MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: kurtvarner on October 03, 2012, 12:45
-
Hello Everyone,
New member here! I’m posting because I’m building a new stock photography site, and I would love to get your feedback on the idea. We’re hoping to get early feedback to help us create a marketplace that will benefit and meet the needs of the photographers themselves. We think the stock photography industry is broken, and we’re aiming to fix it. Here’s our concept quickly explained.
The marketplace will operate similar to the typical stock site, however, we’re differentiating in a few important areas. First, our focus will be on quality rather than quantity. Instead of making buyers wade through thousands of mediocre and cliché photos, we will only be approving highly creative and beautiful photos (think 500px quality). This would benefit you, as your photos will be easier to discover.
Secondly, we think the revenue share that other stock sites give you is absurd. Instead of starting you at a 15-20% royalty and making you work your way through tiers or selling exclusively, we plan to give all our photographers 60% of every sale. It’s your photo, and we think you deserve the majority of the revenue.
And finally, the pricing model we plan to use is dead simple. You set the price of your photos, and that’s the cost to download. No need for credits, subscriptions or other nonsense.
So, that’s the basic idea. To give you something to visualize, I've included a few screenshots below.
What are your initial thoughts on what I’ve described?
What are the biggest problems in the stock photography industry that you’d like to see solved?
How could we gain your interest in selling in our marketplace?
I truly, truly appreciate any feedback you can provide. We think it’s super important to have photographers involved from the ground up. Feel free to respond here or email me at kurt[at]kurtvarner[dot]com.
Cheers!
- Kurt
(http://i.imgur.com/yRcHr.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/d6geX.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/jWMKV.jpg)
-
boldpixel.com is a domain for sale. Is the name just a placeholder?
How are you planning to market to buyers?
I'm less concerned with the wonderful deal contributors will get - those are easy to have at sites that don't sell - than I am with how you will market to - and appeal to - buyers.
Otherwise, the approach sounds like photocase - be quirky and edgy. I found they didn't care for anything I submitted and they have no contributor feedback other than "no thanks". All the sites say they want "quality" although what that means varies from site to site. And "...creative and beautiful..." are perfectly valid but highly subjective criteria. I completely get that there is a lot of competent but repetitive stuff on the existing microstock sites (and would note that competent and repetitive sells, so don't knock it too hard). How would you give feedback - if at all - in trying to educate contributors as to what it is you would like them to submit?
-
So you are going to sell fine art for stock prices?
Good luck fixing the industry. Just remember, goals need to be SMART;
Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Realistic
Timely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria)
-
We think the stock photography industry is broken, and we’re aiming to fix it.
*Groans* Oh no __ another one.
It must be getting on for a couple of weeks now since the last wannabe new stock site owner declared the stock industry to be 'broken'. It isn't. The stock image industry has probably never been bigger or in better health, certainly from the customers' point of view.
The fact that you are desperate to maintain a small 'high quality' collection suggests that you don't really understand the needs of your potential customer base. They want CHOICE, as much of it as possible, but with accurate search results and low prices (preferably all the same price because that makes it much easier to keep within budgets). That's essentially why SS are trampling all over the competition, btw.
Stock imagery is not about fine-art imagery, as you appear to believe from the examples you have posted, it's about providing for the customer's requirements __ which most often are fairly basic.
-
The images you present are good but they are not fine art, similar imagery can be found in the files of the better RM agencies so its nothing new.
What you aim to repair is the micro industry, isnt it? fine. Throw out 70% of all irrelevant material in all other agencies followed by deleting tens of thousands of hobby photographers accounts followed by wrestling with the giants of SS, IS not to mention Getty. Question is? how many billions of dollars have you got in the purse?
well apart from all this. Dont you think its a bit late in the day?
wishing you luck however.
-
I like the idea. Sure we can already put our photos on Fine Art America, RedBubble etc, but nothing ever sells there, you're just a needle in a giant haystack full of photos of cats, kids and Yellowstone. There has to be a separation of wheat and chaff. On the other hand, I used to have photos on 1x.com but lost interest because the 'jury' was a narrow-minded clique.
One thing I'd like to see is a site dedicated to photography, not Photoshop art. I'm not saying there should be limits on post-processing, just that the site should be aimed at the photographic market, and feature images that at least look like they might be actual photographs. And let's not go totally gonzo with Instagram and cell-phone photos either. That's going to look s-o-o-o dated in a few years.
If you think you have a market for concept/art shots and a way to reach that market, it could be interesting and I'd probably submit a few and see what happens.
-
Hello Everyone,
New member here! I’m posting because I’m building a new stock photography site
Oh good. We've been waiting for you. Nobody else thought of that.
And finally, the pricing model we plan to use is dead simple. You set the price of your photos, and that’s the cost to download. No need for credits, subscriptions or other nonsense.
That doesn't sound "dead simple" for buyers. Every picture has a random price.
Seriously, don't worry about it. Find a different project.
-
And finally, the pricing model we plan to use is dead simple. You set the price of your photos, and that’s the cost to download. No need for credits, subscriptions or other nonsense.
That doesn't sound "dead simple" for buyers. Every picture has a random price.
Seriously, don't worry about it. Find a different project.
I'll be sure to pass this advice on to Wal-Mart. Too many different prices for different products, even ones that technically "do the same thing".
-
That doesn't sound "dead simple" for buyers. Every picture has a random price.
iStock seems to think that's a good business model.
-
That doesn't sound "dead simple" for buyers. Every picture has a random price.
iStock seems to think that's a good business model.
iStock's marketing plan to buyers is not "dead simple" pricing. "Dead Simple" pricing would be $1 for every image. Or whatever.
-
That doesn't sound "dead simple" for buyers. Every picture has a random price.
iStock seems to think that's a good business model.
iStock's marketing plan to buyers is not "dead simple" pricing. "Dead Simple" pricing would be $1 for every image. Or whatever.
My point exactly.
-
That doesn't sound "dead simple" for buyers. Every picture has a random price.
iStock seems to think that's a good business model.
iStock's marketing plan to buyers is not "dead simple" pricing. "Dead Simple" pricing would be $1 for every image. Or whatever.
Reading the "How was your September" thread on the IS forum, I'm not sure 'iStock's marketing plan' is actually working out too well.
-
That doesn't sound "dead simple" for buyers. Every picture has a random price.
iStock seems to think that's a good business model.
iStock's marketing plan to buyers is not "dead simple" pricing. "Dead Simple" pricing would be $1 for every image. Or whatever.
Reading the "How was your September" thread on the IS forum, I'm not sure 'iStock's marketing plan' is actually working out too well.
Oh dear, that was also my point.
I think I was too obtuse. :(
-
But you're such a-cute - ie...;)
-
...
Oh dear, that was also my point.
I think I was too obtuse. :(
It must be the accent :)
(I always hear a lovely Scottish accent, so don't spoil it! if you actually sound all R.P. I don't want to know :) )
-
That doesn't sound "dead simple" for buyers. Every picture has a random price.
iStock seems to think that's a good business model.
iStock's marketing plan to buyers is not "dead simple" pricing. "Dead Simple" pricing would be $1 for every image. Or whatever.
I think ShadySue does have a point there. As a casual buyer it may be also very confusing to understand the various price points of all the images at IS.
Honestly, I submit there and I couldn't even tell you exactly how many differently priced collections they have. Yeah, I may be lazy but it certainly is more than 4.
Having pricing schemes of 4 different collections compared to randomly priced images may not make too much of a difference anymore to the serious buyer as they would have to purchase an image at any given price if they really want it.
-
...
Oh dear, that was also my point.
I think I was too obtuse. :(
It must be the accent :)
(I always hear a lovely Scottish accent, so don't spoil it! if you actually sound all R.P. I don't want to know :) )
Mine isn't any of the many nice ones; it's near enough to Billy Connoly's Glasgow accent, sadly.
-
I think one of the big problems with microstock has been the one-size-fits-all pricing. It's like the "Everything's $1" stores in strip malls. There's a market for niche photos - high-quality images of unusual subjects - that's not being served. Photographers won't produce them if they can't make enough money, on a small number of sales, for it to be worthwhile.
-
From a creative director's point of view i love the idea. To have files selected on a higher artistic quality standard appeals to me. The problem with current sites is the 80% of crap you have to wade through.
The problem is awareness. Do you have the money to promote it? It will take a while to build the portfolio of cherry images.
I say go ahead and build it. You will learn as you go and perhaps it will fly.
Good luck
-
@oxman - do you like photocase? If not, is there currently an agency that has the type of hand-picked work you'd like to see?
-
I second what jsnover says about photocase. When you submit photos you're confident are good, and they're rejected with a vague "not-quite-what-we're-looking-for", you just walk away.
-
@oxman - do you like photocase? If not, is there currently an agency that has the type of hand-picked work you'd like to see?
I was not familiar with them. Just checked them out and typed in "gavel" and it returned a bunch of photos of gravel and no other options... so I feel that site has issues with content.
Regarding quality stock... back in the pre micro days my firm used alot of stock from Tony Stone. That collection had a great feel and creative twist which is lacking in most stock. I'd like to see a micro stock with the style of the old or new Stone work.
http://www.gettyimages.com/creative/frontdoor/stone (http://www.gettyimages.com/creative/frontdoor/stone)
-
Kurt - Once every few weeks someone shows up here wanting to start a micro site. The ideas are usually similar with slight differences. Most of the newer start up sites have proven to be low earning wastes of time that then go out of business after a short time. So, you're probably not going to get much of a warm welcome.
All the startups seem to be missing one key thing. How to attract buyers. And that's the biggest problem. With Shutterstock recently posting it's finances for it's public offering we now have a good idea of what it takes to start up and sustain a successful microstock company. About $20-30 Million a year in sales and marketing costs plus operating and other costs. So if you want everyone's full and committed attention here, or anywhere else, you probably need to be filthy rich or have funding in the tens of millions ready to throw at your business and a solid plan for attracting buyers.
And, in my opinion, what we really need is a new licensing model that disrupts RF, reduces piracy and better compensates contributors. Trying to startup a business with an old model that seems to be faltering probably isn't the best idea. Innovate.
-
Forum is so hard up? that we have to pursue this drivel?
-
@oxman - do you like photocase? If not, is there currently an agency that has the type of hand-picked work you'd like to see?
I was not familiar with them. Just checked them out and typed in "gavel" and it returned a bunch of photos of gravel and no other options... so I feel that site has issues with content.
Regarding quality stock... back in the pre micro days my firm used alot of stock from Tony Stone. That collection had a great feel and creative twist which is lacking in most stock. I'd like to see a micro stock with the style of the old or new Stone work.
[url]http://www.gettyimages.com/creative/frontdoor/stone[/url] ([url]http://www.gettyimages.com/creative/frontdoor/stone[/url])
How many gavel shots has Tony Stone done? If that's the stick you measure "higher artistic quality" by no wonder you can't find what you're looking for.
-
How many gavel shots has Tony Stone done? If that's the stick you measure "higher artistic quality" by no wonder you can't find what you're looking for.
13, but not he himself.
-
@oxman - do you like photocase? If not, is there currently an agency that has the type of hand-picked work you'd like to see?
I was not familiar with them. Just checked them out and typed in "gavel" and it returned a bunch of photos of gravel and no other options... so I feel that site has issues with content.
Regarding quality stock... back in the pre micro days my firm used alot of stock from Tony Stone. That collection had a great feel and creative twist which is lacking in most stock. I'd like to see a micro stock with the style of the old or new Stone work.
[url]http://www.gettyimages.com/creative/frontdoor/stone[/url] ([url]http://www.gettyimages.com/creative/frontdoor/stone[/url])
How many gavel shots has Tony Stone done? If that's the stick you measure "higher artistic quality" by no wonder you can't find what you're looking for.
Just did.
-
Thank you to everyone who commented. I actually really appreciate the negative feedback. After you peal back the top layer of cynicism, it's normally the most helpful. We will be keeping everything in mind as we continue development.
-
New member here! I’m posting because I’m building a new stock photography site, and I would love to get your feedback on the idea. We’re hoping to get early feedback to help us create a marketplace that will benefit and meet the needs of the photographers themselves. We think the stock photography industry is broken, and we’re aiming to fix it. Here’s our concept quickly explained.
Sounds like a decent offering. Hopefully, it works out for you. Are you selling vectors too?
I'd suggest limiting the number of contributors you accept instead of limiting the images you accept. It's an easier goal to keep a smaller number of contributors with large portfolios happy with sales than trying to get sales for thousands of contributors with small portfolios.
-
New member here! I’m posting because I’m building a new stock photography site, and I would love to get your feedback on the idea. We’re hoping to get early feedback to help us create a marketplace that will benefit and meet the needs of the photographers themselves. We think the stock photography industry is broken, and we’re aiming to fix it. Here’s our concept quickly explained.
sounds great, but unfortunately, we've already have a 1/2 dozen or more other companies pass thru here in the last year with the same sort of business plan -- did you read the previous threads here before posting?
you failed to address the main problem this sort of site has -- how is anyone going to find you? what are you going to do that will outweigh the established agencies in search results so that the 60% becomes a significant number? sites like 3Dstudios offer large royalty rates, but theior sales have dropped to almost nothing over the last year; that's ignoring all the sites which never managed to achieve any real amount of sales.
-
New member here! I’m posting because I’m building a new stock photography site, and I would love to get your feedback on the idea. We’re hoping to get early feedback to help us create a marketplace that will benefit and meet the needs of the photographers themselves. We think the stock photography industry is broken, and we’re aiming to fix it. Here’s our concept quickly explained.
Sounds like a decent offering. Hopefully, it works out for you. Are you selling vectors too?
I'd suggest limiting the number of contributors you accept instead of limiting the images you accept. It's an easier goal to keep a smaller number of contributors with large portfolios happy with sales than trying to get sales for thousands of contributors with small portfolios.
You may just have hit the nail on the head! That is how a new site should do it. It is how one of the small illustration sites manages to stay in the top 4 for most people that have gotten in. It also means you are getting feedback from a select few people that know the business rather than loads of noise from people that aren't really pros and aren't producing the goods in any case.
-
I like the idea and the concept, which puts you in direct competition with Pond5, who recently began accepting photos. I determine the price of the largest file, and the system prices the smaller sizes proportionately. I get 50%. I've been selling video there for several years, which means they already have a presence and a customer base, which puts them well ahead of you. I've stopped uploading to all sites except Pond5 and Alamy, and I'm working diligently to get my entire portfolio up on P5. I think it could well be the turn-around of our race to the bottom. I wouldn't want to be their competition because it would take a mammoth marketing effort and budget. But if you're up to the challenge, I certainly wish you every success.
-
@oxman - do you like photocase? If not, is there currently an agency that has the type of hand-picked work you'd like to see?
I was not familiar with them. Just checked them out and typed in "gavel" and it returned a bunch of photos of gravel and no other options... so I feel that site has issues with content.
Regarding quality stock... back in the pre micro days my firm used alot of stock from Tony Stone. That collection had a great feel and creative twist which is lacking in most stock. I'd like to see a micro stock with the style of the old or new Stone work.
[url]http://www.gettyimages.com/creative/frontdoor/stone[/url] ([url]http://www.gettyimages.com/creative/frontdoor/stone[/url])
Ditto! Stone and image-bank, still reigns supreme in every single aspect. Know what the problem is? you simply dont have that kind of photographer nowdays, nor the editors nor the foresight. These people could spend two weeks on just one shot and thats without any photoshopping. In those days it was done by craftsmen, retouching, special-effects the lot. Remember Tea-bagging? you couldnt even get that sort of effect with PS! and pictures sold like hot cakes and for thousands. You could open up a monthly sales-report and there was a neat sum of 10 grand in pounds sterling, others twice as much. Just look at their customers! dozens of the worlds biggest AD-agencies, designers like Conrans, shops like Harrods, Barclays, RR, BMW, range-rover, you name it.
Look at it today? 80% just do isolations and only because they think thats where the money is. Ive seen only one great port of isolations and thats by, RT, brillant, others are just copying.
Differant world, differant ladder.
I do wish the OP best of luck though, anything positive is always worthwhile.
-
:) :) :)
The concensus is similar, the industry is at saturation point.
Hope you find your niche, ive managed to start on a project aimed at a specific market.
-
:) :) :)
The concensus is similar, the industry is at saturation point.
Hope you find your niche, ive managed to start on a project aimed at a specific market.
Oh I found my nieche long ago, back in the film days actually and still holds very, very strong today. However I am not too sure even that is enough in todays stock world.
Buyers, lets say 10-15 years back were quality conscious, some even to the extreme. Today very much thanks to the internet, buyers have become blase, dont really care and just seem to go for any old rubbish as long as its cheap. They are spoilt. This is the downside of todays industry.