MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: larsfrisk on September 08, 2010, 04:10
-
I guess this have been discussed before, but isn't it time to start an International Microstock Union? An organization that could take the fight for us, try to keep royalties up and try to get buyers to think more about what the contributors get at the different microstock sites. They could also contact the media exposing the greedy microstock sites, giving them bad publicity.
We're being treated like slaves, and it's seems it just gets worse and worse (I guess you all know about the recent horrible changes at iStockphoto for instance...). We can't do ANYTHING about changes for the worse, except just sit there and kindly accept getting our royalties lowered over and over again. We have to fight back somehow!
We need the microstock agencies, but they need us just as much. A royalty around 50% would be fair.
There must be someone with english as native language and the right education and experience to start a union! I would GLADLY pay a monthly fee to be a member.
-
Someone also proposed a new stock agency organised as a co-op, by photographers for photographers
I think it's a good idea, in addition or in conjunction to the union.
-
Yeah! That's a great idea! An agency runned by us.
-
Yeah! That's a great idea! An agency runned by us.
I stopped uploading to the new agencies because it's usually a waste of time.
But in this case - an agency runned by us - thinks would be very different: I would subscribe immediately, with a lot of motivation besides immediate results.
It may also be easier to organise the union, starting from our agency.
Of course this takes a lot of technical knowledge and money to start. But free viral marketing by enthusiastic photographers may help a lot.
-
None of these ideas have happened, probably because most of us don't have the time to run a union or a site.
I just think we should keep it simple and only use sites that offer a fair deal to contributors and buyers. It would be easy to have a list of recommended sites and let the others know why we wont use them, so they can make changes if they want our business.
-
Those who run the site would draw a wage from it. This wouldn't be some hippy dippy idea where it would all be done voluntarily. Again, think of the John Lewis model. All contributors would be partners and profits shared amongst them, but those working for the site would still be paid before profits were calculated. It has been shown that a company run like this can out-compete the best companies run along the old model. Workers (us) are a lot more motivated to do their best for a site when they own it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership)
-
Thanks "Microbius", I was thinking about your post I read on another thread when I said "someone" proposed this idea.
The "crap" idea of supporting the fairest agencies is also good. But has its difficulties as well: they are also the less rewarding (in absolute terms). And when I have zero sales (literally) at one agency with the same portfolio which is doing pretty well at the top 4, I feel a bit discouraged. The feeling of belonging to our own agency would overcome this initial problem for me.
EDIT: I didn't write CRAP, someone added it. Are we hacked?
-
I don't think a union is the answer. Taking your business to agencies which treat you properly is the loudest statement you can make. And you can make that statement immediately (or in 30 days if you are exclusive, lol). Forming a union would take much longer, and you would have no assurances that the most important contributors would join or that the most important agencies would adhere to it.
-
It would be so great if this could work. Someone has just said that IStock was the best at working the "community" game and that's why they were successful. The problem is that with a company run by external shareholders the community spirit is just something artificial to be exploited, which eventually kills off the very advantage that it bought.
With a site owned by its contributors there would be a genuine community, where we'd all be partners in the enterprise. A truly crowd sourced company.
-
I would add that I am not angry towards the big commercial sites, expecially those which are pretty fair to us such as SS (despite the low starting price for subs).
And I don't see this proposed new site owned by us as in opposition to them but just as a new model running alongside, which could also influence positively the behaviour of commercial sites as well in the long run.
-
The problem with taking our business to competing sites is that it's only a short term solution.
As soon as the other sites reach a level where they are really successful they get sold off to companies that know how to exploit their contributors (eg. to Getty in the case of Stockxpert or IStock, and in future probably Stockfresh too!) or capitalise on their success by screwing contributors for every penny they can get (Fotolia). That's just how the system works.
Then we have to move again, to some other site that pays great percentages but is unsuccessful and on and on. We never get anywhere.
Edited to add: just read the post above, I'm not angry either, under their model of ownership they have to act as they do, it's best for the shareholders. I just think we should also be acting in our own self-interest.
-
I would start our new site immediately, but I am pretty sure that it would be completely useless.
What we need is a real professional who knows how to run an agency. If done properly, it's not a naive idea but a pretty realistic one.
I would also abandon (not that you proposed it, I just read it somewhere else) the romantic idea of selling at macro prices. Micro is here to stay, it must just be a bit fairer for us.
-
As I see it, there are two keys to any such move being successfull.
1. Being organised
2. Cash
If anything is going to work, key contributors need to be onboard. That means key a high percentage of IS black-diamond and diamond exclusives, not to mention the high-volume independents.
The second key as I see it is some sort of fund which could be used to start a new agency as well as an understanding that key players need to be able to survive without their exclusive income for an extended period.
Either way, now is the time to start saving your pennies for when things get bumpy.
-
IF you want some organization to help there it is:
SAA
http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/ (http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/)
They should be able to show teeth ;-)
-
If we're going to really get this running we need to recruit contributors through facebook and twitter to get our message out.
If we can gather enough "significant contributors' or even enough standard contributors to sign up to the group we can start to have some weight.
Threatening to abandon exclusivity on istock as a response to their latest royalty alterations, just gives them a bigger share of the pie, we need to sign up cont ribtors and go to istock with a list of, say 3000 names saying these people are willing to close their accounts if a fairer system is not realised.
But something needs to be done while the momentum is still here, I'd say this week if someone started a twitter campaign a fair few people would be interested, nothing will do but total withdrawal of contributor accounts from istock.
Ask yourself what is istock without it's contributors? Someone at the top seems to have forgotten that, and are willing to bet that us contributors do not have the balls organise ourselves and fight back. Voices complaining in the forums will not change a single thing, a facebook group with 5000 member of a twitter following will turn some serious heads if we can get the numbers.
-
someone has hacked the site and inserted words in my posts that I can't get rid of!!! I didn't write "crap" term I wrote short term. Leaf, help!!
-
and its happened there too I wrote s h o r t
-
me too:
someone changed my post: The "s ha r p s h o t " idea of supporting the fairest agencies is also good
into: The "crap" idea of supporting the fairest agencies is also good
sorry, it's not me - had this site been hacked?
-
me too:
someone changed my post: The "s ha r p s h o t " idea of supporting the fairest agencies is also good
into: The "crap" idea of supporting the fairest agencies is also good
sorry, it's not me - had this site been hacked?
sorry all... it was a censored words filter gone bad.
I had a setting to change sh*t to crap, but apparently the software took the * as a variable meaning anything starting with sh and ending in t would be changed to crap.
Sorry.. I have fixed it now.
-
that's very funny, and a relief, thanks for clearing that up. Any particular reason why the word sh*t is showing up more on the forums today? ;D
-
what about launching a site called "GETTYSUCKS.com" ?
corporates hate these things....
-
Thanks Leaf for clarifying, I was already imagining scary scenaries :D.
-
We need "MSGstockphoto" agency....
For contributors who will appreciate good working conditions for photographers...
The best contributors with experience will lead the Marketing...
Every photographer will be able to see a financial structure of business...
Also system of ESOP share holders...
Leaf, what are you waiting for, that can be big opportunity for all of us in this crucial moments...??
Many of us are willing to help and participate...
-
it has been suggested many times to create an agency from scratch owned by photographers. Basically, no middlemen.
This happens every time that we hear this kind of announcements from IS or FT. But after a few days people give up because it requires too much efforts.
Are we sure this is not the right time to do it?? Can we do a poll to see who is interested (I apologize but I don't remember if a poll has already been done in the past....)
Best
-
Count me in...I would be up for some kind of co-op arrangement.
Here is a stock site that is for sale...we just need to re-brand it! http://flippa.com/auctions/104239/Creative-Stock-Website (http://flippa.com/auctions/104239/Creative-Stock-Website) ;D
-
Tyler, could you make a stock site for us?
-
First we need seed capital , then it may issue shares.
If each of us paid $ 100 it would have been a large amount to start...
I think that MSG has already brand and some kind of infrastructure for that...
-
I guess this have been discussed before, but isn't it time to start an International Microstock Union? An organization that could take the fight for us, try to keep royalties up and try to get buyers to think more about what the contributors get at the different microstock sites. They could also contact the media exposing the greedy microstock sites, giving them bad publicity.
I'm not a business guru, but a "union" wouldn't work. A union has to have some sort of power - ie., the autoworkers or teachers or whatever stop working and go stand outside. What is a stock union going to say? Stopping a small percentage of uploads for a period of time? The old stuff is still there. The people who don't have a vested interest keep uploading. No one is going to deactivate their entire portfolio for a week.
You'd only have "Bob" at the head of the group saying "We all don't like this idea!", which they (royal they) knew from the start.
-
What we need is to become the majority shareholder of Getty, co-operatively.
That would wield some power!
-
What we need is to become the majority shareholder of Getty, co-operatively.
That would wield some power!
Uh, Getty is privately owned.
-
Bugger! Hadn't thought of that.
-
Count me in...I would be up for some kind of co-op arrangement.
Here is a stock site that is for sale...we just need to re-brand it! [url]http://flippa.com/auctions/104239/Creative-Stock-Website[/url] ([url]http://flippa.com/auctions/104239/Creative-Stock-Website[/url]) ;D
haha, yeah I thought about just that the first time I saw that site for sale.
I certainly think something like a stock co-op would / should still be possible.
Here is what I have been thinking about....
If it was set up so that each person wanting a share in the company had to pay $1000 then the company should be able to raise at least $100,000 in start capital if it looked to be well organized. This would also make people commit to be serious about the project.
Photographers could then sell through the site and get their % of the sales .. something low like 20%.. to keep a heafty amount for the company to make sure it can keep running properly until it gets established. At the end of each year, the profits (except for some operating capital retained in the company) could then be divided up amongst the owners (all the photographers who paid in their $1000) in a ratio directly related to how much they earned for the company ... so basically their % of each sale would be increased.
the people who run the site, do review, etc. would get paid regular wages
But somehow I think the people who were involved at the beginning should be rewarded more than people who come into the company 10 years later when it is successful. Maybe a photographers initial % of a sale could be dependant on the number of years in the company, or the amount of 'extra' income they got at the end of the year could be based on how long they have been involved.
If people were just starting out and didn't have $1000 to invest they could still submit to the site, but wouldn't get the 'profit dispersal' at the end of the year
I think the site would have an advantage because it could invest a lot in advertising because photographers may be willing to take a low cut of the sales in exchange for better future sales and photographers would market the site aggressively as they would be directly benefiting.
I think the problems are that it is a lot of work for someone to organize everything and get the ball rolling. There would also be considerable risk if things didn't pan out. As it would have to be run as a company, the most anyone would loose is their investment of $1000 but there would also be a lot of time lost.
I think one problem would still be cash flow. Even if there was $100,000 to start with, it would get used up very quickly with a years wages for a few people, office rent, advertising, reviews etc.etc.
-
thanks for posting this Leaf.
I hope some people here agrees that a co-op is not an utopian thing. It needs a lot of work but it is definitely the best solution for any microstocker:
-Higher royalties
-no risks of price/royalty cuts
-no aquisitions by third parties that may turn an agency in what istock is now
Honestly, I paid istock so much money in the past years that I'm not afraid to invest in a project like this one. I can't complain on what istock did in return but it's the getty attitude that scares me..... and I can't see a bright future now.
-
But somehow I think the people who were involved at the beginning should be rewarded more than people who come into the company 10 years later when it is successful. Maybe a photographers initial % of a sale could be dependant on the number of years in the company, or the amount of 'extra' income they got at the end of the year could be based on how long they have been involved.
I disagree with this part, for the model to work on an ongoing basis anyone joining would need to be equally valued in relation to their contribution. They would need to feel like partners from the outset or those who started the project would be resented by new people (as well as tempted to up their share over time).
Maybe the initial investment should be paid back at an agreed rate of interest as a percentage of profits till it's cleared.
-
But somehow I think the people who were involved at the beginning should be rewarded more than people who come into the company 10 years later when it is successful. Maybe a photographers initial % of a sale could be dependant on the number of years in the company, or the amount of 'extra' income they got at the end of the year could be based on how long they have been involved.
I disagree with this part, for the model to work on an ongoing basis anyone joining would need to be equally valued in relation to their contribution. They would need to feel like partners from the outset or those who started the project would be resented by new people (as well as tempted to up their share over time).
Maybe the initial investment should be paid back at an agreed rate of interest as a percentage of profits till it's cleared.
Limited number of shareholders (partners) and end of the year return would be based on the number of months they had been a shareholder. 9 months would be a 9/12th share for example. I suppose shares could change in value based on the value of the company, which would be more like the real world, instead of flat rate. You have the IPO and then the stock/shares fluctuate based on the value of the business. Flat rate doesn't work.
I guess this have been discussed before, but isn't it time to start an International Microstock Union? An organization that could take the fight for us, try to keep royalties up and try to get buyers to think more about what the contributors get at the different microstock sites. They could also contact the media exposing the greedy microstock sites, giving them bad publicity.
I'm not a business guru, but a "union" wouldn't work. A union has to have some sort of power - ie., the autoworkers or teachers or whatever stop working and go stand outside. What is a stock union going to say? Stopping a small percentage of uploads for a period of time? The old stuff is still there. The people who don't have a vested interest keep uploading. No one is going to deactivate their entire portfolio for a week.
You'd only have "Bob" at the head of the group saying "We all don't like this idea!", which they (royal they) knew from the start.
Exactly why this topic comes and goes without any change. The "union" has no teeth to bite the agencies. Going on strike (stop uploading) does almost nothing because there are too many images already online. No one is going to deactivate or remove all their images, especially it would need the top contributors to join and do this, certainly not people like myself.
How does the union control non-members? They will just take advantage of the opening to make more sales. There are too many hungry people who are happy with the commissions and treatment that microstock photographers get, no matter what the agencies do or change. Proof is the changes we've seen in the recent years and no one drops the agencies that pull these tricks. They know that people are willing to work for pennies and low commission, it's already a proven point.
We're in a price war, the buyers want to pay less, the agencies want to make more on lower priced sales, it all comes down to artists getting the short end of the stick, changing levels, lowered commissions, and forming a paper union with no power, won't change anything.
Co-op sounds interesting but players will need to remove all their images from all of the lower priced competition. It does nothing, the same products are all for sale for less on 28 other sites. :(
-
I agree that a union is impossible. We don't even agree with the simplest aspects here.
A group of photographers joining to create their own site is possible. It needs however a lot of work to make this successful. One should accept to lose money for a while before having a return. Are we all willing to take that risk?
-
Unionstock.com domain is for sale. Coopstock.com is owned by Jupiterimages. Getty saw this coming, and nipped it by the bud.
-
As a few people know here, I'm working on a stock guild site. The scripts aren't ready yet for easy upload. It won't be a direct sales site but merely present a link to existing agencies. The purpose is to catch random traffic from Google etc... I have some indications that this tactic can work.
Setting up a multi-photographer stock site is very easy to do actually, and with total financial transparency. The problem will be server load when it expands. The scripts I have don't account for server load.
The initial investment is under 500$, the hosting might be 2-300$ per year. Consider Photoshelter (330$) and Smugmug (150$) per year with commissions 9-15%. Did those do anybody any good? Overview here (http://flemishdreams.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=121).
To get any substantial earnings from it (pricing at 20$), it needs exclusive content or picscout and other aps in the making will find out. Moreover, anybody running the site will be perceived as a competitor by the existing stock sites, and personally, I don't like to give up my earnings and karma at DT or SS. Because, they will retaliate (rightly so).
-
I agree that a union is impossible. We don't even agree with the simplest aspects here.
A group of photographers joining to create their own site is possible. It needs however a lot of work to make this successful. One should accept to lose money for a while before having a return. Are we all willing to take that risk?
I don't know if kicking around ideas and thoughts is really "disagreeing", I see it more as brainstorming with differences of opinion. :D
Yes, people would have to expect to invest, remove images from the competition and probably lose money for awhile. In the end the site could work and could make more money for the members, but there is risk and taking a cut for some time before the profits would increase.
If the artists aren't willing to be exclusive and independent of the major agencies, it's futile. It would take some major artists to make a difference. Then the question of, what happens if it does work and the agencies change their ways? Does everyone go back and the union co-op becomes unprofitable again?
That's why I am of the opinion that it will never work. Too many hungry people, willing to work for small percentages. Too much risk for those depending on Micro income.
-
I agree that a union is impossible. We don't even agree with the simplest aspects here.
A group of photographers joining to create their own site is possible. It needs however a lot of work to make this successful. One should accept to lose money for a while before having a return. Are we all willing to take that risk?
Is it more risky than accepting everything from an agency? I love my job and I would hate to see things going even worst than this in 2 or 3 years.
I'm confident that a coop may work in the mid run if many of us will join it! More will come because no other agencies can offer the same royalties (i.e. all profits-costs)
-
I'd contribute and join just for the profit sharing part. Not that anything of my own would sell or be accepted. ;)
I agree that a union is impossible. We don't even agree with the simplest aspects here.
A group of photographers joining to create their own site is possible. It needs however a lot of work to make this successful. One should accept to lose money for a while before having a return. Are we all willing to take that risk?
Is it more risky than accepting everything from an agency? I love my job and I would hate to see things going even worst than this in 2 or 3 years.
I'm confident that a coop may work in the mid run if many of us will join it! More will come because no other agencies can offer the same royalties (i.e. all profits-costs)
-
Unionstock.com domain is for sale. Coopstock.com is owned by Jupiterimages. Getty saw this coming, and nipped it by the bud.
Those are bad names from a SEO point of view. They emphasize how contributors are organized (coop, union). A buyer couldn't care less. He wants his images, even if the contributor gets only 1 cent. Any site has to be buyer-oriented and not contributor-oriented, and should have the advantage for the buyer in its name. TopStockImages would be a good choice but somebody took it right before my nose. :P
Often, people are putting the horses before the carriage. Everybody likes to talk about organization, commissions, financials, marketing, a feelgood union - but the main point is USP. You first have to define your goals in the landscape of existing stock agencies and define what sets you apart from them. It won't be another instance of Yuri's port (pun intended, StockFresh).
Any new stock site won't work because it's old wine in new wineskins. Even with the very deep pockets of DepositFiles, DepositPhotos can't break into a market that is taken already. How the site is organized doesn't matter to buyers, whether it's a feelgood coop or a bunch of sharks from Getty. Buyers don't care.
Yes there are a few USP's and one of the properties will be exclusive content. I don't see many high-profile contributors giving up 10 birds in their hand for 1 bird in the sky. ;)
If anybody is going to put there content that is already on a gazillion other sites at wildly different price points, it won't work.
Avava (Jonathan Ross) put a message here in this thread and it has been neglected. He offers some USP.
-
We don't need a union.
We need people to make smarter decisions about who they work with and what their involvement is in any agency.
I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading on the istock forum from non-exclusive contributors. Most susprising is the stuff I'm reading not directly related to the royalty issue. For example, I've seen a few posts about people are changing their direct links to images on istock over to other sites as a form of protest. Why . were non-exclusive artists ever linking directly to images on istock?
We need people to be a little smarter with their work and how they promote it. We should be supporting sites that pay fair rates and we should promote our images on those sites only. Stop posting referral links to istock or any other site that offers abusive royalty rates.
A union isn't going to stop people from doing stupid things. The best thing we can do is be more vocal in these public forums about how to promote your work in a way that supports ethical practices at good companies. Stop supporting istock, linking to istock, and referring buyers to istock.
Do start linking to sites that pay high percentages, sites that treat contributors fairly, and sites that offer buyers better prices and simple pricing structures (no more exclusive, exclusive plus, vetta, crap like that).
We don't need a union to fight for us. We just need to make smarter decisions and be more responsible for our actions. Can we really be all that surprised that istock is cutting rates? They jack up prices, constantly make changes that hurt contributors, and yet we continue to link to them, buy from them, and send new customers to them. They've been sitting in their big offices thinking, "Hey, look! We can treat our contributors like crap and they just keep taking it! They love us for it! They keep sending new buyers to us!"
Enough already. Let's face facts here. istock is overpriced and undercuts artists. There's only one winner at this company, and it's not us or the buyers.
And we don't need a union to tell us that or to do something about it.
-
Maybe we can buy ads at Google AdWords?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/7FRwCs99DWg[/youtube]
The guy from video claims he paid $6 to have its add on a top. So maybe its cheap way to put short info about Getty :-)
-
Maybe we can buy ads at Google AdWords?
The guy from video claims he paid $6 to have its add on a top. So maybe its cheap way to put short info about Getty :-)
He was targeting very specific names, so didn't have to pay much per click. Targeting searches for "Getty" would be rather expensive.
-
I guess this have been discussed before, but isn't it time to start an International Microstock Union? An organization that could take the fight for us, try to keep royalties up and try to get buyers to think more about what the contributors get at the different microstock sites. They could also contact the media exposing the greedy microstock sites, giving them bad publicity.
I'm not a business guru, but a "union" wouldn't work. A union has to have some sort of power - ie., the autoworkers or teachers or whatever stop working and go stand outside. What is a stock union going to say? Stopping a small percentage of uploads for a period of time? The old stuff is still there. The people who don't have a vested interest keep uploading. No one is going to deactivate their entire portfolio for a week.
You'd only have "Bob" at the head of the group saying "We all don't like this idea!", which they (royal they) knew from the start.
Union should make incorporating stock agencies countries to legislate this problems. That is why union and how union. So, Union means that we all pay our taxes and want to be protected from corporate theft on our works. It is doable but very hard! Union should become strong political movement regarding these issues. But, designers can help us create union and even join in. So, then corporations will scratch their heads twice before they do anything with "minus" word in announcements ;-)
-
I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading on the istock forum from non-exclusive contributors. Most susprising is the stuff I'm reading not directly related to the royalty issue. For example, I've seen a few posts about people are changing their direct links to images on istock over to other sites as a form of protest. Why . were non-exclusive artists ever linking directly to images on istock?
Well, I am one that mentioned changing direct links. I don't yet have a site that direct links to anywhere, but have been taking steps toward getting one. I was deciding which site to link to and this just put IS out of consideration.
I also mentioned having an Istock link on my business cards. The reason for that is that Istock allows the most customization of the profile page. I put in a lot of time in early days organizing things into lightboxes for easy access from the profile page, so from that standpoint I have a nice little store front set up on IS that was convenient to link to. Obviously now I would be much better reprinting business cards with links to FT and/or DT instead regardless of the profile page.
-
Often, people are putting the horses before the carriage. Everybody likes to talk about organization, commissions, financials, marketing, a feelgood union - but the main point is USP. You first have to define your goals in the landscape of existing stock agencies and define what sets you apart from them. It won't be another instance of Yuri's port (pun intended, StockFresh).
Any new stock site won't work because it's old wine in new wineskins. Even with the very deep pockets of DepositFiles, DepositPhotos can't break into a market that is taken already. How the site is organized doesn't matter to buyers, whether it's a feelgood coop or a bunch of sharks from Getty. Buyers don't care.
I think this is the right way of thinking. Labor Unions work because, as has been pointed out, they have teeth, special powers granted them by laws.
But if we think in terms of a business, business organization models exist which have been used for many years, and are known to work, such as limited partnerships, and so on. No need to reinvent the wheel to figure out who does what and why. And business concepts, such as USP, provide ways to think about how we might begin to find a way to thrive and grow in the microstock marketplace.
A business startup is a better idea than starting a union.
-
Moreover, anybody running the site will be perceived as a competitor by the existing stock sites, and personally, I don't like to give up my earnings and karma at DT or SS. Because, they will retaliate (rightly so).
This is a very serious issue indeed. While I am ready to invest (and possibly lose) $1000 on a project I trust, I am not ready to resign from the major sites, it would be an unsustainable loss for me.
-
We need people to be a little smarter with their work and how they promote it. We should be supporting sites that pay fair rates and we should promote our images on those sites only. Stop posting referral links to istock or any other site that offers abusive royalty rates.
A union isn't going to stop people from doing stupid things. The best thing we can do is be more vocal in these public forums about how to promote your work in a way that supports ethical practices at good companies. Stop supporting istock, linking to istock, and referring buyers to istock.
Do start linking to sites that pay high percentages, sites that treat contributors fairly, and sites that offer buyers better prices and simple pricing structures (no more exclusive, exclusive plus, vetta, crap like that).
Just removed my iStock link, Yay and Alamy left (50 % commission): http://fotonaut.no/priser/ (http://fotonaut.no/priser/)
-
Well, I am one that mentioned changing direct links...
Sorry Lisa, should have clarified. I was referring to people who send buyers a direct link to a specific image. Which, of course, you could still do just out of convenience, or using the same logic regarding the lightboxes (direct a buyer to a lightbox of similar images instead of a single image). And the business card thing I think a lot of people did, maybe because exclusives had cards so why not us non-exclusives, too.
But I do think it's a little crazy to link to a single image, directing a buyer to an image you know they are going to buy, at a site that will pay 20% of that sale. When most of us are already involved with sites that pay much more and could just as easily send the buyer to that other site that will pay 30%, 40%, 50% or more.
I think maybe a lot of people, you included, did link some things to istock without even thinking much about it. Hell, I did the same at one point. And when exclusives were getting their business cards, I did think to myself, "Well that's silly, I can get cards printed at Overnightprints.com for $40 with an istock referral link on them.
That was all also a few years ago. Obviously the game has changed quite a bit, especially in light of recent announcements.
In the context of whether we should be forming a union or not, I still vote no. And as mentioned earlier, I think we can do more good by making changes to the way we do business with istock and how we regard them as the top of the heap in microstock, when clearly they should no longer be regarded in such a way.
-
@Leaf: have you thought of doing it as an offshoot of MSG ? You already exist. This could be the hub of the new site. Everyone is here already. Maybe what you are thinking and what FD is thinking is complimentary.
Initial inspection ? Easy: peer review - provide a link showing that another site we all respect has already accepted it. That will cover the first 5 million images at least :) Fastest growing site in history. Will it scale ? Will the bandwidth be too expensive ?
-
Well, I am one that mentioned changing direct links...
But I do think it's a little crazy to link to a single image, directing a buyer to an image you know they are going to buy, at a site that will pay 20% of that sale. When most of us are already involved with sites that pay much more and could just as easily send the buyer to that other site that will pay 30%, 40%, 50% or more.
I think it's a little crazy to link any image you have promoted to any agency. Would it not be better to sell it yourself?
-
Moreover, anybody running the site will be perceived as a competitor by the existing stock sites, and personally, I don't like to give up my earnings and karma at DT or SS. Because, they will retaliate (rightly so).
This is a very serious issue indeed. While I am ready to invest (and possibly lose) $1000 on a project I trust, I am not ready to resign from the major sites, it would be an unsustainable loss for me.
I think that both you and FD made very good points. It's true that a new stock site needs exclusive contents in order to stand out and on the other hand that it's too risky to quit all major sites. My incomes depend on stock photography and microstock is still my core business.
Said that, I really hope that a coop will be put in place next time one of the big4 will come up with a royalty cut ;)
Thinking loudly....instead of resigning from all agencies, what about stop uploading there and give all our contents (old and new) to the coop site?
Any idea is welcome!
-
And as mentioned earlier, I think we can do more good by making changes to the way we do business with istock and how we regard them as the top of the heap in microstock, when clearly they should no longer be regarded in such a way.
The problem is when I get my check every month, they are top of the heap. It would be great for these others sites with better policies to overtake the big 4, but that isn't happening without us packing up our toys and leaving. I suppose the path of least risk would be to stop feeding the beasts and feed the young and promising agencies. That may go against the independent spirit of everyone gets everything though. I guess you could try a variety of exclusive collections at individual agencies too (ones that offer image exclusivity). With things being slow this year and more and more agencies pulling BS, I've been thinking more and more about strategies for the future.
-
@Leaf: have you thought of doing it as an offshoot of MSG ? You already exist. This could be the hub of the new site. Everyone is here already. Maybe what you are thinking and what FD is thinking is complimentary.
Initial inspection ? Easy: peer review - provide a link showing that another site we all respect has already accepted it. That will cover the first 5 million images at least :) Fastest growing site in history. Will it scale ? Will the bandwidth be too expensive ?
Really excellent ideas. (Maybe Alias is not an IS spy after all?) MSG is UGC, a stock site would be a natural outgrowth.
Is startup capital is needed, if half of the top 2% of microstockers put in $1000 each, for one share in the new venture, that would be a sizable sum to start off with. The shareholders would have self-serving reasons to make sure that they uploaded their ports to the site as quickly as possible, and in helping the venture succeed in other ways.
-
I think it's a little crazy to link any image you have promoted to any agency. Would it not be better to sell it yourself?
Right, obviously, and I do (http://www.openpathdesign.com/store.html). But it's not always feasible. Some clients want to license an image from a reputable company, and while I consider myself reputable, I'm not an incorporated company.
Whenever someone contacts me directly about an image, I try to sell them directly. But I'm not going to say "no" if they ask to buy through an agency, and if I have a choice in the matter, I'll send them to the agency that give me the biggest cut.
-
I think that "share holding macro+micro agency" for photographers is a very good idea, better than Union...
The idea of the union will be "operating principle" of that new agency...
Also to allow new photographers in the future to purchase new shares from the agency through the IPO...That will be new money for development...
Then all profit will be (after all costs, marketing, servers, etc.) in hands of a photographers, and imagine the future and impact on the development of this business in general... :o :o :o
-
Exactly.
I imagine myself in the place of Getty/IS management watching this thread and the others which propose threats to me. Which threats really scare me?
2. The threat of a campaign by thousands of microstock creators smearing Getty and IS in the eyes of graphics designers, as a company which unfairly exploits artists. Every company which sells the the public has to worry about PR and many spend millions on it. This kind of PR cannot be good for Getty.
1. Microstockers start a new company to sell their images in a new and better way. It's how iStock got started, and changed the whole world of RF image licensing, and not in a way that was good for Getty. If I were Getty (and SS and DT and so on) this would scare me the most.
"Getty bought a community. That was what crowd-sourcing was all about. That was why IS was such a thing. That is still where the next opportunity lies." Alias, http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/200/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/200/)
"...The only hope is that in our connected world things change so quickly that a much better alternative for photographers might arise at any given point. The middle man is taking now the largest straw......but for how long ?" Cristian http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/225/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/225/)
I think that "share holding macro+micro agency" for photographers is a very good idea, better than Union...
The idea of the union will be "operating principle" of that new agency...
Also to allow new photographers in the future to purchase new shares from the agency through the IPO...That will be new money for development...
Then all profit will be (after all costs, marketing, servers, etc.) in hands of a photographers, and imagine the future and impact on the development of this business in general... :o :o :o
-
I think it's a little crazy to link any image you have promoted to any agency. Would it not be better to sell it yourself?
Right, obviously, and I do ([url]http://www.openpathdesign.com/store.html[/url]). But it's not always feasible. Some clients want to license an image from a reputable company, and while I consider myself reputable, I'm not an incorporated company.
Whenever someone contacts me directly about an image, I try to sell them directly. But I'm not going to say "no" if they ask to buy through an agency, and if I have a choice in the matter, I'll send them to the agency that give me the biggest cut.
Why not use photoshelter, photodeck, clustershot etc.?
-
instead of resigning from all agencies, what about stop uploading there and give all our contents (old and new) to the coop site?
Any idea is welcome!
I think this is actually the way to go. As I already said, I am not angry with existing agencies: they're just doing their interests, each in a more or less acceptable way for us contributors; I'm looking for any means to do our own interests as well.
I wouldn't even stop uploading to them; the important thing is to upload to the new coop site as well: full portfolio, not just exclusive images (which is unsustainable); and maybe even resuming uploads to minor existing sites: although I promised to myself long ago to stop uploading to minor sites - and I actually did - as they are presently a waste of time, maybe it's time to give them a chance again, not looking for immediate results but thinking to long term.
I am not looking for revenge, I am looking for a long term sustainable future for us in microstock: this means moving slowly towards a better model, but in the meanwhile we must take care not to damage ourself too much; microstock is an important revenue for many of us, and destroying the current system before a new better one is ready means starving. And while we're starving, it's difficult to have the strenght to fight for a better future.
-
Would be a nice Idear. I suggest it to be based in Denmark, as a Coop under danish regulations are taxfree.
Yuri is based i Aarhus, Denmark - he's the kind of person who has to drive to launch a thing like this.
50%50% split - 10% of earning reserved for payout after 12 months - to further found the coop - a 100 $ downpayment for a part of the coop, and the right to contribute pictures. Alternatively the firs 100$ in earnings to to buy you in.
A good stockcompagny - micro or not - stands or falls with it's abaility to marketing the content. IS has been very good at this, but a coop could be e really good idear, and very strong finansially.
-
Ok! We need the best country to register "the company"... Denmark is quite good... ;)
Also we don't need completely new shell. Probably there is on market, one surviving agency with needed infrastructure "servers, office etc.)
Then collect initial capital from photographers, issuance of shares of the first round, new brand and logo, etc.
Idea of 50%-50% is ok, all those earnings that remain in the agency ( the other 50 % ) will be back anyway to photographers through annual dividend ... Of course, after tax, marketing, maintenance etc.
Transparent agency for every photographer all the time...
Also , protection from "hostile takeover" through a contract that will guarantee 51% of shares remain in the hands of photographers constantly...
-
Yay has been kind enough to outline how they have built their system upon open source: http://yaymicro.com/view.action?page=open_source_stock_photo_yaymicro (http://yaymicro.com/view.action?page=open_source_stock_photo_yaymicro)
-
I think this is actually the way to go. As I already said, I am not angry with existing agencies: they're just doing their interests, each in a more or less acceptable way for us contributors; I'm looking for any means to do our own interests as well.
The main admin and the driving members of such a coop can kiss their ports goodbye on DT and SS. Anything a contributor can do is steer his sales to the best sites by catching random traffic by soaring on the free thermals of Google. If you start a competitive site, you will have to soar on expensive fuel under "enemy" fire.
-
Yay has been kind enough to outline how they have built their system upon open source: [url]http://yaymicro.com/view.action?page=open_source_stock_photo_yaymicro[/url] ([url]http://yaymicro.com/view.action?page=open_source_stock_photo_yaymicro[/url])
Great link, I had no idea.
I don't know anything about the business climate or structure in Denmark, but the rest of Borg's ideas seem well worth thinking about. Now might be the perfect time to start a new stock agency.
It's possible that microstock is about to undergo major changes. If Paypal does what they have announced here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_paypal_micropayments (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_paypal_micropayments)
then the subscription and credit models may become unnecessary. Why would buyers buy sets of credit or subscribe if single images can be sold for a very low transaction fee? I know a lot of people do not like Paypal, but the credit card companies/banks have similar micropayment products in the works.
And like FD-Regular, plan to use Google for your search engine in part, or maybe in whole eventually. And like Alias said, don't pay reviewers, just accept images which have been reviewed elsewhere. These things might make your costs so low that you could actually undercut the current agencies on price and still make a profit for investors, and pay contributors a fair percentage, near 50%.
"The main admin and the driving members of such a coop can kiss their ports goodbye on DT and SS." FD-Regular
Would we have to make the names of the investing/owning contributors public?
-
i think instead of starting a brand new co-op, or at least till it's set up (at some indeterminate future), we should just negotiate with an agency already up and running, and throw ALL our support to them. right now, the two candidate are cutcaster and stockfresh for their higher commissions and their vast experience.
so, if one can't be king, we can still be the king maker.
-
i think instead of starting a brand new co-op, or at least till it's set up (at some indeterminate future), we should just negotiate with an agency already up and running, and throw ALL our support to them. right now, the two candidate are cutcaster and stockfresh for their higher commissions and their vast experience.
so, if one can't be king, we can still be the king maker.
I think StockFresh stands a better chance. No offense to John, but Cutcaster isn't exactly making any progress these days.
-
i think instead of starting a brand new co-op, or at least till it's set up (at some indeterminate future), we should just negotiate with an agency already up and running, and throw ALL our support to them. right now, the two candidate are cutcaster and stockfresh for their higher commissions and their vast experience.
so, if one can't be king, we can still be the king maker.
Problem is; how to guarante the new king won't be sold to Getty once it has momentum. History speaks against Stockfresh in that regard.
-
that's where the negotiations come in. we as microstockers/photographers must come into agreement about what our relationship with the agency should be and how the agency should be accountable to us. an agency on their balls may see this as a great opportunity to capture a significant size of the market, right now.
-
i think instead of starting a brand new co-op, or at least till it's set up (at some indeterminate future), we should just negotiate with an agency already up and running, and throw ALL our support to them. right now, the two candidate are cutcaster and stockfresh for their higher commissions and their vast experience.
so, if one can't be king, we can still be the king maker.
Problem is; how to guarante the new king won't be sold to Getty once it has momentum. History speaks against Stockfresh in that regard.
Good point ;D
If we are to be kingmakers, my vote for king would be GL. I've already earned a payout at GL, in half the time I have been waiting to be accepted at StockFresh. And I have dealt with a GL person and know a bit about their organization and they are good people.
But I don't like kings, and would prefer to establish a republic, and get rich. I guess that's the American in me.
-
@Leaf: have you thought of doing it as an offshoot of MSG ? You already exist. This could be the hub of the new site. Everyone is here already. Maybe what you are thinking and what FD is thinking is complimentary.
Initial inspection ? Easy: peer review - provide a link showing that another site we all respect has already accepted it. That will cover the first 5 million images at least :) Fastest growing site in history. Will it scale ? Will the bandwidth be too expensive ?
Even though MicrostockGroup itself has a neutral stance on things it it still owned by me so I think having an off-shoot stock site that was a co-op would be a clash of interests. A co-op should be totally independent unto itself and not an off-shoot of someone's site.
That said, MicrostockGroup would definitely support it.
-
i think instead of starting a brand new co-op, or at least till it's set up (at some indeterminate future), we should just negotiate with an agency already up and running, and throw ALL our support to them. right now, the two candidate are cutcaster and stockfresh for their higher commissions and their vast experience.
so, if one can't be king, we can still be the king maker.
I think StockFresh stands a better chance. No offense to John, but Cutcaster isn't exactly making any progress these days.
I wonder if they would want to sell StockFresh to a crowd of eager microstockers ;)
I think this is actually the way to go. As I already said, I am not angry with existing agencies: they're just doing their interests, each in a more or less acceptable way for us contributors; I'm looking for any means to do our own interests as well.
The main admin and the driving members of such a coop can kiss their ports goodbye on DT and SS. Anything a contributor can do is steer his sales to the best sites by catching random traffic by soaring on the free thermals of Google. If you start a competitive site, you will have to soar on expensive fuel under "enemy" fire.
Yeah, this would keep me treading quite carefully too. I make my living from Microstock and am dependent on it.
-
I wonder if they would want to sell StockFresh to a crowd of eager microstockers
They are so worried we could buy them that they don't even allow us inside :D
Yeah, this would keep me treading quite carefully too. I make my living from Microstock and am dependent on it.
Me too. That's probably why we will never start a new agency despite our dreams expressed here.
However, supporting the low-earners is something we can do.
-
I agree that a union is impossible. We don't even agree with the simplest aspects here.
A group of photographers joining to create their own site is possible. It needs however a lot of work to make this successful. One should accept to lose money for a while before having a return. Are we all willing to take that risk?
Is it more risky than accepting everything from an agency?
I am not saying this is not a good idea, but people must accept a commitment without expecting a low term result. As others saids, the best thing would be having exclusive images - another strong commitment. I remember at some point in the past, when this idea was discussed, a proposition of a 6-month exclusivity period.
There are many aspects to be discussed to create a new company, especially a coop. There are legal, financial and commercial aspects. Maybe not a difficult thing when we talk about 10 people living in the same area (EEC, for instance), but a bit more complicate when we talk about a few dozen members in many different countries with portfolios varying in size and subject.
-
@Leaf: have you thought of doing it as an offshoot of MSG ? You already exist. This could be the hub of the new site. Everyone is here already. Maybe what you are thinking and what FD is thinking is complimentary.
Initial inspection ? Easy: peer review - provide a link showing that another site we all respect has already accepted it. That will cover the first 5 million images at least :) Fastest growing site in history. Will it scale ? Will the bandwidth be too expensive ?
Really excellent ideas. (Maybe Alias is not an IS spy after all?) MSG is UGC, a stock site would be a natural outgrowth.
Is startup capital is needed, if half of the top 2% of microstockers put in $1000 each, for one share in the new venture, that would be a sizable sum to start off with. The shareholders would have self-serving reasons to make sure that they uploaded their ports to the site as quickly as possible, and in helping the venture succeed in other ways.
I'm not at all anywhere close to the top of anything, but this sounds like a good investment. Please let me know if you want my money in return for some type of shares. ;)
Approximately 1/4 of the supermarkets in Norway are owned by a major coop (called coop). Each customer pays 300 kroner (50UDS) for a membership, and get a 1% return on what they spend there. I have the impression that profits are quite good. There are also several major food brands owned by farmer coops. Coops work.
-
Why not use photoshelter, photodeck, clustershot etc.?
Featurepics, perhaps? They have maybe all the programming we need, maybe a negotiation can be achieved.
-
Approximately 1/4 of the supermarkets in Norway are owned by a major coop (called coop). Each customer pays 300 kroner (50UDS) for a membership, and get a 1% return on what they spend there. I have the impression that profits are quite good. There are also several major food brands owned by farmer coops. Coops work.
For years I had a policy with an insurance company owned by policy holders. I got dividends and when it was bought by another company I got $4000. I think there are all kinds of business models for this kind of thing, and the owners living in different countries might make it harder but maybe not impossible.
I wonder how many of us who are serious about microstock as a business might be interested in part ownership in an agency. I really think the time might be right, with IS possibly imploding before our eyes, and lots of refugees open to new ideas.
Maybe it's too bad this thread is titled about a union.
-
I guess this have been discussed before, but isn't it time to start an International Microstock Union? An organization that could take the fight for us, try to keep royalties up and try to get buyers to think more about what the contributors get at the different microstock sites. They could also contact the media exposing the greedy microstock sites, giving them bad publicity.
I'm not a business guru, but a "union" wouldn't work. A union has to have some sort of power - ie., the autoworkers or teachers or whatever stop working and go stand outside. What is a stock union going to say? Stopping a small percentage of uploads for a period of time? The old stuff is still there. The people who don't have a vested interest keep uploading. No one is going to deactivate their entire portfolio for a week.
You'd only have "Bob" at the head of the group saying "We all don't like this idea!", which they (royal they) knew from the start.
Exactly right. If there is no power, then you're basically at the whim of the company.
Strikes work because workers have realised that sometimes they need to forgo some pay to force an employer to give them a bigger pay increase or better benefits than they'd otherwise have had. There is risk on both sides: for the workers the risk is that the employer can hold out and they're basically just loose out for nothing. For the employer the risk can be as extreme as bankruptcy.
In theory if every microstocker - or a significant enough percentage - could be organised to take the same action - eg. removing all images from a given agency, you'd have real bargaining power to get what you want. The risk for an agency would be that they don't have any material to sell. If say 50% of images disappeared from an agency overnight, I suspect most buyers would notice.
BUT... then of course there's reality. The difficulty we have is that when it comes to getting organised, we'd be lucky to get together a small fraction of the contributors that matter. If we did, getting them to agree to what form of action to take, let alone take it... very difficult odds.
-
Problem is; how to guarante the new king won't be sold to Getty once it has momentum. History speaks against Stockfresh in that regard.
Well we can't be sure that any of the sites we deal with won't be sold. Who knows... SS could be sold to Getty tomorrow. Or Fotolia, Dreamstime...
In defense of Stockxpert, if I recall correctly, it wasn't until Getty purchased Jupiter that things turned bad. And the StockXpert guys had no say in that deal since they had sold to Jupiter. And they did so with the intention of keeping things running as they were before the Jupiter deal. It was the Getty deal that changed everything. Reviews slowed to a halt, payouts took forever, etc. Until then, as far as I could tell, things were fine under Jupiter.
I'm guessing Peter and crew wouldn't make the same mistake twice and let their successful company fall into the hands of Getty and be destroyed like that. Besides, even if they did sell, it would take years to get the company into sellable shape. They need to show a history of revenues, sales trends, projected earnings, etc. It takes time to build that stuff up. In the meantime, I'd rather throw my support behind a company that is offering a far better deal than istock.
-
I don't see a union working for this. We need a new internet-based model of dealing with this stuff.
What I'd like to know is... how the heck this whole model end up this way?
Normally, manufacturers (us) typically set the ground rules and performance metrics for their distributors (stock sites). Manufacturers have control, set pricing, and decide who is or isn't allowed to be a distributor, etc.
With stock, how did the distributors get almost every bit of leverage and the supplier with almost none.
This model needs to change. I forgot who said it, but we need to establish a central database where we control the content and if the distributors want images they can use the integration/API we offer. They wouldn't physically have anything but a virtual image that gets displayed on their site from our main site. We would set the terms and if a supplier decided to hose us we would have leverage to negotiate. If the negotiations fell through we coulld simply turn off their image supply. And enough of this 6 month or 2 year lock-in BS.
-
This model needs to change. I forgot who said it, but we need to establish a central database where we control the content and if the distributors want images they can use the integration/API we offer. They wouldn't physically have anything but a virtual image that gets displayed on their site from our main site. We would set the terms and if a supplier decided to hose us we would have leverage to negotiate. If the negotiations fell through we coulld simply turn off their image supply. And enough of this 6 month or 2 year lock-in BS.
Hey, that was me!
-
What is required for something to be salable is people with money who want to buy. If StockFresh doesn't have a record of sustained earnings, etc it only means that it is worth less, not worthless. I'll offer them $150 for StockFresh right now, no questions asked.
...even if they
did sell, it would take years to get the company into sellable shape. They need to show a history of revenues, sales trends, projected earnings, etc.
-
This model needs to change. I forgot who said it, but we need to establish a central database where we control the content and if the distributors want images they can use the integration/API we offer. They wouldn't physically have anything but a virtual image that gets displayed on their site from our main site. We would set the terms and if a supplier decided to hose us we would have leverage to negotiate. If the negotiations fell through we coulld simply turn off their image supply. And enough of this 6 month or 2 year lock-in BS.
Hey, that was me!
Well, I think you're on the right track. It would be a massive shift but we currently have rocks to throw at fighter jets. It's clear big change needs to happen otherwise more hosings are on the way. At some point anything can change at any site (acquisition, merger, CEO wants a new Ferrari) and things will go from okay to mayhem.
Imagine a central database with tens of thousands of contributors representing millions, or tens of millions, of stock images. If even the majority of hobbyists (75%+ of all contributors?) for whom this is extra spending money banded together and said "if you want our images you need to get them through the master database" that would be huge leverage. And at that point, like a lot of manufacturers do now, we could even use the database to sell direct. But that's the rub. The distributors have the buyer relationships.
-
This model needs to change. I forgot who said it, but we need to establish a central database where we control the content and if the distributors want images they can use the integration/API we offer. They wouldn't physically have anything but a virtual image that gets displayed on their site from our main site. We would set the terms and if a supplier decided to hose us we would have leverage to negotiate. If the negotiations fell through we coulld simply turn off their image supply. And enough of this 6 month or 2 year lock-in BS.
Hey, that was me!
Well, I think you're on the right track. It would be a massive shift but we currently have rocks to throw at fighter jets. It's clear big change needs to happen otherwise more hosings are on the way. At some point anything can change at any site (acquisition, merger, CEO wants a new Ferrari) and things will go from okay to mayhem.
Imagine a central database with tens of thousands of contributors representing millions, or tens of millions, of stock images. If even the majority of hobbyists (75%+ of all contributors?) for whom this is extra spending money banded together and said "if you want our images you need to get them through the master database" that would be huge leverage. And at that point, like a lot of manufacturers do now, we could even use the database to sell direct. But that's the rub. The distributors have the buyer relationships.
Well at the moment we don't even have a database of everyones email addresses and phone numbers. Maybe that should be a starting point. Opening up more effective communication methods, and maybe encouraging more active communication with each other. Get people talking behind closed doors (virtual or otherwise).
-
For the StockXpert case, isn't them who had the brilliant idea to sell not only subscriptions, but extended licence at subscription prices. I wouldn't bet that much on Stockfresh
-
I forgot who said it, but we need to establish a central database where we control the content and if the distributors want images they can use the integration/API we offer.
That was Adeptris.
-
As a new Microstock website( 3 month old), Stockfresh, doing extremely well.
I had 11 sales on August, 3 sales this month so far. they offer 50% commission.
StockXpert come back alive.
They have IT team, and marketing skills.
We have Photos, Illustrations, Video, Audio, Flash.
If they are willing do something to help us, and also help themself, to reform the new site into a new "share holding macro+micro agency" for photographers, Stockfresh will be a huge success in no time.
-
If they are willing do something to help us (...)
... then they should review our applications and let us in, as a start
-
Maybe we can buy ads at Google AdWords?
The guy from video claims he paid $6 to have its add on a top. So maybe its cheap way to put short info about Getty :-)
Dreamstime does this already. If I search for my name the top ad is is for DT
ETA: Just did another search, it doesn't happen anymore, I must have gone down in their estimation! :( :(
-
Bon Jovi - Livin' On A Prayer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk#) :D
-
The idea of buying shares of an existing agency has been discussed in the past and it can definitely be an option.
However I think that it would just postpone the problem....why royalties should be shared with someone else who mainly looks for profits for himself instead of going to contributors only? why decisions which affect our work should be shared with people that don't do our job?
Many people here already pointed out that a coop (and building our own site) it's a hard way to go, but this at least this wouldn't be just a patch.
Why not doing a poll?
please forgive my english as I wrote this post in a rush....I hope you understand it ;)
-
With initial offer, shares can be sold only to contributors and people direct related with agency... One day if agency wil be on stock market, then anybody can buy that shares from contributors.. Quite simple..
Also there is lot of ways to protect agency from losing of 51% of shares from hands of contributors...
-
shares? the company would't be floated, it would be a coop or would it be owned in trust (?)
I think someone should draft a constitution first like http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/Download.aspx?ResourceId=4244 (http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/Download.aspx?ResourceId=4244) or else people wont know what they are voting for. At least then we can start to hammer out the details.
Sounds like what is being proposed above is just starting up another agency so you can eventually sell it off for a quick buck.
ETA: the point is that it would have to be owned by everyone that contributed, not just those that set it up. It's the model that's the problem. Don't forget that most of the agencies already out there were originally set up by photographers.
-
As a few people know here, I'm working on a stock guild site. The scripts aren't ready yet for easy upload. It won't be a direct sales site but merely present a link to existing agencies. The purpose is to catch random traffic from Google etc... I have some indications that this tactic can work.
Setting up a multi-photographer stock site is very easy to do actually, and with total financial transparency. The problem will be server load when it expands. The scripts I have don't account for server load.
The initial investment is under 500$, the hosting might be 2-300$ per year. Consider Photoshelter (330$) and Smugmug (150$) per year with commissions 9-15%. Did those do anybody any good? Overview here ([url]http://flemishdreams.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=121[/url]).
To get any substantial earnings from it (pricing at 20$), it needs exclusive content or picscout and other aps in the making will find out. Moreover, anybody running the site will be perceived as a competitor by the existing stock sites, and personally, I don't like to give up my earnings and karma at DT or SS. Because, they will retaliate (rightly so).
hosting tens of thousands of images for just 300$/year ? good luck, you'll need it.
-
We need to take a leaf out of Iran's Green movement and take some peaceful protest action.
I'd suggest getting absolutely everyone to abandon the forums a week. Just don't physically log in for a week. With a group of people monitoring the forums and sitemailing anyone that posts to let them know about the protest...
We need to let TPTB know we don't like it and we're willing to band together on this - and this is something at this stage doesn't hurt us or istock financially, but would give a few people brown trousers about the power of contributors banding together.
Twitter it, let's take some guerilla action to the istock streets!
-
For the StockXpert case, isn't them who had the brilliant idea to sell not only subscriptions, but extended licence at subscription prices. I wouldn't bet that much on Stockfresh
I don't think so. I think it was after they were taken over by Jupiter, the original StockXpert was good to contributors. I can't blame them for selling out, who wouldn't if they were offered lots of money? Hopefully they now have enough money and wont want to sell the site again.
-
I don't think so. I think it was after they were taken over by Jupiter, the original StockXpert was good to contributors. I can't blame them for selling out, who wouldn't if they were offered lots of money? Hopefully they now have enough money and wont want to sell the site again.
We can't judge the reasons behind that. The sale of CanStockPhoto was a good thing and Duncan is still in charge.
-
I like the idea of working with one or a few or the sites that pay us a fair commission. We could give them a contributors recommendation and only link to those sites and give them as much publicity as possible.
Then we could contact buyers and explain that we will no longer be able to supply some sites because they have cut our commissions and they will have to look at these other sites if they want to see our new work.
-
I like the idea of working with one or a few or the sites that pay us a fair commission. We could give them a contributors recommendation and only link to those sites and give them as much publicity as possible.
Then we could contact buyers and explain that we will no longer be able to supply some sites because they have cut our commissions and they will have to look at these other sites if they want to see our new work.
Yep! That could work!
It seems that 15% can ruin 85% in marketing very quickly...
So we need to find several agencies that MSG may issue a some kind of certificate " fair commision agency"or "photographers friendly "...
That would be a true example of the independence of this forum ...
-
I like the idea of working with one or a few or the sites that pay us a fair commission. We could give them a contributors recommendation and only link to those sites and give them as much publicity as possible.
Then we could contact buyers and explain that we will no longer be able to supply some sites because they have cut our commissions and they will have to look at these other sites if they want to see our new work.
Yep! That could work!
It seems that 15% can ruin 85% in marketing very quickly...
So we need to find several agencies that MSG may issue a some kind of certificate " fair commision agency"or "photographers friendly "...
That would be a true example of the independence of this forum ...
Good Idea!
Start with: ALAMY, Shutterstock, The3DStudio, GL, FP, StockFresh and all others who are doing this with minimum 50% royalties for their contributors. Why shutterstock? Well... I like them ;-)
-
How about a Microstockgroup commission seal of approval for all agencies giving 50%+ to contributors (not SS as they don't give a percentage) I wonder if they'd display a site badge if we made one ;D
-
How about a Microstockgroup commission seal of approval for all agencies giving 50%+ to contributors (not SS as they don't give a percentage) I wonder if they'd display a site badge if we made one ;D
Something like a "fair trade" seal.
It works for things like coffee, at least here in Germany.
People buying essentially the same product for a higher price when they can be sure that the production doesn't unfairly exploit the local producers in far away countries.
What you would need to do is establish an independent "approval process" as to who gets awarded with the seal (with clear and public available criteria) and then you have to do some marketing to make it well known in the world of image buyers.
Then it might have some impact...
-
My suggestion was a bit tongue in cheek, but if some of the sites that already fit the criteria display it then that would help market it (there would be a link back from the seal to a page explaining what it was). There would have to be a page on here outlining the criteria with a list of approved sites of course.
-
How about a Microstockgroup commission seal of approval for all agencies giving 50%+ to contributors (not SS as they don't give a percentage) I wonder if they'd display a site badge if we made one ;D
Looks like one site is way ahead of us: http://graphicleftovers.com/blog/graphic-leftovers-is-a-fair-trade-contributor-site/ (http://graphicleftovers.com/blog/graphic-leftovers-is-a-fair-trade-contributor-site/)
:)
-
lol, well they do qualify!
-
I like it, but didn't they lift that page right from Zymmetrical?
-
I like it, but didn't they lift that page right from Zymmetrical?
Yap. Keith was too good for this world. ::)
-
I liked the "fair trade"-seal at GL, and I'm sure a lot of the other 50%+ sites would love to get one too. And it doesn't cost us anything.
Plus: certificates like those often cost money to get. So in order to get one that is supported my the microstockgroup, they have to make a (symbolic at first) contribution to the forum/kiva.
-
I just read through this thread. Its very interesting. I really think we need something of our own with fair prices and royalties, to get out of the hands of the micro companies. And I think it could be very successful as well since many contributors are also buyers or know buyers and the fair treatment of the contributors would be one good selling point. It seems the discussion has died down though. It would be interesting to keep it going...
-
Well... Graphic Leftovers deserves that seal.
Any other agency like The3DStudio for example?
They pay over 50% too!
-
Well... Graphic Leftovers deserves that seal.
Any other agency like The3DStudio for example?
They pay over 50% too!
Alamy: 60 %
These pay 50% or more on ordinary sales, but have subscriptions that might be difficult to calculate:
Yay: 50%
CanStockPhoto: 50%
123RF: 50%
-
Have you people known of this project.
I have just known of it trough SS forums in the famoous page 292.000 stolen images.
I have signed in and hope everybody does.
http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/stock-artist-union-information/ (http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/stock-artist-union-information/)
-
It's my view that a union wouldn't work in the virtual world. I think the crowd sourcing model needs international regulation and legislation. How you go about making that happen is beyond me.
-
http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/stock-artists-union/ (http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/stock-artists-union/)