 06:22 »
0
How much money would we need?  Most of the sites start of small and grow slowly.  None of the new ones have made much money but they probably don't cost much to run.  If there was 1000 of us willing to put in $100, that might be enough to get it started. 

Currently a minimum of 971 more to go then.

alias

« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2009, 07:51 »
0
I also think a peer to peer system would be worth considering as then all we would have to do is make sure the images are available on a few different hard drives.

I would steer clear of peer to peer because:

1. There is no reason why buyers should have to install a special application.

2. Some ISPs block peer to peer.

3. Peer to peer has a built in bad reputation. Sooner or later the word 'piracy' is always attached to it. So bad for marketing.

4. I'm not hosting someone elses files on my hard drive. It is potentially dodgy.

The idea of us buying and paying for our own bandwidth via Amazon S3 is much stronger I believe.


« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2009, 10:27 »
0
Okay, I'm no big player in stock photo, but I believe it would be more useful and safer for the photographers that want to do this if you chose a small agency and worked with the owner to establish a set of 'rules' (I personally would prefer Cutcaster or Featurepics, both fix bugs and problems really fast and dont have some ridiculous review process).

I'm one that lives off my income though, so to delete all of my photos on other agencies, is something I just can not do at this point - on occassion I get hungry and need food.

This would be my idea of how this could also transpire:

1. Upload any new material to the agency exclusively (leave old material on other sites to help with income while trying to establish the collective contributors)

2.  Work with the owner and establish ground rules for the review process, royalties, etc.

Okay, it's early for me and I have only had one cup of coffee, so this is all I have for now.  Will try and post more after more Java.

« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2009, 10:28 »
0
Okay, I'm no big player in stock photo, but I believe it would be more useful and safer for the photographers that want to do this if you chose a small agency and worked with the owner to establish a set of 'rules' (I personally would prefer Cutcaster or Featurepics, both fix bugs and problems really fast and dont have some ridiculous review process).

I'm one that lives off my income though, so to delete all of my photos on other agencies, is something I just can not do at this point - on occassion I get hungry and need food.

This would be my idea of how this could also transpire:

1. Upload any new material to the agency exclusively (leave old material on other sites to help with income while trying to establish the collective contributors)

2.  Work with the owner and establish ground rules for the review process, royalties, etc.

Okay, it's early for me and I have only had one cup of coffee, so this is all I have for now.  Will try and post more after more Java.

Right on!!!

Exclusive images is all it takes.  And leave the work to a small site - going big in no time.  Finally we do what we do best.  shoot!
« Last Edit: May 10, 2009, 10:31 by Magnum »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2009, 12:54 »
0
Okay, I'm no big player in stock photo, but I believe it would be more useful and safer for the photographers that want to do this if you chose a small agency and worked with the owner to establish a set of 'rules' (I personally would prefer Cutcaster or Featurepics, both fix bugs and problems really fast and dont have some ridiculous review process).

I'm one that lives off my income though, so to delete all of my photos on other agencies, is something I just can not do at this point - on occassion I get hungry and need food.

This would be my idea of how this could also transpire:

1. Upload any new material to the agency exclusively (leave old material on other sites to help with income while trying to establish the collective contributors)

2.  Work with the owner and establish ground rules for the review process, royalties, etc.

Okay, it's early for me and I have only had one cup of coffee, so this is all I have for now.  Will try and post more after more Java.

Me Too.  I don't make a living from this but am building toward something to leave behind.  I could work with this approach.

« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2009, 14:08 »
0
Agreed good idea

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2009, 14:13 »
0
Okay, I'm no big player in stock photo, but I believe it would be more useful and safer for the photographers that want to do this if you chose a small agency and worked with the owner to establish a set of 'rules' (I personally would prefer Cutcaster or Featurepics, both fix bugs and problems really fast and dont have some ridiculous review process).

I'm one that lives off my income though, so to delete all of my photos on other agencies, is something I just can not do at this point - on occassion I get hungry and need food.

This would be my idea of how this could also transpire:

1. Upload any new material to the agency exclusively (leave old material on other sites to help with income while trying to establish the collective contributors)

2.  Work with the owner and establish ground rules for the review process, royalties, etc.

Okay, it's early for me and I have only had one cup of coffee, so this is all I have for now.  Will try and post more after more Java.

Amen....I agree 100%. That's pretty much what I said three days ago on the first thread about all this.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #49 on: May 10, 2009, 14:19 »
0
I personally have pics on FP as well as CC and they have only been on there about a month, but I have not made a sale. Proubably because I have the same ones everywhere else.
I beleive if we could sit down and talk with one of these two places and try to set up some kind of separete, but inside their already existing site where they can put our exclusive content....mind you it would be more than the already floating around pics already out there....it would benefit not only them but us as well. If that new content is not going on the old sites the buyers will come our way for new fresh images.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4143 Views
Last post September 16, 2009, 09:36
by Adeptris
89 Replies
19888 Views
Last post April 25, 2011, 04:52
by admin
6 Replies
2337 Views
Last post June 27, 2012, 06:45
by CD123
34 Replies
4706 Views
Last post December 13, 2012, 13:00
by Poncke
10 Replies
2607 Views
Last post January 22, 2014, 19:24
by cascoly

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results