Quote from: ShadySue on October 10, 2013, 19:04
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.   

Stocksy is a coop, and I think a pretty good example of just how difficult it is to set one up, run it, and make it successful. It's not going to work if it's a couple of people working remotely, doing this as a side project with no money, no equipment, no office, etc.

As simple as a coop sounds, it still takes a ton of resources and time to just get it off the ground in a way that would allow it to be competitive and, maybe, someday, profitable.

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.

Quote from: Open_ on October 10, 2013, 18:50
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.

All I want is EVERYTHING. No big deal. 

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, 19:23No, 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.

Quote from: EmberMike on October 10, 2013, 19:39

Quote from: Open_ on October 10, 2013, 19:23No, 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.

Quote from: Open_ on October 10, 2013, 18:50
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.

I dare you to build it, don't forget that you cannot charge anything

Quote from: cthoman on October 10, 2013, 19:47I 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: tickstock on October 10, 2013, 20:24

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

Quote from: cthoman on October 10, 2013, 19:47I 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.

Quote from: tickstock on October 10, 2013, 20:24I 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.

I think it would be nearly impossible to find more than a few people willing to put in $1,000. Not when it matters, anyway. To make a project look promising enough for anyone to be willing to kick in any money, it would have to already be off the ground and running, meaning it would have already required money to get to that point.

Look at all of the startups that come through here looking for contributors. They can't get many people interested and they're not even asking for money. It's free to take a chance on one of these new companies, even the few that do look promising, and they still are met with a lot of resistance and skepticism.

Even if, theoretically, someone could find 50 contributors willing to kick in $1,000 each. That's only $50,000. Think you could get a stock coop up and running on $50,000? Any guesses on what it cost to build Stocksy? I bet there was more than a million in that company even before they launched.

.

.

Whats the problem with Stocksy then?

.

Quote from: tickstock on October 10, 2013, 21:47

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 10, 2013, 20:29
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.

this thread could have been valid and worth to discuss 2 years ago..

BUT NOW, that we have the best of the solutions, which is symbiostock, it is a waste of time to further discuss this idea..

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

I think (and I know I am not the only one) the issue is solved for good.. if you still want an agency that will pay you fair commissions, then start one, because none of us, symbiostockers will do that for you as we are content with our solution..

Quote from: cidepix on October 11, 2013, 03:07...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.

The people who are with Stocksy are making a considerable personal investment. They are putting their best work there exclusively. That's a big investment already.

On the other hand they are also clearly getting a good deal out of it. I sometimes look at the portfolios of people who used to be at iStock and some who do or used to post here - Stocksy seems to be inspiring them to produce really fantastic contemporary work. I am going to guess that something about that community is inspiring them. Or maybe they just all got really good at the same time.

Quote from: EmberMike on October 11, 2013, 03:51

Quote from: cidepix on October 11, 2013, 03:07...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..

Quote from: heywoody on October 10, 2013, 22:52

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.

We keep Leo on a leash and toss scraps at him to keep him happy! On a serious note, IT DOES work because someone like Leo HAS stuck with it. Some of us support him and try to help out with ideas, suggestions, and help others with answers we happen to know so he can get on with his work.

So I try to do my bit to help out because Leo cannot do everything and he largely does it for free! I want him to stay involved! Without him, development will dwindle because most of us do not have his knowledge and no one else who does has stepped up to help yet!

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