Author Topic: We need competition to Stocksy! (Read 26043 times)

cobalt · « **Reply #50 on:** July 09, 2014, 18:51 »

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?

topol · « **Reply #51 on:** July 10, 2014, 02:09 »

Quote from: cthoman on July 09, 2014, 18:39

Quote from: topol on July 09, 2014, 14:27
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.

topol · « **Reply #52 on:** July 10, 2014, 02:11 »

Quote from: Goofy on July 09, 2014, 15:13

Quote from: topol on July 09, 2014, 14:27
Quote from: heywoody on July 07, 2014, 16:44
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

How did that even come up?

old crow · « **Reply #53 on:** July 10, 2014, 05:57 »

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.

cthoman · « **Reply #54 on:** July 10, 2014, 09:06 »

Quote from: topol on July 10, 2014, 02:09

Anything in the world does OK from some, that's saying nothing.

I guess you've never been a contributor at Crestock.

Tror · « **Reply #55 on:** July 10, 2014, 09:14 »

Quote from: wordplanet on July 09, 2014, 15:33

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.

Tror · « **Reply #56 on:** July 10, 2014, 09:24 »

Quote from: cobalt on July 09, 2014, 18:51

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.

photographyplus · « **Reply #57 on:** July 11, 2014, 00:37 »

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.

cobalt · « **Reply #58 on:** July 11, 2014, 01:13 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #59 on:** July 11, 2014, 06:07 »

Quote from: photographyplus on July 11, 2014, 00:37

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.

Tror · « **Reply #60 on:** July 11, 2014, 07:39 »

Quote from: cobalt on July 11, 2014, 01:13

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....

Tror · « **Reply #61 on:** July 11, 2014, 07:45 »

Quote from: photographyplus on July 11, 2014, 00:37

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.

Mantis · « **Reply #62 on:** July 11, 2014, 08:54 »

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.

photographyplus · « **Reply #63 on:** July 11, 2014, 17:20 »

How is a COOP different than just revenue share or 100% commission?

Tror · « **Reply #64 on:** July 11, 2014, 18:56 »

Quote from: photographyplus on July 11, 2014, 17:20

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.

Goofy · « **Reply #65 on:** July 11, 2014, 19:13 »

confused now. Wasn't symbiostock created for this type of COOP?

Tror · « **Reply #66 on:** July 11, 2014, 19:17 »

Quote from: Goofy on July 11, 2014, 19:13

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.

Goofy · « **Reply #67 on:** July 11, 2014, 19:58 »

could symbios be converted to a coop since it already has a lot of folks on it?

Tror · « **Reply #68 on:** July 11, 2014, 20:05 »

Quote from: Goofy on July 11, 2014, 19:58

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.

bunhill · « **Reply #69 on:** July 14, 2014, 01:16 »

Quote from: Goofy on July 11, 2014, 19:58

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.

old crow · « **Reply #70 on:** July 14, 2014, 05:53 »

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.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #71 on:** July 14, 2014, 06:40 »

Quote from: old crow on July 14, 2014, 05:53

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.

old crow · « **Reply #72 on:** July 14, 2014, 15:00 »

""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.

grsphoto · « **Reply #73 on:** July 14, 2014, 16:31 »

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?

ShadySue · « **Reply #74 on:** July 14, 2014, 16:47 »

Quote from: grsphoto on July 14, 2014, 16:31

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."

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: We need competition to Stocksy! (Read 26043 times)

cobalt

topol

topol

old crow

cthoman

Tror

Tror

photographyplus

cobalt

ShadySue

Tror

Tror

Mantis

photographyplus

Tror

Goofy

Tror

Goofy

Tror

bunhill

old crow

cuppacoffee

old crow

grsphoto

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors