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 clich� 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

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

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.

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.

That doesn't sound "dead simple" for buyers.  Every picture has a random price.

iStock seems to think that's a good business model.

Quote from: ShadySue on October 03, 2012, 15:36

Quote from: sjlocke on October 03, 2012, 15:11

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.

Quote from: sjlocke on October 03, 2012, 15:52

Quote from: ShadySue on October 03, 2012, 15:36

Quote from: sjlocke on October 03, 2012, 15:11

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. 

...
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 ) 

Quote from: ShadySue on October 03, 2012, 16:16

...
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.

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

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.   

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.

Quote from: jsnover on October 03, 2012, 19:18

@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

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.