Tyler, could you make a stock site for us?

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!

Uh, Getty is privately owned.

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

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. 

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.

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?

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.

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?

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. 

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.

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 :-)

Quote from: 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.

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 ;-)

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.

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/