pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why can't we do this? - Microstock Coop  (Read 11810 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 07, 2013, 04:18 »
+1
Hi,

I see many people are part of the microstock industry and also running their own personal website to sell images. Symbiostock has really helped us and many to bring an individual presence and direct selling model.

I want to share some views (my personal and no offence)...

Contributors:
1- We are seeing many new websites coming in the market. Many survive and many not. Contributors gets invitations to join them in their initial phase with some benefits. We then review the site, discuss the royalty rates and tell the pros and cons of the new site in this forum.
2- We usually discuss regarding the royalty rates. As we can see within top tier companies, there is no fair commission rate. And we then read on news that companies has generated so much revenue and earning.
3- We are seeing less sales from past many months and this is gradually increasing. Many members are discussing regarding low sales on forums.

Buyers:
1- Buyer are getting confused from where to buy now. So many companies with so many offers.
2- Buyer gets even more confused when they get to know that there are even more individual symbiostock websites.
3- There is lot of supply with limited demands.

My views:
Since, there are many good people out in this msg forum who are constantly active. We are aware about the royalty structure and no fair contributor commission. Why cannot we make a group and launch a website which allow every users a fair chance as well as fair commission.
Lets bring all the individual sellers and unite them to a new "our" community generated website from where buyers can directly buy from us and we also give a very good royalty % commission. All there will be a running expenses of annual maintenance charge and some marketing and SEO expenses. There could be a small investment on website building etc.
This platform will also provide a one shop destinations for buyers as well as a fair commission to us.

Let there be any good person to lead and handle this website from here msg forums and create and select team from here only. We know that buyers wants images and we also know we want fair commission.

Let me know your views on it.

admin edit: added more descriptive subject
« Last Edit: October 08, 2013, 22:32 by leaf »


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2013, 04:26 »
0
It was suggested manys the time and oft. There have been many threads on here about that very issue.
There are just so many thing mitigating against this happening, Symbiostock was the best compromise solution.
The alternative would be Stocksy or similar.
Someone may have kept bookmarks to all the previous links so you can see that all the problems with your suggestion are.

« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2013, 05:33 »
+3
Let there be any good person to lead and handle this website from here msg forums and create and select team from here only. We know that buyers wants images and we also know we want fair commission.

Let me know your views on it.

You go right ahead.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2013, 12:56 »
+6
Perfect Answer.

I sat and figured how a Stock Photo Co-Op might work. The first time it hit the board, people were unhappy because of the way others might work or make more and wanted top billing, full income, even if someone else had to run the site, pay for it, do reviews, handle software. People should be paid for what they contribute, not just for being one member with one photo, and demanding a full share.

It went up in smoke in a day.

What I'm getting at it this.

I, Me, Mine. Where it should be Us, We, Our.

Otherwise if someone has a way to run a site, as a not for profit and pay the contributors top commissions, after expenses. Please do it. You'll have my full moral support and encouragement. I think there's a reason why it hasn't been done.

Symbiostock isn't just some off the tangent idea, it's 100% inspired. It's the co-op without the management. Everyone is self supporting and independent, but shares with others, if they want to be associated. Everything is personal choice and volunteer.

Oh and that one other thing? 100% commission.


Let there be any good person to lead and handle this website from here msg forums and create and select team from here only. We know that buyers wants images and we also know we want fair commission.

Let me know your views on it.

You go right ahead.

Ron

« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2013, 13:00 »
0
Perfect Answer.

I sat and figured how a Stock Photo Co-Op might work. The first time it hit the board, people were unhappy because of the way others might work or make more and wanted top billing, full income, even if someone else had to run the site, pay for it, do reviews, handle software. People should be paid for what they contribute, not just for being one member with one photo, and demanding a full share.

It went up in smoke in a day.

What I'm getting at it this.

I, Me, Mine. Where it should be Us, We, Our.

Otherwise if someone has a way to run a site, as a not for profit and pay the contributors top commissions, after expenses. Please do it. You'll have my full moral support and encouragement. I think there's a reason why it hasn't been done.

Symbiostock isn't just some off the tangent idea, it's 100% inspired. It's the co-op without the management. Everyone is self supporting and independent, but shares with others, if they want to be associated. Everything is personal choice and volunteer.

Oh and that one other thing? 100% commission.



Pete can I copy some of the things you just said there for my site?

Uncle Pete

« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2013, 13:20 »
+1
If you can find the original Co-Op plan post, it would be better thought out and you would see why it was a disaster in a day. This reply was just babbling off the cuff.

The problem is this, and you understand business so you'd know well how it works.

People wanted to share in the profits, based on being a member, not on how many downloads or income they brought into the project. People wanted to be first, even if they had 100 images, vs someone experienced with 4000 images. (just examples) Some decided right off it should be a socialist project, all share equally, even if they made no income contribution.

Real simple, it doesn't work because too many independent people only want what's good for themselves and can't seem to participate is a group cooperative effort, under any circumstances.

My idea was, everyone got "shares" based on sales, and after expenses, 100% of the profit would be divided based upon the "shares". People who earned more, got more and people who brought in less income, got less. Not a terribly complicate math or a controversial scheme. You get what you earn. LOL

It was carpet bombed into submission by opposing views.

The End



Perfect Answer.

I sat and figured how a Stock Photo Co-Op might work. The first time it hit the board, people were unhappy because of the way others might work or make more and wanted top billing, full income, even if someone else had to run the site, pay for it, do reviews, handle software. People should be paid for what they contribute, not just for being one member with one photo, and demanding a full share.

It went up in smoke in a day.

What I'm getting at it this.

I, Me, Mine. Where it should be Us, We, Our.

Otherwise if someone has a way to run a site, as a not for profit and pay the contributors top commissions, after expenses. Please do it. You'll have my full moral support and encouragement. I think there's a reason why it hasn't been done.

Symbiostock isn't just some off the tangent idea, it's 100% inspired. It's the co-op without the management. Everyone is self supporting and independent, but shares with others, if they want to be associated. Everything is personal choice and volunteer.

Oh and that one other thing? 100% commission.



Pete can I copy some of the things you just said there for my site?

Ron

« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2013, 13:25 »
0
No, I just want to use some text from what I quoted from you. I dont need a Co Op plan.

« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2013, 13:32 »
+7
I've pretty much given up on everyone working together harmoniously. If you could somehow figure out how to fuel an agency by bickering and arguing, I think it might work.  ;)

« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2013, 15:29 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:22 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2013, 15:37 »
+4
I've pretty much given up on everyone working together harmoniously. If you could somehow figure out how to fuel an agency by bickering and arguing, I think it might work.  ;)

It can work but you probably need one person or small group of people to just do it and then others can join up.


Like, ermmm... I don't know ...  let me think.....  Stocksy ?!?


;)

« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2013, 15:40 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:22 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2013, 15:43 »
+3
The only thing different (that people here would want) is an open membership as opposed to a more select membership, but it's what is being talked about.  A small group of people willed it into existence, by it's own legal terms it belongs to the members.  Profits are distributed after expenses.  Etc.

marthamarks

« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2013, 15:55 »
+3
Symbiostock isn't just some off the tangent idea, it's 100% inspired. It's the co-op without the management. Everyone is self supporting and independent, but shares with others, if they want to be associated. Everything is personal choice and volunteer.

Oh and that one other thing? 100% commission.

Bingo!  +1000

Symbiostock is one of the best things I've seen come down the pike in a long, long time.

As Uncle Pete said, Symbiostock is inspired. It's a group of people who've never met one another and actually do compete with one another, but still are willing to share dreams, ideas, know-how, problems/solutions, etc.

I believe Symbiostock has the potential to change the world for those of us who are so frustrated with the current microstock situation. I'm willing to take the time and do what it takes to build a quality SYS site that will endure and be a credit to the entire network. Others are, too.

Which is why it will work. Over time. Not as a flash-in-the-pan. But as a permanent, durable asset for those of us who invest our time now in making it work for years to come.

« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2013, 16:05 »
0
I've pretty much given up on everyone working together harmoniously. If you could somehow figure out how to fuel an agency by bickering and arguing, I think it might work.  ;)
It can work but you probably need one person or small group of people to just do it and then others can join up.

Like, ermmm... I don't know ...  let me think.....  Stocksy ?!?

Is Stocksy powered by angry arguments?  ;D

« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2013, 16:33 »
+4
No, a room full of ferrets in exercise wheels.

« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2013, 16:41 »
+2
Symbiostock is probably the best and closest to this model.  There are 2 practical drawbacks.

1) Not really an option unless one has a reasonable amount of marketable product - earning say 3 figures a week.  This excludes a lot of where the sites draw their crowd sourced material from.

2) What is in it for the buyer unless the big contributors move their portfolios in there and away from mainstream sites?  Without unique product, it has to compete on price.

How is stocksy an option?  Nice model but a co-op that is only open to a select few doesn't help much.

« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2013, 16:43 »
0
No, a room full of ferrets in exercise wheels.
or ball bearings....


Ron

« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2013, 16:50 »
0
No, a room full of ferrets in exercise wheels.
or ball bearings....

Aaah now I understand. Woodyone, of course.

« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2013, 20:09 »
+2


.......
Otherwise if someone has a way to run a site, as a not for profit and pay the contributors top commissions, after expenses. Please do it. You'll have my full moral support and encouragement. I think there's a reason why it hasn't been done.


....
Symbiostock isn't just some off the tangent idea, it's 100% inspired. It's the co-op without the management. Everyone is self supporting and independent, but shares with others, if they want to be associated. Everything is personal choice and volunteer.

Oh and that one other thing? 100% commission.



for any masochists around, a demo co-op could be set up using the existing tools and files within symbio -- the global search engines already consolidate images from all 100+ sites to do searches.  next step woud be to add tracking of what sales go where, and use email forwarding to track sales.  (I do something similar with my Turkish travel partner - whenever anyone answers our online forms or tours, we each get a copy of the email)

but as mentioned, it's not a tech problem, the biggest hurdle will be overcoming egos

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2013, 20:35 »
0
Symbiostock is probably the best and closest to this model.  There are 2 practical drawbacks.

1) Not really an option unless one has a reasonable amount of marketable product - earning say 3 figures a week.  This excludes a lot of where the sites draw their crowd sourced material from.

2) What is in it for the buyer unless the big contributors move their portfolios in there and away from mainstream sites?  Without unique product, it has to compete on price.


I plan to compete on price. Not to undercut, but to be competitive. The difference will be that I'll keep 97% of the sale instead of 10 or 20% . So even if I sell far fewer files, I just might make what I do at the agencies.

I haven't launched yet, though, so we'll see how it goes.

Leo Blanchette

« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2013, 22:13 »
+2
I love seeing people get motivated on these things. Anyone who can add an extra layer of cooperation, marketing, funneling...weasels... I certainly welcome! I'm definitely running at full amount here and can't do anything else. But if people get motivated and create sites/hubs/co-ops it could only help!

Anyway, back to my cave now.

« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2013, 10:36 »
+6
Symbiostock is a network, not a co-op. There is a big difference between the two from the buyer's perspective. The network requires the buyer to register for each  individual site if they want to make a purchase. A co-op (or virtual agency) puts all the images into one search and allows the customer to register once and download any image from any member.

Symbiostock could be used as a co-op of course. It would require someone to step forward and create a hub of sorts and provide a central registration and payment process. It has been proposed, but initial support was not strong enough to get it off the ground.

A co-op can be easily formed through Photoshelter or K-Tools. K-Tools requires one member to form the site and purchase the contributors add-on, and to manage all payments and record keeping. It is easily established, but it will require a lot of extra work come tax time.

The Photoshelter co-op or Virtual Agency option is probably superior. All it requires is that members link together through their Photoshelter accounts. Sales and Registrations are handled under one umbrella (Photoshelter), but each sale is awarded to the image author instead of a host site. That means approximately a 90% commission for the image author, and there is no requirement for an "agency leader" to be handling payments, taxes, etc.

« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2013, 12:50 »
-3
It has to be open for everyone.
It has to be free.
It has to be easy and straightforward.
It has to be 100% royalty to contributor.

An agencies killer model. Ok, change to; New opportunity model.

Now go figure out how to do it. IT'S DOABLE I TELL YOU.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 13:15 by Open_ »

« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2013, 13:00 »
0
It has to be 100% royalty to contributor.

An agencies killer model.

You are confusing the needs of the contributor with the needs of the customer. While some customers are contributors, I'm sure most have no idea about royalty structure or agency-artist relations. You can't "kill" an agency unless you take all their customers. It has nothing to do with artist royalty structure. If it did, then Featurepics and Mostphotos would have killed iStock and Shutterstock years ago.

Unless you have a plan for attracting customers, a well structured co-op won't change the competitive landscape among agencies.

EDIT - The reason Stocksy is making inroads is because Bruce obviously had a plan for attracting customers, and relations with the customers he built during his days leading iStock. You can build a co-op in minutes with the right software. The key is customer acquisition.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 13:04 by djpadavona »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2013, 13:04 »
+5
It has to be open for everyone.
It has to be free.
It has to be easy and straightforward.
It has to be 100% royalty to contributor.

An agencies killer model.

Now go figure out how to do it. IT'S DOABLE I TELL YOU.

As there are some costs involved in any sort of website operation, how can it be "free" and give "100% to the contributor"? (other than obnoxious adverts)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
6350 Views
Last post July 23, 2007, 19:11
by Suljo
6 Replies
4692 Views
Last post July 24, 2007, 22:36
by litifeta
0 Replies
2866 Views
Last post January 19, 2008, 10:34
by rosta
72 Replies
50341 Views
Last post July 08, 2011, 15:22
by cathyslife
36 Replies
27168 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:03
by Anyka

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors