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.

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.

Quote from: cgartist on October 07, 2013, 04:18

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.

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

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 08, 2013, 12:56

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?

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. 

Quote from: cthoman on October 08, 2013, 13:32

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 ?!?

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.

Quote from: tickstock on October 08, 2013, 15:29

Quote from: cthoman on October 08, 2013, 13:32

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? 

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.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 08, 2013, 16:33

No, a room full of ferrets in exercise wheels.

or ball bearings....

Aaah now I understand. Woodyone, of course.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Just wait until I unveil my photo agency on Angelfire.   

People can't figure out how to do it, and give excuses.

The microstock industry has mature and new opportunity arise.

No, I wont give away my ideas on how to do it.

Totally agree EmberMike. 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?

Quote from: Open_ on October 10, 2013, 13:23

No, I wont give away my ideas on how to do it.

It's not a secret. It's been discussed around here often. It takes money, period, and lots of it. Even a coop needs to be run like a business, and businesses need money to get off the ground. Especially a web-based business that deals in digital assets, things that take up lots of space on servers and require significant IT systems to distribute.

Look at Stocksy. They spent probably tons of money on systems, office space, website design and development, branding, etc. All before they even opened their doors and started doing any business.

I don't think you necessarily need money if you are running something small. Money always helps though.

I don't think you necessarily need money if you are running something small. Money always helps though.

If it's a coop that is going to offer the work of more than a few artists, it'll take some money to get set up with the necessary equipment, servers, IT infrastructure, etc. I suppose it might be a little cheaper in the beginning to go with a hosted solution, but even that isn't going to be really "cheap" in order to get the kind of setup that has provides adequate site speed, bandwidth, storage, etc.

Good design costs money. Could you get away with cheap design? Sure, but a cheap looking site doesn't sell. You'd need to spend money on a good site design, a logo, etc.

I guess you can do things cheap or free, but if we're talking about something that has a real chance of working, I just think there are some things you won't be able to cut corners on.

Quote from: EmberMike on October 10, 2013, 14:20

Quote from: cthoman on October 10, 2013, 13:47

I don't think you necessarily need money if you are running something small. Money always helps though.

If it's a coop that is going to offer the work of more than a few artists, it'll take some money to get set up with the necessary equipment, servers, IT infrastructure, etc. I suppose it might be a little cheaper in the beginning to go with a hosted solution, but even that isn't going to be really "cheap" in order to get the kind of setup that has provides adequate site speed, bandwidth, storage, etc.

Good design costs money. Could you get away with cheap design? Sure, but a cheap looking site doesn't sell. You'd need to spend money on a good site design, a logo, etc.

I guess you can do things cheap or free, but if we're talking about something that has a real chance of working, I just think there are some things you won't be able to cut corners on.

I agree and I don't think it would be too hard to find a couple hundred contributors willing to throw a few thousand in if the project looks promising.

Yes, it would.  You're talking about the people that want "100%" royalties.

.

Whats the problem with Stocksy then?

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 10, 2013, 14:29

I agree and I don't think it would be too hard to find a couple hundred contributors willing to throw a few thousand in if the project looks promising.

Yes, it would.  You're talking about the people that want "100%" royalties.

People have to be realistic, there are costs associated with starting a professional project.  I'm not looking to join a do-it-yourself, ad hoc co-op that runs on pre-made software.  It has to be something serious, 100% royalties isn't a serious suggestion.
[/quote]

Oh God, I'm agreeing with tickstock.

This is exactly right though.  One of the reasons for the success of the crowd sourced model is the fact that there is zero investment needed other than producing product and they would be doing photos or whatever anyway (the type of photos probably changes as they realise what sells and doesn't).  Successful startups need entrepreneurs and investment.  I hope Leo is making some money from symbio  because it's important that the guy with the vision stays involved.

...the OP obviously want all the advantages symbiostock has to offer, but without paying the hosting and maintaining costs...

Actually what I think they want is something far crazier than that. It sounds like they want a coop site that is a single site, not a network like Symbiostock. That's something that would take some significant time, effort, and money to build. It's an agency website, essentially. Except built out of the goodness of someone's heart and asking for nothing in return.

What Leo built with Symbiostock was done mostly with his own time. As far as I know, Leo didn't need to invest much (or maybe any) money into the project. The type of site the OP is suggesting sound more like something that would take a team of people to build, something that ordinarily costs big bucks.

Think of it like Symbiostock, except if Leo had to hire a team of people to do it, spend money on infrastructure to house all of the systems and images, and then gave away ever dollar the site brought in.

Quote from: cidepix on October 10, 2013, 21:07

...the OP obviously want all the advantages symbiostock has to offer, but without paying the hosting and maintaining costs...

Actually what I think they want is something far crazier than that. It sounds like they want a coop site that is a single site, not a network like Symbiostock. That's something that would take some significant time, effort, and money to build. It's an agency website, essentially. Except built out of the goodness of someone's heart and asking for nothing in return.

What Leo built with Symbiostock was done mostly with his own time. As far as I know, Leo didn't need to invest much (or maybe any) money into the project. The type of site the OP is suggesting sound more like something that would take a team of people to build, something that ordinarily costs big bucks.

Think of it like Symbiostock, except if Leo had to hire a team of people to do it, spend money on infrastructure to house all of the systems and images, and then gave away ever dollar the site brought in.

yes, that I agree..

the OP wants it in agency form, because it is easier to fantasise that "someone is going to build a site for everyone" than fantasise that "someone is going to build an individual site for all of us and also pay for hosting on our behalf"

I see  the OP as someone asking to re-invent the wheel

The issue everyone needs to realize is that the wheel was invented, tested and found extremely practical by everyone who tried it..

It's not in our nature.. we don't go from practical to non-practical..

The OP wants to ignore the latest advancement in contributor world and travel back in time.. all that for not paying the hosting..

even if you don't earn it back, is it not worth trying it, let's say for a year?

If $50 per year is too much to risk, then you are not in it for business and you can not earn much even if such "fantasy agency" existed anyway..

Essentially what most people want is an agency that takes no royalties and promotes your work tirelessly. We all know how likely this is come into being. Ask one simple question; �am I willing to dedicate my life and time so that others can join and benefit?� No? Then why should anyone else? If they do, however, support them and encourage them to keep at it in any way you can even if it is just remaining positive.

My feeling is that the people with good work will sell no matter where they go. Search engines index everything these days. I feel that what a lot of people are worried about is competition. It�s unfair if person X sells more. Well, as harsh as it sounds, if person X has great work (or is a natural salesman) then why should he or she be held back so that mediocre work can sell?

When we go back to the agency model we are always hearing about how some people start selling more and others sell less and how good or bad this is. You cannot please everyone and if you seriously think the agencies care if you like it or not then� here� have a needle for your bubble! Most business, sadly, is built on greed and not community. That is why Stock agencies have billionaires and we get peanuts tossed through the monkey bars. I don�t think any of us like that model.

We, as professionals, need to change our negative tune we sing far too often. If someone achieves success (ethically) be glad and learn from them. IF you are not going anywhere fast then you must stop and ask the difficult questions so you can learn WHY not!.

We have a huge supply and not enough demand that wants to pay. The reality is that either you can deliver the goods or you can�t/don�t/won�t. Price is also an issue. If you want to set higher prices to try to move the market back to a fair place then be prepared to know that some clients will go where the grass is * cheap or free. You will never convince that market to change. So look upwards to a market that will value your work. If you cannot find that market then a career change is in order.

I think the challenge is that the last decade started out with insane revenue for a few select members that got on board early but that ship has sailed! Mourn, wear black, wave the hanky, and move on. That ship is unlikely to come back to port. No one will agree and collectively pull the rug from under the agencies. We have that power but it�s always about me, myself, and I. So that ship is also unlikely to come to port.

Now we are left with a new model that SymbioStock is based on. Your work does as well as it can depending on the quality, price, and the amount of effort you put in. There is no free lunch which is why we are being squeezed and shafted by the agencies. www.iSHAFTcontributers.com

Jo