MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Tror on July 07, 2014, 10:47
-
Who would be up for it?
Legal structure: COOP (various options and legal structures depending on the funding country).
Capital source: COOP (expect to sink some money) and maybe investors if we can convince someone after funding the legal entity.
Style: Not like stocksy. Broader. We have to define a paradigm which allows more styles yet makes a point to differ from current microstock content.
Category: Midstock
Advertising: personal promotion, social networks, print....don`t even start to think in adwords!
Please let`s discuss constructively! If you bash the idea, please give us your reason that we can improve the concept!
If you love the idea, please understand that it`s realization takes a LOT of time, passion, patience and money and rethink if you would be truly in!
If you have a great Idea please share!
-
Step one:
http://www.sba.gov/writing-business-plan (http://www.sba.gov/writing-business-plan)
-
So it sounds like you're not really wanting to compete with Stocksy. You just want to emulate it without a USP.
-
So it sounds like you're not really wanting to compete with Stocksy. You just want to emulate it without a USP.
Mercy with non native speakers: What means USP?
-
So it sounds like you're not really wanting to compete with Stocksy. You just want to emulate it without a USP.
Yes, "competition" might not be the right word. Lets talk about an alternative for photographers :-) The style should differ too but should be defined in community (talking about USP). I love stocksy, and the good thing about them is their strategy, which, at the same time, excludes many of us for subject, style or simply because they (you) want to limit the amount of photographers (which is good).
Regarding the business plan: yes, surely you have to draft one ;-) This is not exactly the first business I would start lol But lets see how many people would be honestly interested. A one man COOP may not make sense, doesn`t it? ;-)
-
USP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_selling_proposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_selling_proposition)
-
So it sounds like you're not really wanting to compete with Stocksy. You just want to emulate it without a USP.
Mercy with non native speakers: What means USP?
Unique Selling Proposition
... Sorry, repeat information as the above post from cuppacoffee :-)
-
Thank you both ;)
-
So it sounds like you're not really wanting to compete with Stocksy. You just want to emulate it without a USP.
Yes, "competition" might not be the right word. Lets talk about an alternative for photographers :-)
I'm out then, since I'm primarily an illustrator.
-
to be successful it has to be based on providing something useful for buyers.... it doesn't matter how great it is for creators, if it doesn't sell it folds.
-
So it sounds like you're not really wanting to compete with Stocksy. You just want to emulate it without a USP.
Yes, "competition" might not be the right word. Lets talk about an alternative for photographers :-)
I'm out then, since I'm primarily an illustrator.
Please excuse if I do not add in each and every post photographer+illustrator+3d graphics designer+videographer+audio creator....
...am I right that your constructive suggestion is to open up the concept to unique illustrations as well? That would make a great point to get some distance to stocksy...nice!
-
to be successful it has to be based on providing something useful for buyers.... it doesn't matter how great it is for creators, if it doesn't sell it folds.
Yes. Therefore I mentioned in my original post that a unique style must be defined. It is not a secret that many buyers are tired of the usual microstock style and the success of sites like stocksy proves it. Well thought through with some art directors and the experience of a veteran stock group and it will work.
-
So it sounds like you're not really wanting to compete with Stocksy. You just want to emulate it without a USP.
Yes, "competition" might not be the right word. Lets talk about an alternative for photographers :-)
I'm out then, since I'm primarily an illustrator.
Probably better not to join a coop with photographers anyway. Nothing against them. It just seems like you want as much of a narrow focus as possible to have less friction between everyone involved.
-
So it sounds like you're not really wanting to compete with Stocksy. You just want to emulate it without a USP.
Yes, "competition" might not be the right word. Lets talk about an alternative for photographers :-)
I'm out then, since I'm primarily an illustrator.
Probably better not to join a coop with photographers anyway. Nothing against them. It just seems like you want as much of a narrow focus as possible to have less friction between everyone involved.
Why not? I think creating a high value market for illustrations would be a good idea. But yes, number of people should be limited to be able to maintain a reasonable balance...
-
A one man COOP may not make sense, doesn`t it? ;-)
"One man" not. But "too many" won't make it either. As I keep saying when posts like this pop up... ask too many people and you will never get them to agree with anything. I believe someone has to start something, define a set of rules and the say "play with me or look somewhere else". You can finetune later but before someone standing up and making a clear point, there is no point in saying "I would like to".
-
A one man COOP may not make sense, doesn`t it? ;-)
"I believe someone has to start something, define a set of rules and the say "play with me or look somewhere else". You can finetune later but before someone standing up and making a clear point, there is no point in saying "I would like to".
Good point. I started many businesses in my life. I think the main point I haven` started yet is that I am simply afraid of getting my accounts closed at other agencies and I am a full timer. But I start to think more deeply in setting up an site on the ownership of a legal identity - which is not too expensive nowadays.
However, I think we need some social gravity. For one this project is too big (as long as your name isn`t bruce l.). You may end up with another symbiostock. The realistic expectation is to have at least 5 or 6 experienced people designing the main principles and then incorporate.
I fully agree that we just would have to start and fine tune on the way, as long as the fundamentals are clear.
The number of people participating should be defined by:
• the relation of the expected reachable market share within a defined time, the material you need to reach this market share, and the relationship to the possible revenue at that first balance point.
• the participants value for the COOP (skills, contacts, portfolio, social weight, knowledge, business skills)
• Always in harmony with growth - Artists (yes, artists, nobody excluded) should have their work enough valued that they have the time to be able to create unique material instead of being haunted by the slavery of subscription sales - Buyers note that too. Because of that Scott Braut of SS stated here that many clients are asking for special stuff they cannot find on SS.
-
...the good thing about them is their strategy, which, at the same time, excludes many of us for subject, style or simply because they (you) want to limit the amount of photographers (which is good)...
It is good to limit who gets in. So how would you suggest changing that? Let in more people than Stocksy lets in, but still less than what the big microstock companies allow?
-
Here's an issue I have....I have no idea who you are or what your work looks like. Perhaps others know, but I'm clueless. So far all I know is that you're someone whose work is not acceptable to Stocksy. I'm assuming you'd like others with work similar to yours, or up to your standards, to be part of the co-op. But I don't know what your standards are or how you'd differentiate yourself from all the other sites out there.
You might have more luck approaching people whose work you admire/would mesh with yours privately.
-
You might have more luck approaching people whose work you admire/would mesh with yours privately.
That's probably the best way to do it. I've often thought that might be the next step if my personal site ever gets large/successful enough. I'm not sure if I'll ever get to that step to seriously contemplate it though.
-
You might have more luck approaching people whose work you admire/would mesh with yours privately.
That's probably the best way to do it. I've often thought that might be the next step if my personal site ever gets large/successful enough. I'm not sure if I'll ever get to that step to seriously contemplate it though.
Yes, it is. So far I test the waters how the community reacts. There is a reason that I am anonymous. Especially when discussing these matters. I would not be the first one having to face "strange" consequences for building up a competing site lol
But we are not there yet. I do not want to convince people. I want to see how convinced you folks are by the idea.
-
Stocksy seems like a great agency. You simply need a stocksy style agency with more common images/themes. Think of how many contributors would jump to an organization that takes their well being in consideration. The end to many oraganizations could actually be an agency that paid contributors more, that would be ironic, an agency that pulled all the images away from the others simply by paying them more ;D Would you go exclusive for 30-40-50 % ?
Symbiostock was close but needed a common webpage and reviewers with a percent of profits to the agency.
Full disclosure: I am not a stocksy contributor and I do not think my work is anywhere near good enough to even apply.
-
Is stocksy a great agency? Take away the elitist element, is it making more for contributors than those agencies that the rest of the great unwashed contribute to? (no sarcasm here, genuine question)
I see no evidence that the OP is not concerned with a USP - quite reasonable that this might take a bit of thought but a different USP is not the same as no USP.
-
By the way: How long will it take until buyers are tired of this special Stocksy style?
-
By the way: How long will it take until buyers are tired of this special Stocksy style?
Presumably they have researchers to spot the next-but-one trend.
-
Is stocksy a great agency? Take away the elitist element, is it making more for contributors than those agencies that the rest of the great unwashed contribute to? (no sarcasm here, genuine question)...
I don't think that "making more" is the criteria that most folks around here use to judge an agency. At this point I think the bulk of the community can be satisfied with a company that can make some money for contributors, pay a decent percentage, and not be releasing products and deals that repeatedly attempt to undercut artists.
I certainly don't judge companies based solely on how much they make me. My favorite company right now isn't a huge earner, but it earns respectably. And it's not even on the poll. I know there are some people who deem Shutterstock to be the best company in the business because they earn the most there, but "the most" certainly isn't the criteria I use to decide who I prefer.
-
Yes, actually, I make more at Stocksy than SS, and hundreds times more than the others. :)
-
Is stocksy a great agency? Take away the elitist element, is it making more for contributors than those agencies that the rest of the great unwashed contribute to? (no sarcasm here, genuine question)...
I don't think that "making more" is the criteria that most folks around here use to judge an agency. At this point I think the bulk of the community can be satisfied with a company that can make some money for contributors, pay a decent percentage, and not be releasing products and deals that repeatedly attempt to undercut artists.
I certainly don't judge companies based solely on how much they make me. My favorite company right now isn't a huge earner, but it earns respectably. And it's not even on the poll. I know there are some people who deem Shutterstock to be the best company in the business because they earn the most there, but "the most" certainly isn't the criteria I use to decide who I prefer.
I fully agree. To me, SS is just a good selling site with very limited capacity.
-
Regarding the USP and the content Paradigm of a possible alternative: I do not think of a clone or entering into the same style as Stocksy. There is sooo much more creative variety around! Nor do I worry that we would be able to find a definition of a sellable, successful style. Market is demanding it since some time. If you are long enough in the creative market or worked as an art director you can sense it all over. Surprisingly, only some sites can deliver. Actually, this is a part which requires patience and experise, but it is not the most difficult part. The difficult part is getting attention.
In the very beginning of Microstock, there was a huge stimulus to create good quality material. People had to learn it. Few could deliver. Even experienced people coming from Macro had their problems. With a decent shot you could make serious money. People got onto the track and learned, evolved, invested.
Now we have manymanymany good Artists, may it be illustrators or photographers or videographers or whatnot, who got the skills and equipment to deliver and they have to cut down their creativity. Mostly for stupid definitions of quality which may had been valid in 2005 when istock had to filter snaps, but have no reason to exists today anymore. Or for the incompetence of low paid inspectors of SS. Or because of the devaluation of any niche material which may not sell more then 10 times a month because subscription models castrate any niche market or genuine creativity on the long run.
On the other hand we have a horde of buyers who is looking for niche material or more creative elements without any success. Me included. You would not believe how simple subjects are not covered in the databases because artists are too much under pressure to create that material. And Clients are willing to pay for it and do it. Otherwise Stocksy people would not sell so well. (always taking into account the limited number of contributors, which is healthy)
The concept is proven as valid.
-
Tror I suggest you contact Dan, djpadavona http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=profile;u=4488 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=profile;u=4488) who started WarmPictures an independent site. Ask him about selective members and running an independent agency.
As far as I could see, he started with only established people who had good records and images. Eventually he was forced to shut down because of limited returns, economics and time. His plan should have been a success the way I saw it.
No reviews, just well establish solid content? No reviews eliminates a big burden. If it's like Stocky, members approve new members.
Although I should disclose that Warmpicture did have sales and was profitable, albeit barely. It can be done, especially if someone with my lack of expertise was able to pull it off. The problem was going from break even, to worthwhile venture. I was putting more work into Warmpicture than I was into my day job, and it was not a lot of fun tracking all those sales and commissions for tax reporting. In order for me to have continued, Warmpicture needed to do more than just break even.
So you are completely correct. Everyone wanting near 100% royalties from a co-op is failing to consider that somebody (hopefully a team of somebodies) is going to be doing all of the work behind the scenes, for free. And who is paying for customer acquisition?
I'll repeat my personal view. I'd be happy to give the agency 20% and take 80% which is about the same as selling on consignment, what a manager takes for musicians and what a fair commission would be to an agency to keep it viable.
If you go coop there start to be all kinds of complications with who's bringing in the clients and the money, and why should the lift the heavy weight and others get paid for just being a member. In other words, no shares, just paid for DLs.
If the agency is run as a coop, the people who work the software and the site, could share in those profits. And with any integrity if they are making too much profit for the expenses (ha ha) lower the agency commissions.
I have a feeling that at 20% marketing, software and making it attractive to work behind the scenes managing, will eat up any profits pretty fast.
Can anyone establish what content SS was lacking with their 40 million images? Maybe some small use or individual need? I find it difficult to imagine some high demand subject or category would be neglected! :)
-
Have you guys seen Coversplash: www.coversplash.com (http://www.coversplash.com) ?
Our stock agency rivals Stocksy. By subscribing, you earn 100% commission on all photos sold, both on personal domain and on licensing agency.
Other highlights include beautifully designed and mobile-responsive sites, a complete international e-commerce solution, an amazing print provider (CanvasPop), interest groups, and more.
Best,
PhotographyPlus.
-
Have you guys seen Coversplash: [url=http://www.coversplash.com]www.coversplash.com[/url] ([url]http://www.coversplash.com[/url]) ?
Our stock agency rivals Stocksy. By subscribing, you earn 100% commission on all photos sold, both on personal domain and on licensing agency.
Other highlights include beautifully designed and mobile-responsive sites, a complete international e-commerce solution, an amazing print provider (CanvasPop), interest groups, and more.
Best,
PhotographyPlus.
Very interesting. I am going to check that out. Thanks for posting. :)
-
Coversplash
Very interesting. I am going to check that out. Thanks for posting. :)
Start here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/selling-direct/new-photography-platform-22885 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/selling-direct/new-photography-platform-22885)
-
Have you guys seen Coversplash: [url=http://www.coversplash.com]www.coversplash.com[/url] ([url]http://www.coversplash.com[/url]) ?
Our stock agency rivals Stocksy. By subscribing, you earn 100% commission on all photos sold, both on personal domain and on licensing agency.
Other highlights include beautifully designed and mobile-responsive sites, a complete international e-commerce solution, an amazing print provider (CanvasPop), interest groups, and more.
Best,
PhotographyPlus.
Interesting. But looks more like a platform for individual photographers than an agency. 100% of commission means almost automatically that no marketing will be done from the agency side. I doubt it will go further that any of those other sites where you can create your own store.
-
Thank you Shady Sue :( no IPTC
-
Going to the home page just now, I couldn't see any search field.
(No watermarks is a far worse omission, IMO.)
-
100% of commission means almost automatically that no marketing will be done from the agency side.
No, we're partnering with several more established players early on.
We will be updating search and IPTC data soon.
-
I always saw the co-op model as a role-model for many agencies to come... But we need different niches, the niche of Stocksy is very narrow and already well covered by them but I could think of many other niches (content- local- style- culture- wise etc) which let more enough room for other agencies with a fair business model.
-
100% of commission means almost automatically that no marketing will be done from the agency side.
No, we're partnering with several more established players early on.
We will be updating search and IPTC data soon.
Thanks for the declaration. How do you make money?
-
I always saw the co-op model as a role-model for many agencies to come... But we need different niches, the niche of Stocksy is very narrow and already well covered by them but I could think of many other niches (content- local- style- culture- wise etc) which let more enough room for other agencies with a fair business model.
Yes, well said. The problematic part is that nobody seems to be willing to jump in as an active part. We would need the power of the community to start such a project. Symbiostock and DPC showed that it is possible. Lets do that now on a larger and more professional scale!
-
100% of commission means almost automatically that no marketing will be done from the agency side.
No, we're partnering with several more established players early on.
We will be updating search and IPTC data soon.
Thanks for the declaration. How do you make money?
The plans are on the website http://www.coversplash.com/ (http://www.coversplash.com/)
-
We make money when you upgrade for 7 dollars a month, to access the full-suite of features. It's a very simple business model.
-
We make money when you upgrade for 7 dollars a month, to access the full-suite of features. It's a very simple business model.
That's not a lot of money for marketing and promotion. Are members mostly expected to bring their own customers, like at FAA?
-
Thanks for presenting your site, but I do not see how this is related to this thread. I see no COOP structure, no clear art direction, no agency appeal.
Please open your own thread for advertising your site instead of hijacking this one.
-
Thanks for presenting your site, but I do not see how this is related to this thread. I see no COOP structure, no clear art direction, no agency appeal.
Please open your own thread for advertising your site instead of hijacking this one.
He has.
-
Is stocksy a great agency? Take away the elitist element, is it making more for contributors than those agencies that the rest of the great unwashed contribute to? (no sarcasm here, genuine question)
I see no evidence that the OP is not concerned with a USP - quite reasonable that this might take a bit of thought but a different USP is not the same as no USP.
No, stocksy is a very poor seller - and not just "personally for me". They posted numbers on site -of course labeling them great-and-whatever (kickass?)- trusting their audience not to bother or be able to do even a back-of-the-envelope calculation. I can and did. The numbers are poor, and of course confidential to stocksy members. I think stocksy is loaded with enthusiastic talented amateurs who are still in a hooray mode and just flattered by someone actually paying for their shot.
All this doesn't apply to you if are magically exempt from their hipster curation, able to upload usual stock images that are proven to be of the selling type :)
-
Is stocksy a great agency? Take away the elitist element, is it making more for contributors than those agencies that the rest of the great unwashed contribute to? (no sarcasm here, genuine question)
I see no evidence that the OP is not concerned with a USP - quite reasonable that this might take a bit of thought but a different USP is not the same as no USP.
No, stocksy is a very poor seller - and not just "personally for me". They posted numbers on site -of course labeling them great-and-whatever (kickass?)- trusting their audience not to bother or be able to do even a back-of-the-envelope calculation. I can and did. The numbers are poor, and of course confidential to stocksy members. I think stocksy is loaded with enthusiastic talented amateurs who are still in a hooray mode and just flattered by someone actually paying for their shot.
All this doesn't apply to you if are magically exempt from their hipster curation, able to upload usual stock images that are proven to be of the selling type :)
Well that is your experience, mine is different. Stocksy is a good earner for me and there are a lot of features beyond income I love about stocksy (contributor treatment, contributor community). But I guess for you I'd probably be just one of the "in-hooray-mode" amateurs.
-
Is stocksy a great agency? Take away the elitist element, is it making more for contributors than those agencies that the rest of the great unwashed contribute to? (no sarcasm here, genuine question)
I see no evidence that the OP is not concerned with a USP - quite reasonable that this might take a bit of thought but a different USP is not the same as no USP.
I think stocksy is loaded with enthusiastic talented amateurs who are still in a hooray mode and just flattered by someone actually paying for their shot.
All this doesn't apply to you if are magically exempt from their hipster curation, able to upload usual stock images that are proven to be of the selling type :)
Some how I don't consider folks like Sean an enthusiastic talented amateur but that's just me 8)
-
A photographer run coop would be great and I'm always open to fair trade agencies and am happy to join the discussion. However ...
Expecting 100% commission and for those who do the work behind the scenes to do it for free, in my experience, is not the way to go. I was involved with a start up agency hosted by a fellow photographer who I met through Photoshelter (during its brief honeymoon as an actual stock photography agency). As here, there were a group of us who'd gotten to know each other through the forum that this photographer hosted. Most of us were new to stock, though he had been licensing work on his own for years and had some publishing contacts.
It was to be a niche agency and he set up a beta site with ITPC intake, bulk uploading, a forum and left it to us to self curate which by and large people did a good job at. The site was up (though private) for a couple of years starting in late 2009/early 2010 as about 100 of us (in retrospect too small a number but we were grounded in the traditional RM stock agency paradigm) dutifully uploaded our photos. He and his wife did all the backroom stuff paid for the software and upgrades and stayed active in the forums. We discussed pricing models, licenses, etc and agreed to a mix of RM and RF non-exclusive stock and to pricing. The forum was far far less contentious than here, but moderators were still necessary. I forget what the goal was in terms of numbers before he was going to start marketing the site, but by the time we got close to the target the market had changed dramatically. Though we had agreed on just about everything, he realized that he'd never be able to compete with what was out there, and the project folded. Angry people who'd spent a lot of time for a dream, but most understood that life sometimes gives you lemons.
Had there been a dedicated paid team behind the scenes, and had we been paying while the site was in beta, we might have hit our numbers sooner and perhaps jumped on the bandwagon while there was still room. So, I'm sure you can understand why I agree with those who say there needs to be a commission/salary for those doing the coding, the marketing, the curating, trying to get investors, etc. You can have the best photos in the world but if no one sees them, they won't get licensed. You need to sign up photographers who will share their enthusiasm with others and help you market - that's why, for example, all the micro sites have referral programs, it just makes good business sense.
When I consider that I license photos daily on SS despite the fact that my 200 photos make up just 0.00057% of their database, it tells me that they know how to market my images. There are many times I think that I should have 1,000 images on SS and 200 on the traditional agencies and not the other way around, but I hate the fact that they charge so little for my work and that I get such a small percentage. I know Walmart makes more than Neiman-Marcus - guess I'd still rather be the later.
I think Stocksy has a real chance because its founders understand the business side of things, and I assume that most of their photographers are not naive amateurs but rather come from the traditional side of things and don't expect to get rich overnight. They also have Bruce's millions and I'd assume there are investors as well.
If people think spending $120 for updates (via the symbiostock discussions) is too much, however, then I don't think they really have a concept of what it takes to run a successful co-op. I've spent a portion of my time over the past couple of years contacting potential stock photo buyers and have been licensing photos directly, as well as through those who discover my work on my website. I do mailings, pay $500 a year for a Pro site on Photoshelter (one of the best investments I've made), do research, and have tens of thousands of images on my hard drives that I'm keeping track of. It's a long-term investment of my time, and the momentum is starting to build. It's not going to happen overnight. Now multiply that by 100 people or 1000 and think how much you need to do and to spend to market their work. The cost of hosting and writing the software is a drop in the bucket. You need a marketing team, a legal team, a sales team, an advertising budget, and I don't know what else and sites that have all that and major investors as well still don't make it.
Sorry to go on but just some of my thoughts on the matter.
I'm sure the OP knows a lot of this and has given it a lot of thought before sending up a trial balloon. He's looking to gauge interest. None of this is rocket science, but it is hard work, time and money. If it was easy no one would be selling their work for pennies and watching the site owners make millions.
-
Competition? we need be IN stocksy, not versus... they are fair!
-
No, stocksy is a very poor seller - and not just "personally for me". They posted numbers on site -of course labeling them great-and-whatever (kickass?)- trusting their audience not to bother or be able to do even a back-of-the-envelope calculation. I can and did. The numbers are poor, and of course confidential to stocksy members. I think stocksy is loaded with enthusiastic talented amateurs who are still in a hooray mode and just flattered by someone actually paying for their shot.
All this doesn't apply to you if are magically exempt from their hipster curation, able to upload usual stock images that are proven to be of the selling type :)
Must be doing OK for some people. It seems to be at the top of the unranked sites every month (up there with Clipartof and self-hosted). I know it is a smaller voting group, so there is some bias. Still, some people are getting sales and voting for it every month.
-
Have you considered talking to https://macrografiks.com or one of the other fair trade sites? Might be worth working with an established player who wants to grow. Or mostphotos?
-
No, stocksy is a very poor seller - and not just "personally for me". They posted numbers on site -of course labeling them great-and-whatever (kickass?)- trusting their audience not to bother or be able to do even a back-of-the-envelope calculation. I can and did. The numbers are poor, and of course confidential to stocksy members. I think stocksy is loaded with enthusiastic talented amateurs who are still in a hooray mode and just flattered by someone actually paying for their shot.
All this doesn't apply to you if are magically exempt from their hipster curation, able to upload usual stock images that are proven to be of the selling type :)
Must be doing OK for some people. It seems to be at the top of the unranked sites every month (up there with Clipartof and self-hosted). I know it is a smaller voting group, so there is some bias. Still, some people are getting sales and voting for it every month.
Anything in the world does OK from some, that's saying nothing. The poll is useless, anyone can click in anything.
-
Is stocksy a great agency? Take away the elitist element, is it making more for contributors than those agencies that the rest of the great unwashed contribute to? (no sarcasm here, genuine question)
I see no evidence that the OP is not concerned with a USP - quite reasonable that this might take a bit of thought but a different USP is not the same as no USP.
I think stocksy is loaded with enthusiastic talented amateurs who are still in a hooray mode and just flattered by someone actually paying for their shot.
All this doesn't apply to you if are magically exempt from their hipster curation, able to upload usual stock images that are proven to be of the selling type :)
Some how I don't consider folks like Sean an enthusiastic talented amateur but that's just me 8)
How did that even come up?
-
A new agency would desperately need startup money. It needs the mindset of the originator of stocksy (with a larger collection in mind) , a staff to curate, and the software to run it along with the advertising.
No agency is going to get off the ground without every image being screened. Fine art america's growth is stunted because it is full of useless images, it's basically a printing service anyway. The same with non-screend stock. The collection must be high quality images on an outstanding website .
Stocksy sells the better cooked images of the stock world. The originators knew not to try and outsell the 99 cent Mcdonalds double cheeseburger. All they had to do was sell the big delicious 1/2 lb bacon supreme with great beef on a special bun. The money was better, the staff was smaller, the headaches were smaller. Why try and sell cheaper than all the rest of the restaurants on hamburger row. Even if you do somehow make it, your profits are terribly low, workload is high and product is crap.
The collection must be curated which means
there must be a staff which means
it is going to have a to be a business which means
it is going to have to have capital.
The website needs to be awesome as well. I can not believe how cluncky shutterstocks website is. In fact, a lot of really great companies have really crappy websites.
-
Anything in the world does OK from some, that's saying nothing.
I guess you've never been a contributor at Crestock. ;)
-
A photographer run coop would be great and I'm always open to fair trade agencies and am happy to join the discussion. However ...
Expecting 100% commission and for those who do the work behind the scenes to do it for free, in my experience, is not the way to go. I was involved with a start up agency hosted by a fellow photographer who I met through Photoshelter (during its brief honeymoon as an actual stock photography agency). As here, there were a group of us who'd gotten to know each other through the forum that this photographer hosted. Most of us were new to stock, though he had been licensing work on his own for years and had some publishing contacts.
It was to be a niche agency and he set up a beta site with ITPC intake, bulk uploading, a forum and left it to us to self curate which by and large people did a good job at. The site was up (though private) for a couple of years starting in late 2009/early 2010 as about 100 of us (in retrospect too small a number but we were grounded in the traditional RM stock agency paradigm) dutifully uploaded our photos. He and his wife did all the backroom stuff paid for the software and upgrades and stayed active in the forums. We discussed pricing models, licenses, etc and agreed to a mix of RM and RF non-exclusive stock and to pricing. The forum was far far less contentious than here, but moderators were still necessary. I forget what the goal was in terms of numbers before he was going to start marketing the site, but by the time we got close to the target the market had changed dramatically. Though we had agreed on just about everything, he realized that he'd never be able to compete with what was out there, and the project folded. Angry people who'd spent a lot of time for a dream, but most understood that life sometimes gives you lemons.
Had there been a dedicated paid team behind the scenes, and had we been paying while the site was in beta, we might have hit our numbers sooner and perhaps jumped on the bandwagon while there was still room. So, I'm sure you can understand why I agree with those who say there needs to be a commission/salary for those doing the coding, the marketing, the curating, trying to get investors, etc. You can have the best photos in the world but if no one sees them, they won't get licensed. You need to sign up photographers who will share their enthusiasm with others and help you market - that's why, for example, all the micro sites have referral programs, it just makes good business sense.
When I consider that I license photos daily on SS despite the fact that my 200 photos make up just 0.00057% of their database, it tells me that they know how to market my images. There are many times I think that I should have 1,000 images on SS and 200 on the traditional agencies and not the other way around, but I hate the fact that they charge so little for my work and that I get such a small percentage. I know Walmart makes more than Neiman-Marcus - guess I'd still rather be the later.
I think Stocksy has a real chance because its founders understand the business side of things, and I assume that most of their photographers are not naive amateurs but rather come from the traditional side of things and don't expect to get rich overnight. They also have Bruce's millions and I'd assume there are investors as well.
If people think spending $120 for updates (via the symbiostock discussions) is too much, however, then I don't think they really have a concept of what it takes to run a successful co-op. I've spent a portion of my time over the past couple of years contacting potential stock photo buyers and have been licensing photos directly, as well as through those who discover my work on my website. I do mailings, pay $500 a year for a Pro site on Photoshelter (one of the best investments I've made), do research, and have tens of thousands of images on my hard drives that I'm keeping track of. It's a long-term investment of my time, and the momentum is starting to build. It's not going to happen overnight. Now multiply that by 100 people or 1000 and think how much you need to do and to spend to market their work. The cost of hosting and writing the software is a drop in the bucket. You need a marketing team, a legal team, a sales team, an advertising budget, and I don't know what else and sites that have all that and major investors as well still don't make it.
Sorry to go on but just some of my thoughts on the matter.
I'm sure the OP knows a lot of this and has given it a lot of thought before sending up a trial balloon. He's looking to gauge interest. None of this is rocket science, but it is hard work, time and money. If it was easy no one would be selling their work for pennies and watching the site owners make millions.
Great post with some good considerations. Most startups do not take care enough of many elements you mentioned in your post. We can do this better, And it is not impossible.
BTW: the 100% royalty was never a concept from me, it was mentioned by this other site who jumped in to advertise themselves. People are driven by money. No way around that. We have to respect that and value it accordingly.
-
Have you considered talking to https://macrografiks.com or one of the other fair trade sites? Might be worth working with an established player who wants to grow. Or mostphotos?
Thanks for the links. I know both. I like both of them. None is a COOP.
If I compare them to the scheme I consider to be likely successful I have to mention some details regarding them:
Macrografiks...a nice site, great attitude, but:
- No clear content paradigm to make a difference
- No community marketing scheme or social gravitiy
- Not enough cash in back to get em through the media mud
- No clear vision behind the offer who could make them attract possible investors.
Mostphotos:
- It is not an agency, it is a site which sells images.
- No curation whatsoever - this is basically the opposite to an carefully curated Agency like Stocksy.
- Again: no content paradigm defined
- Again: no community marketing
- Again: not enough cash
- Again: no clear vision
People feel identified with a real Agency they are actually a part of (COOP) and which takes care of their interest. And buyers who actually spend cash on their images like the idea of having special and exclusive material. I sell every month enough expensive licenses through some trads. Artsits feel identified with stocksy as they felt identified with istock in the early days, tha was/is a huge factor which is bringing them up. There is _no_way_ nowadays you can just put a site online and sell images without having a greater content and marketing concept. The established sites just pump in trillions of dollars into the classic and known marketing channels (like google adwords e.g.).
At best, some existing sites are crooks. Maybe some sales here or there. But the task can be solved better.
-
I've considered partnering with Mostphotos or macrografikcs yes.
Why is it so important that an agency screen content? It's not clear in my eyes.
-
I was thinking maybe one of the fair trade sites might be interested to transform into a coop or work with one. Coop takes care of working with the artists and selecting content, fair trade site does the marketing. Or both together transform into a coop.
But at least people who are already running a small agency are clearly willing to do the business side of things, something many artists don't want to be bothered with.
You will anyway need to find investors, come up with a business plan etc....
I just thought it might be worth talking to several sites as well while you explore the options for the coop.
For most artists the coop will just be like an agency anyway. They just want to upload content and not worry about anything else. You see it with symbiostock when people say that 10 dollars a month is too much. But in a coop,even if you don't pay a monthly fee, you will have to invest time to help market the site. It needs active commitment.
So that is another reason to be selective when choosing people, not just the image style has to fit, but you are building an international team of people that you want to work together.
I think this could also be done with a good agency. Westend61 is not a coop, but has a great team spirit, the old istock had a fantastic team spirit and we certainly felt like it was our agency.
I am sure many of the smaller edited collections are great at community building as well.
I'd say having inspirational leadership and commitment is more important than the legal form of the agency.
Istock also served a huge number of artists with an open plattform that anyone could join. And to me it felt like home, team spirit was great.
-
Why is it so important that an agency screen content? It's not clear in my eyes.
Check out a lot of the new ingestions into iStock, or do several general searches on FAA. (of course the result depends what you search and how you sort). Out of focus, sloping horizons, bleaching out, snapshot compositions ... Well, I guess someone might want it, but ... and before you ask, I'm not claiming to be supa-dupa or anywhere near it.
Also it's is very useful to have a second pair of eyes in case we miss some IP issue, though the agencies build a very wide 'fence around the Law' on this, as it's better safe than defending a lawsuit.
-
I was thinking maybe one of the fair trade sites might be interested to transform into a coop or work with one. Coop takes care of working with the artists and selecting content, fair trade site does the marketing. Or both together transform into a coop.
But at least people who are already running a small agency are clearly willing to do the business side of things, something many artists don't want to be bothered with.
You will anyway need to find investors, come up with a business plan etc....
I just thought it might be worth talking to several sites as well while you explore the options for the coop.
For most artists the coop will just be like an agency anyway. They just want to upload content and not worry about anything else. You see it with symbiostock when people say that 10 dollars a month is too much. But in a coop,even if you don't pay a monthly fee, you will have to invest time to help market the site. It needs active commitment.
So that is another reason to be selective when choosing people, not just the image style has to fit, but you are building an international team of people that you want to work together.
I think this could also be done with a good agency. Westend61 is not a coop, but has a great team spirit, the old istock had a fantastic team spirit and we certainly felt like it was our agency.
I am sure many of the smaller edited collections are great at community building as well.
I'd say having inspirational leadership and commitment is more important than the legal form of the agency.
Istock also served a huge number of artists with an open plattform that anyone could join. And to me it felt like home, team spirit was great.
True...maybe it does not has to be a COOP.
I do not mind to do the business side of things at all. It is sort of what I enjoy. The problem is simply that one person cannot be responsible for everything (code, business, marketing, art direction, inspection, support). That was Leos problem with Symbiostock (although he had some great help from some sites).
Actually, I think the many mistakes the small newcomers are doing are on the business side of things....
-
I've considered partnering with Mostphotos or macrografikcs yes.
Why is it so important that an agency screen content? It's not clear in my eyes.
Editing is everything. Go to a random agency. Do a random search. See the results and there are - taken to the extreme to make a good example - two possible emotional reactions (there are more options, but not relevant for the editing side of a collection):
1. all the thumbnails - except some shiny stars in between - look like trash content. Random, everyday, generic, boring...or maybe just not the style you are looking for...maybe you go on page 2. Here and there some nice content, but....
or
2. Wooow, that stuff is beautiful...I wantwantwant...look at this image! It is not what I was looking for but it is so nice I can adapt the original design! 20$...expensive, but it will look awesome!
People will have either outcome associated on their minds with a site. If they look for good stuff (and we want those people. We want them to pay higher prices. We target clients who know what they are doing and are willing to spend money on it - not the "calluswehavethebestpricesonlinepharmacysites") they will come back, but they won`t if they feel you just have to offer everydays stuff
Trends in Design come and go. It is not only on us to perceive that and produce content accordingly. A good agency may give guidance communicating the outcome of their market research. Stocksy came up with the "natural" and "normal" people pradigm because that is/was the gap in the market. They did a good job. But their concept is representing a very tiny part of the artistic spectrum.
-
I am not a techie so I would welcome a coop and if the USP was good I might even cough up some investment. One of the very first things to do is define product needs. You do this by surveying the buyers. Never put all of your eggs into the "I already know what buyers want" basket. Around that is what products/services are you offering? Will there be POD with RM AND RF licensing? That makes a big difference on marketing, technology, support services, costs, etc. Creating a business plan is the first step. Surveying prospective customers on not only the content but the functionality and licensing needs they seek. Stocksy is contributor selective and then image selective while SS and now Istock are the complete opposite. The question is, "does a market exist that fits somewhere between these ranges that is both growth aligned and sustainable.
-
How is a COOP different than just revenue share or 100% commission?
-
How is a COOP different than just revenue share or 100% commission?
A COOP means that the photographers are partially owners too. That does not mean that they get 100% commission. 100% commission means all the revenue goes into the source (artists). A COOP decides (together) how much money the photographer gets and how much the legal entity gets for running the whole show (salaries, marketing, investments, etc.). You do not starve the nexus of sales (the company) to death by bleeding all the revenue out. You give it its share that it can thrive and grow. The point is that if the legal entity makes any profit it will be divided between the shareholders (owners) in the end again.
So you would have in one example COOP:
* Clients pays = money goes to the artist (commission percentage) = Artists lives, produces, invests
= money goes to the legal entity (the COOP company) = COOP invests in HR, Marketing, IT, Research etc.
* COOP company makes Profit (good case scenario) = Profits are payed out to owners (Artists in this case mostly).
...but there are different schemes, depending on the legal environment and setup.
-
confused now. Wasn't symbiostock created for this type of COOP?
-
confused now. Wasn't symbiostock created for this type of COOP?
No. Symbiostock was not a company at all - so no COOP.
Symbiostock was a bunch of legal individuals who joints forces on a connected/crossed database infrastructure. That has nothing to do with any form of company formation which was part of its limitations (no money to expand, invest, code and no legal basis for things like VAT returns, zero VAT returns, legal guarantees etc.).
But yes, on a social level you may call it like this, but not in a legal sense.
-
could symbios be converted to a coop since it already has a lot of folks on it?
-
could symbios be converted to a coop since it already has a lot of folks on it?
Everything is theoretically possible ;-) We are talking mainly about legal structures here and seeing how symbiostock develops I would say it is very unlikely.
Symbiostock may have a successful future or not, but it will never be a well curated Agency which is very focused on clear marketing. In fact, the idea of Symbiostock might be the opposite one: total freedom of choice for artists.
-
could symbios be converted to a coop since it already has a lot of folks on it?
Symbios is software. That's all it is really.
IMO you don't ever want to start with software and see what you can use it for. What you want to do is to work out what it is that you want to do - what the business plan is and how you want it to look - then have someone carefully define what the software is to do - then contract someone to build it ... preferably based on recommendations and their previous work.
There is always going to be a whole lot of other business, legal and social stuff to do before you get to hiring someone to build the right software. And there is the question of how you would fund that investment.
-
Do you want to be unique and limit the normal mega dumping of images onto a site? Make every image exclusive ( image not artist ) to the site. Good artist, well curated and image exclusive, that should be a calling card. It may initially stunt the growth of the collection but that would do 2 things. It would give the site and staff time to get up to speed correcting bugs and it would ensure a long term commitment on the sites part. It would also allow for a smaller startup staff/cost.. People that are expecting to get higher pay should expect to provide a much better product for it. This would give the collection a truly unique appeal to the customer and a sense of respect and dedication by/to the artist.
If FAA had this mindset it would be better off today. Hint,,, Keep an open mind to expanding in the future as a curated wall art printing service of high quality.
-
Do you want to be unique and limit the normal mega dumping of images onto a site? Make every image exclusive ( image not artist ) to the site. Good artist, well curated and image exclusive, that should be a calling card. It may initially stunt the growth of the collection but that would do 2 things. It would give the site and staff time to get up to speed correcting bugs and it would ensure a long term commitment on the sites part. It would also allow for a smaller startup staff/cost.. People that are expecting to get higher pay should expect to provide a much better product for it. This would give the collection a truly unique appeal to the customer and a sense of respect and dedication by/to the artist.
If FAA had this mindset it would be better off today. Hint,,, Keep an open mind to expanding in the future as a curated wall art printing service of high quality.
Hmmm, if you limit it to exclusive images how do you prevent contributors from "dumping" their non-sellers there? Yes, you said that the artists have to be committed to uploading unique content but the mentality might be, "what do I have to lose putting my image on this new, unproven site since it hasn't sold so I'll label it as exclusive to see if it will sell on this site? Also, people could offer images that were "similar to" but not exactly the same as images they have for sale on other sites and this would be hard for any reviewer to check. Exclusive doesn't mean much these days with the glut of images and imagemakers. Unless there was real commitment to making a site unique and the curation was top notch (and we all have a different idea of what a top notch image is) exclusive content might not be a plus. Many are desperate to spread their images to as many sites as possible hoping for sales since it seems all sites are not producing sales like they used to.
-
""Hmmm, if you limit it to exclusive images how do you prevent contributors from "dumping""
As stated, it is to be a well curated collection, you can't dump garbage there.
-
I have had an idea bouncing around in my head that might be time to talk about.
Crowd sourced curation.
One of the advantages of Stocksy is their are real, talented people deciding what images get in the collection. This is great if you shoot, or want to buy their "view"
SS IS etc rely on "semi-talented" reviewers to act as gate keepers, but they really don't curate the images... the buyer stil has to look for images that fit their vision or need.
If a site where to allow people to create their own collections, and then publish "their" list on the site ( and get paid if people down load from their list) I think it could create a market for images that don't fit the stock look, or the stocksy look.
To see an example of this in practice just look at you Tube and all the different "channels".
Comments?
-
SS IS etc rely on "semi-talented" reviewers to act as gate keepers, but they really don't curate the images... the buyer stil has to look for images that fit their vision or need.
How could any curator or curating-group second guess which image would meet a particular buyer's vision or need?1 Puts me in mind of the old frustration of newspaper togs having their photo cropped or changed because a last minute ad was dropped in.
It's not always the 'best' photo which gets used, just the 'best one for the job'.
1 Unless with a researcher's fee. Some requests on micros from buyers are hilarious, and I just want to retort, "And then you'll buy it with a sub and your bulk discount".
I presume this one on iS was just a wind-up:
"I am looking for the following cityscape or something close to it:
An elevated view of the city outside completes the chic urban vibe. The location sits on the second floor above the cross streets of a brown brick warehouse district. The neighborhood has experienced a renaissance in the last several years. What was a blended heavy industrial and blue-collar residential neighborhood 15 years ago has turned over. Manufacturing has been replaced with loft office space and condos. Light industry has moved in: architecture, PR, design.
At the edges of the industrial district, row houses remain. Now, the neighborhood is a confluence of old and new. Young professionals blend with legacy residents. A mix of ethnicities and cultural traditions has spawned a unique burro of shops and restaurants. The district has become a destination for urban and suburban foodies and boutique shoppers. The location opened to appeal to a unique mix of guests. A certain charm has become of the strange and unexpected mix of personalities. Stylists are just as likely to welcome a single twenty-something pierced up punk as they are to welcome a suburban mother of two with a career crisis."
-
SS IS etc rely on "semi-talented" reviewers to act as gate keepers, but they really don't curate the images... the buyer stil has to look for images that fit their vision or need.
How could any curator or curating-group second guess which image would meet a particular buyer's vision or need?1 Puts me in mind of the old frustration of newspaper togs having their photo cropped or changed because a last minute ad was dropped in.
It's not always the 'best' photo which gets used, just the 'best one for the job'.
There are people who have the same vision or esthetic ... If I were ( for example) to create a collection of the best pasta dishes on shutter stock, my view of what is best would be different than yours ( though there may be overlap). So if a buyer likes how i see things, and they want a pasta dish, they may prefer to look through my collection before they dive deeply into the entire collection.
If I created a "edgy pasta" collection, it would be different than your "romantic Pasta" collection....I know this is what keywording is for, but having a person decide would be different.
-
could symbios be converted to a coop since it already has a lot of folks on it?
I'm running a symbiostock based co-op -- it's still independent photographers who don't want the hassles of running their own website -- somewhat surprisingly (to me) this group of independent sites has a very high alexa rating - placing it in the 11th position overall of 180 sites
http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=66 (http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=66)
I've started my own sub-site concentrating on my recent turkey images
http://turkey.symbiostock-network.com (http://turkey.symbiostock-network.com)
btw, after our recent fantastic turkey trip, I'm now collaborating with my Turkish guide/.friend to offer new trips to turkey over the next year
http://cascolytravel.com (http://cascolytravel.com) while not specifically oriented to photography I did manage to bring back over 6000 images which are already r\selling on SS and other sites. the itinerary is flexible and easily adapted to photographers' specific needs
-
could symbios be converted to a coop since it already has a lot of folks on it?
I'm running a symbiostock based co-op -- it's still independent photographers who don't want the hassles of running their own website -- somewhat surprisingly (to me) this group of independent sites has a very high alexa rating - placing it in the 11th position overall of 180 sites
[url]http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=66[/url] ([url]http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=66[/url])
I've started my own sub-site concentrating on my recent turkey images
[url]http://turkey.symbiostock-network.com[/url] ([url]http://turkey.symbiostock-network.com[/url])
btw, after our recent fantastic turkey trip, I'm now collaborating with my Turkish guide/.friend to offer new trips to turkey over the next year
[url]http://cascolytravel.com[/url] ([url]http://cascolytravel.com[/url]) while not specifically oriented to photography I did manage to bring back over 6000 images which are already r\selling on SS and other sites. the itinerary is flexible and easily adapted to photographers' specific needs
How do you keep Americans safe in turkey? I travel third world and have been to Egypt, India, Amazon, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc, but I wouldn't go back to Egypt, nor would I go to turkey.
-
could symbios be converted to a coop since it already has a lot of folks on it?
I'm running a symbiostock based co-op -- it's still independent photographers who don't want the hassles of running their own website -- somewhat surprisingly (to me) this group of independent sites has a very high alexa rating - placing it in the 11th position overall of 180 sites
[url]http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=66[/url] ([url]http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=66[/url])
I've started my own sub-site concentrating on my recent turkey images
[url]http://turkey.symbiostock-network.com[/url] ([url]http://turkey.symbiostock-network.com[/url])
btw, after our recent fantastic turkey trip, I'm now collaborating with my Turkish guide/.friend to offer new trips to turkey over the next year
[url]http://cascolytravel.com[/url] ([url]http://cascolytravel.com[/url]) while not specifically oriented to photography I did manage to bring back over 6000 images which are already r\selling on SS and other sites. the itinerary is flexible and easily adapted to photographers' specific needs
How do you keep Americans safe in turkey? I travel third world and have been to Egypt, India, Amazon, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc, but I wouldn't go back to Egypt, nor would I go to turkey.
just shows you haven't done your research -- unfortunately, many people, americans in particular have the same conception, and it's really hurt the Turkish tourism industry.
we traveled 6000km over 5 weeks and had no problems -- turks are welcoming and friendly, the food is great & photo ops everywhere. the east is more conservative, - a few people show they don't want their pictures taken, but common sense & courtesy get you thru
we drove to the Syrian border one day, and passed a large syrian refugee camp about 15km from the border. despite that, there was little police or military presence - certainly less than our first trip 15 years ago when there were many police check points in the east.
-
By the way: How long will it take until buyers are tired of this special Stocksy style?
i read the title of this thread and i shake head LOL, to be a competition you must have a track record (like Shutterstock or Getty). in marketing, anything less than 10 years is no track record. flavor of the day, month, decade, means NFA because consumers span like a 3 yr old. much like you see every garbage day in your elite "rich" neighbourhood... when you drive by to see all the last year's model is out there in the trash with "free to take away!".
repeat, until these new names with amazingly funny criteria of "new stock ideas" (and they laugh at Mr. Arcurs when he said mobs are the new micro!!!)..
and they goo ooh ahhh with Stocksy because the ex-Istock magician owns it .
remember Istock if i wiki it, made fame with giving away free images,
then he sold and took profit,
then poof, he is now the new magician with new stock thing. oh, with offset, of course !!!
LMAO..
-
So did they turn you down ?
-
So did they turn you down ?
lol, no, not yet! but why is it u have to turn personal ? r u so lacking in constructive discussion?
as Tyler mentioned, we are not here to go off topic each time we say something u disagree!
the irony is that as soon as we all look to another choice besides SS or some new flavour of the market,
everyone goes gaga, like pop music with the lady LMAO
ok btt. it is to the interest of everyone to have more choices than just SS . as for offset and stocksy,
you cannot tell me it's making a success. everything that is new looks successful at the beginning.
as i said, we all felt the same way with Veer. remember?
-
SS IS etc rely on "semi-talented" reviewers to act as gate keepers, but they really don't curate the images... the buyer stil has to look for images that fit their vision or need.
How could any curator or curating-group second guess which image would meet a particular buyer's vision or need?1 Puts me in mind of the old frustration of newspaper togs having their photo cropped or changed because a last minute ad was dropped in.
It's not always the 'best' photo which gets used, just the 'best one for the job'.
There are people who have the same vision or esthetic ... If I were ( for example) to create a collection of the best pasta dishes on shutter stock, my view of what is best would be different than yours ( though there may be overlap). So if a buyer likes how i see things, and they want a pasta dish, they may prefer to look through my collection before they dive deeply into the entire collection.
If I created a "edgy pasta" collection, it would be different than your "romantic Pasta" collection....I know this is what keywording is for, but having a person decide would be different.
first, having semi-talented reviewers are no better or worse than having say at IS,etc another contributor reviewing your work ( have you walked into the kitchen to smell conflict of interest, anyone???...
as they say in Resident Evil ... "manyyyyy!")
... psst, sure, go ahead and add that minus sign. i don't mind at all lmao!!!
secondly, i agree, there is really not that much art in isolated apples,etc..
and if your pasta looks better , fresher, different from the rest of your pasta...
you might just come up ahead of the rest of the not so tasty looking pastas
unfortunately, most clients don't give a r@t$ ar$e about creative photography, creative focusing ( ie. creative focusing, and not just sheer totally off focus camera user blunder,lol)...
proper rendition of daylight during the period when the WB is never white ( as one classic painter
once corrected his apprentice when he painted the cloud white all the time. .."are you painting what you see, or just painting what you remember?")
anyway, off topic. but yes, we do need alternatives. but from the right side of this page,
i see lots of alternatives, but not many viable one with a track record of consistent sales and regular payout to me, you ,etc..
only lots of promises of higher commissions, and more only smoking allowed, no jeans pls,etc.
but nothing really worth investigating outside of Shutterstock and Getty.
at least, not yet ! i am always open to a nudge and a wink, if you show me the money ;)
just don't give me the political rhetorics !!!
-
I have had an idea bouncing around in my head that might be time to talk about.
Crowd sourced curation.
Comments?
istock had this long ago with their excellent public lightbox system. You could create as many public galleries as you wanted and a designer could then bookmark this gallery for future reference. Many people are not the best shooters (or have no time to shoot) but they are excellent curators and those galleries were unbelievably fascinating. And files that were taken up into many public lightboxes sold extremely well and were very reliable in their sales, because you are less dependent on best match.
You could also have several admins for a gallery,for instance invite your friends to add files if you were interested in the same subject, or if you had done a shoot together, or just ask other people from your town to add their local files.
I loved the istock lightboxes. And for every image you could check the galleries it was in on a special page. They even had little previews for the galleries the designer could mouse over.
Public lightboxes are an excellent way to crowd source editing. And the marketing team can then promote the best editors in their own page or competitions etc...because good editing is an art in itself.
I really wish Shutterstock would give us public lightboxes to add files from many contributors, or allow us to share galleries with others. You of course need to limit the content from your own files, so the gallery remains useful, for instance not more than 50% your own content.
It takes worlds of work from the curators, they then just have to be "super curators" who can ride on the wave of prefiltered content from the crowd.
It also creates a new layer for the community to interact, especially between the designers/ buyers and the artists. So when you are not shooting and uploading, you could browse the gallery section for inspiration. Even more "stickiness" for the site.
Have a look at all the galleries Tina created. and many other artists still have them visible. http://www.istockphoto.com/t-lorien (http://www.istockphoto.com/t-lorien)
-
from the little i read of Stocksy, i take it that it is a coop, like everyone says it is, that is different from the other new thingey... Symbiostock . but technically speaking, i do not see the difference much.
it is both having a group of like-thinking people making their own exclusive or special interest site, linking to each other, or as JSLocke mentioned in one of his post re Stocksy, you have to have social-media because we push each other. i think that what he said.
Symbiostock is the same, no?
so, really, for today, the flavour of the month(s) is pointing to everyone reaching for straws in response
to what our friend on SS (*his new thread ) is asking "are you driving us away?".
we all no doubt will end up into little tribes, and either we co-exist (stocksy, symbiostock, creative-commons,) or we plunder each other while SS and the great emperor Getty sit there and still generate more income and more millions of new images from new contributors...
and
nary
a
blink
...
the new microstock, TRIBAL STOCK...
now, if only i can convince Yuri and Dolgachov to be my honourary contributors.
i am sure of making the initial years a boon startup, without even taking in any more contributors 8)
um, Mr Dolgachov, sir !!! Mr. Arcurs, sir!!!.... (brown nosing here!!! LMAO)
-
I'm not a member of Stocksy, primarily because I'm iStock exclusive. But two years of plummeting sales has me thinking about greener pastures. This is after 12 years of loyalty to iStock. I'm a big believer in what Stocksy is doing and I'm sure I could become a member because their philosophies regarding that fine line between art and business seem to be inline with my own. I prefer creating images in a very focused way with an emphasis on quality over quantity.
Yes, they are quite exclusive. One common complaint I've heard from my designer friends is that they love everything about Stocksy except they can't find the images they need. I also believe that Stocksy's management wants to keep their collection pristine and beautiful, which comes at the cost of limiting content. On the other hand, after witnessing iStock's stellar management for the first 10 years of it's existence, I do feel that they will find a better balance over time. Over 10 years, iStock grew from a freebie site, to invent microstock, and then find it's way to midstock which developed the perfect balance between high quality content and high volume of sales. They had a nice little niche and a lot of artists became successful.
Does anyone here remember iStockPro? I think it was a failed experiment because it took iStock's focus away from who they really were and were really just mimicking the more traditional agencies out there. On the other hand, I believe that from a business growth perspective, Stocksy will open the doors a little wider in the future and even come up with a Stocksy-Lite version that will offer high quality generic stock at a more competitive price. That will act as a separate entity so it doesn't dilute their existing highly curated collection. But we may be talking 3-5 years here.
If any of us here felt like it was a good idea to start up an agency, we would have done it a long time ago before there was 44+ pre-existing agencies. Does anyone have a couple million dollars to invest in a startup agency? Probably not, and even then that would be a lot of work and a lot of risk. What we should be doing is supporting these guys at Stocksy and petitioning them to make a bigger play for generic imagery as well.
-
I wonder whether they will ever allow non members to submit. ie open submissions for people who are not part of the co-op. At a reduced rate and no dividend. Like being an associate.
-
One common complaint I've heard from my designer friends is that they love everything about Stocksy except they can't find the images they need.
This is the problem I've had, I've tried buying images there before but they didn't have any illustrations or icon sets to go with the images I needed.
If they had illustrations I would have bought everything at Stocksy, but deadlines are always tight and I ended up buying an image pack at SS.
I love the collection at Stocksy but the reality is clients need a variety of images and illustrations for their marketing which makes it difficult for designers like me to shop there.
-
Since last week, I was looking for some interior shots with photo frames on the wall. Since I want it to look not too generic, not the same popular images that are spread across all all microstock site, I check out Stocksy as I know their images are exclusive, but nada, I can't find a thing. Getty has something, but no way I will support them.
-
This is the problem I've had, I've tried buying images there before but they didn't have any illustrations or icon sets to go with the images I needed.
If they had illustrations I would have bought everything at Stocksy, but deadlines are always tight and I ended up buying an image pack at SS.
I love the collection at Stocksy but the reality is clients need a variety of images and illustrations for their marketing which makes it difficult for designers like me to shop there.
Right now, it's not meant to be a one stop shop for everything.
-
I don't think we need competition to Stocksy. What would that do - drive down prices?
What could be needed is a fair agency, with inspection standards, which would supply the image types/styles which Stocksy doesn't want.
First find your multi-millionaire with previous industry experience ...
-
I don't think we need competition to Stocksy. What would that do - drive down prices?
What could be needed is a fair agency, with inspection standards, which would supply the image types/styles which Stocksy doesn't want.
First find your multi-millionaire with previous industry experience ...
1) isn't that what SS is doing? supply the image Stocksy doesn't want?
2) if i were your mutli-millionaire, why would i be foolish enough to start another agency?
-
I don't think we need competition to Stocksy. What would that do - drive down prices?
What could be needed is a fair agency, with inspection standards, which would supply the image types/styles which Stocksy doesn't want.
First find your multi-millionaire with previous industry experience ...
1) isn't that what SS is doing? supply the image Stocksy doesn't want?
The subs price level is insultingly low for rigidly inspected images; not in the same ball game.
2) if i were your mutli-millionaire, why would i be foolish enough to start another agency?
Quite.
-
1) isn't that what SS is doing? supply the image Stocksy doesn't want?
The subs price level is insultingly low for rigidly inspected images; not in the same ball game.
2) if i were your mutli-millionaire, why would i be foolish enough to start another agency?
Quite.
partly true, it is at times a bit anal, and with Atilla 100% rejection for those who complained in the threads here and there, it is seemingly rigid. but i have seen some of the rejection complaints and they are not quite the stock photos u want in SS either. and yes, they do look out of focus, WB off, or even poor compositions. but i agree, if u want to be that rigid,
then let's see more money.
but we have over 20 sites that are less rigid and they don't sell at all. look at it, 0.4 - 6 %
is not exactly encouraging, for me to spend time uploading to a site.
that could well explain why Shutterstock is a bit rigid, and at time anal.
but not enough to justify Atilla and her motely breed of 100% rejectors.
still, we don't get 38 cents or 33 cts all the time. i still see a buck, 2 bucks, 28 bucks, 80 bucks, 105 bucks,... so it is not just 33 cents. u will see 33 cents for the marginal stuff or clones of clones by cousins and cousins' cousins 8)
but i would not object to anyone asking for more money for all of us.
and i am still waiting for a multi millionaire to come in , start a new site and say she/he cares for suppliers (hyperbole much???).
but not holding my breath... as i have seen too many striped leopards 8)
-
still, we don't get 38 cents or 33 cts all the time. i still see a buck, 2 bucks, 28 bucks, 80 bucks, 105 bucks,... so it is not just 33 cents. u will see 33 cents for the marginal stuff or clones of clones by cousins and cousins' cousins 8)
I've never heard that only simple or common images get sold for subs. I thought it was just up to the buyer's needs for the image. I thought even the most special stuff could earn you 25c - 38c or woteva.
-
still, we don't get 38 cents or 33 cts all the time. i still see a buck, 2 bucks, 28 bucks, 80 bucks, 105 bucks,... so it is not just 33 cents. u will see 33 cents for the marginal stuff or clones of clones by cousins and cousins' cousins 8)
I've never heard that only simple or common images get sold for subs. I thought it was just up to the buyer's needs for the image. I thought even the most special stuff could earn you 25c - 38c or woteva.
I was answering to your statement that SS pays insultingly low for rigidly inspected images
to which i say from my own earnings i quoted as above that it is not true.
repeat... i have earned daily one, two dollars, and also 28 dollars, 80 odd dollars, and lately 105 dollars per image download.
so, in answer to your comment, NOT INSULTINGLY LOW subs prices. and i am sure many other SS-ers who have good portfolios, will tell you the insultingly low subs prices are not a regular anymore.
-
I was answering to your statement that SS pays insultingly low for rigidly inspected images
to which i say from my own earnings i quoted as above that it is not true.
repeat... i have earned daily one, two dollars, and also 28 dollars, 80 odd dollars, and lately 105 dollars per image download.
so, in answer to your comment, NOT INSULTINGLY LOW subs prices. and i am sure many other SS-ers who have good portfolios, will tell you the insultingly low subs prices are not a regular anymore.
I said the subs prices are insultingly low, and made no comment about anything else.
I accept your right to believe that 25c-38c for a sub sale is not an insult, though I obviously don't agree. Don't change what I said.
-
Don't change what I said.
LOL, when u examine the net too closely u miss the fish
-
Don't change what I said.
LOL, when u examine the net too closely u miss the fish
Not only do I know people within and outwith MSG who get very few non-sub sales at SS, the fact that cheap sub sales are there (and elsewhere, obviously) perpetuates the idea that images are, and should be, cheap.
Stocksy's minimum price is a more realistic $10.
-
Just a quick comment regarding SS review: I do NOT think it is rigid or strict. Not at all. What bothers me is that it is random and totally unprofessional - Inspectors do not seem to know the markets, the demand, no idea about composition and in general do not seem to know what they are doing. Actually I would welcome a even more rigid Inspection if they would know how to inspect / curate / edit properly.
-
Don't change what I said.
LOL, when u examine the net too closely u miss the fish
Not only do I know people within and outwith MSG who get very few non-sub sales at SS, the fact that cheap sub sales are there (and elsewhere, obviously) perpetuates the idea that images are, and should be, cheap.
Stocksy's minimum price is a more realistic $10.
don't get wrong. i am not supporting the plunging earnings of contributors. i welcome anyone who is trying to raise the bottom-line for us all. but until i see the money coming in, as opposed to vapor promises , i remain incredulous.
as i said, we had veer, cutcaster,etc.. who gave us "a more realistic $10, or whatever",
and others giving a more generous %-age . but %-age or 100% of nada is nada.
until i see actual proof, ie. like PixelBytes in the other thread on P5,
the rest is only vaporware
-
The subs price level is insultingly low for rigidly inspected images; not in the same ball game.
insultingly low nonetheless, but Stocksy hero Mr. Locke is also with Shutterstock . ;)
-
This is the problem I've had, I've tried buying images there before but they didn't have any illustrations or icon sets to go with the images I needed.
If they had illustrations I would have bought everything at Stocksy, but deadlines are always tight and I ended up buying an image pack at SS.
I love the collection at Stocksy but the reality is clients need a variety of images and illustrations for their marketing which makes it difficult for designers like me to shop there.
Right now, it's not meant to be a one stop shop for everything.
I appreciate the collection is narrow to differentiate in a crowded market place.
I'm just relaying my own buyer behaviour when I actively want to support Stocksy, it surprised me that when I needed a bunch of work for a client I looked at Stocksy first and then got sucked into an image pack at SS because I needed some illustrations.
Personally I think you guys should up your prices if you're going for the niche end of the market, the collection has a RM feel to it. Or introduce a low tier into the collection to pull in the masses.
Wish you guys the best.
-
The subs price level is insultingly low for rigidly inspected images; not in the same ball game.
insultingly low nonetheless, but Stocksy hero Mr. Locke is also with Shutterstock . ;)
Sean is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, but he had an extensive back-catalogue of typically stocky images and needed outlets for them. It probably wasn't his first choice, but I'm sure he's doing well there.