I have been reading a lot of the forums and started thinking about how to improve our lives as Micro Stock Submitters.

The only answer I could come up with is a Co-op, type agency.

This is how I see it working.

Submitters have to be a member of the Co-op.  To be a member you need to buy at least one share ( $50? a share)

Commission would be set by the members ( 40%? ) and dividends paid based on shares.  Dividends would NOT be a proirity, with most of the funds being re-invested into marketing, technology, marketing, search optiimization and marketing.

There would be no "reviewers" but paid photo editors.
All images will be accepted, but rated and "placed" by the editors
Image submission will be charged per image submitted ( .01? .10?) to pay for the editors
Your will work with the same editor for all submissions unless you ask for a change, so you can converse with them.

For this to work buyers are needed, so the systems have to set up to make it easy for them, which may mean strict controlled vocabulary, and

Anyone interested in pursuing this?

Glenn

---
admin edit: edited the title to be more descriptive. 

Been discussed many times
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/contributors'-collective/

There is interest in that, it has been suggested many times, but it doesnt work, because

A. No one feels the need to step up and take lead
B. Too many different minds

This again! A few points which come up every time this comes up which is most months ...

• What country is your co-op going to be based given that all different countries have all different rules around the way in which co-ops can be formed or incorporate including many different rules about stock holdings ? Different rules about what even is a co-op.
• Most co-ops involve profit sharing.
• RF stock is about having thousands of contributors. Thousands of people could never practically reach agreement over the sort of issues which running a co-op would demand. Photographers are notoriously bad at getting along with each other in business.
• A manageably sized co-op would need to make distribution deals with Getty. Boutique collections can be great. They already exist.
• Huge resources are needed (millions $) annually to operate the sort of site which would get traffic adequate to compete as a standalone RF site. Even a small site is going to need to spend a significant amount on international accounting, legal fees, security, merchant services etc
• Most people would rather take photos than run an agency. It would be like wanting to be a farmer and ending up running a supermarket.

The change, if change comes which I doubt, will be about smaller groups working together by using common platforms to present a united front end. Some have postulated an Open Source platform. I doubt that the economics make this a viable Open Source project.

I started a co-op of one. Does that count? 

Quote from: aspp on February 04, 2013, 17:42
This again! A few points which come up every time this comes up which is most months ...

• What country is your co-op going to be based given that all different countries have all different rules around the way in which co-ops can be formed or incorporate including many different rules about stock holdings ? Different rules about what even is a co-op.
• Most co-ops involve profit sharing.
• RF stock is about having thousands of contributors. Thousands of people could never practically reach agreement over the sort of issues which running a co-op would demand. Photographers are notoriously bad at getting along with each other in business.
• A manageably sized co-op would need to make distribution deals with Getty. Boutique collections can be great. They already exist.
• Huge resources are needed (millions $) annually to operate the sort of site which would get traffic adequate to compete as a standalone RF site. Even a small site is going to need to spend a significant amount on international accounting, legal fees, security, merchant services etc
• Most people would rather take photos than run an agency. It would be like wanting to be a farmer and ending up running a supermarket.

The change, if change comes which I doubt, will be about smaller groups working together by using common platforms to present a united front end. Some have postulated an Open Source platform. I doubt that the economics make this a viable Open Source project.

The co-op can be anywhere... Panama or some other tax haven, since it really doesn't have to be anywhere...

As for shear numbers... if a democracy like the USA can work then I am sure we can work with the numbers needed here.  The trick would be to hire professionals to run the orgainization, not to run it ourselves... we set the guidelines and set it in motion.

And as for farmers running a supermarket...I am looking at farmers co-ops as an example... some of the bigfood distrubtion companies are farmers co-ops.

Since it has been suggested before, then it might be really worth exploring.  Otherwise we will be at the mercy of the Gettys of the world.

As mentioned here by 4 different people, it has been explored before and it doesnt work. Otherwise, go ahead and set it up.

If a co-op was a solution, it would already exist.

Quote from: grsphoto on February 04, 2013, 18:16
Since it has been suggested before, then it might be really worth exploring.  Otherwise we will be at the mercy of the Gettys of the world.

If you're serious about it, site mail me with your details, I've been looking at setting up one in the UK as there are good grants and free business advice here to support one.

Quote from: Poncke on February 04, 2013, 18:32
As mentioned here by 4 different people, it has been explored before and it doesnt work. Otherwise, go ahead and set it up.

OK I will look into it more....BTW I was on the board of directors of a housing co-op/ development co-op that built several million $ buildings. 

The biggest difficulty is finding a core group who are interested and say YES WE CAN and solve the problems... most people just say "It won't work" and go on to other things.

Quote
If a co-op was a solution, it would already exist.

I like this quote... kinda like if man were meant to fly he would have wings.....

Glenn

Quote from: grsphoto on February 04, 2013, 18:16

Quote from: aspp on February 04, 2013, 17:42
This again! A few points which come up every time this comes up which is most months ...

• What country is your co-op going to be based given that all different countries have all different rules around the way in which co-ops can be formed or incorporate including many different rules about stock holdings ? Different rules about what even is a co-op.
• Most co-ops involve profit sharing.
• RF stock is about having thousands of contributors. Thousands of people could never practically reach agreement over the sort of issues which running a co-op would demand. Photographers are notoriously bad at getting along with each other in business.
• A manageably sized co-op would need to make distribution deals with Getty. Boutique collections can be great. They already exist.
• Huge resources are needed (millions $) annually to operate the sort of site which would get traffic adequate to compete as a standalone RF site. Even a small site is going to need to spend a significant amount on international accounting, legal fees, security, merchant services etc
• Most people would rather take photos than run an agency. It would be like wanting to be a farmer and ending up running a supermarket.

The change, if change comes which I doubt, will be about smaller groups working together by using common platforms to present a united front end. Some have postulated an Open Source platform. I doubt that the economics make this a viable Open Source project.

The co-op can be anywhere... Panama or some other tax haven, since it really doesn't have to be anywhere...

As for shear numbers... if a democracy like the USA can work then I am sure we can work with the numbers needed here.  The trick would be to hire professionals to run the orgainization, not to run it ourselves... we set the guidelines and set it in motion.

And as for farmers running a supermarket...I am looking at farmers co-ops as an example... some of the bigfood distrubtion companies are farmers co-ops.

Since it has been suggested before, then it might be really worth exploring.  Otherwise we will be at the mercy of the Gettys of the world.

Bad example, democracy doesn't work in the USA.  Haven't you noticed?

Quote from: Poncke on February 04, 2013, 18:32
As mentioned here by 4 different people, it has been explored before and it doesnt work. Otherwise, go ahead and set it up.

If a co-op was a solution, it would already exist.

Out of curiosity, if one was set up would you contribute to and support it?

Quote from: mattdixon on February 04, 2013, 19:11
Out of curiosity, if one was set up would you contribute to and support it?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but it really depends on the rules, terms, etc. I have no problem with supporting small start ups if I believe in them, but it has to be right. I'm pretty picky about the new sites I join now.

Quote from: mattdixon on February 04, 2013, 19:11

Quote from: Poncke on February 04, 2013, 18:32
As mentioned here by 4 different people, it has been explored before and it doesnt work. Otherwise, go ahead and set it up.

If a co-op was a solution, it would already exist.

Out of curiosity, if one was set up would you contribute to and support it?

Depends on a lot of things Matt. I am always willing to listen.

FWIW, one of the most famous photo agencies in the world is a co-op, though it has been deeply dysfunctional and marred by infighting much of its existence. I read a good book about Magnum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnum_Photos

Any kind of co-op or photographer held agency needs leadership and excellent management to make it thrive.

So - who is going to run the place??

The people at the top will make all the difference, they have to basically forgoe being photographers and focus on the business only.

Otherwise they have no chance of attracting customers.

Like any entrepreneurial endeavor - it is the entrepreneur that makes all the difference.

A lot more chance of this working:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/selling-rf-images-is-really-not-that-hard-php-developers-wanted/

Everyone can run their own shop, but linked up together for combined searches. Crowd sources the marketing aspect too.

Co-op is an interesting idea but it has been discussed here countless times and nothing ever came.
I think an "iStock replacement site" has better chances of success. I described my idea in this thread:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/time-for-an-istock-replacement-site/msg290872/#msg290872

The main points are:
- Not a co-op, but a commercial enterprise started by several top-exclusives. The founders would invest their time, skills and money so they should reap future rewards
- Strong community aspect, a network of multimedia creators and buyers
- Several top iStock exclusives would draw many other iStock contributors to the site
- Gradual migration of iStock content, contributors and buyers to a new location
- Strong exclusivity program but very open to non-exclusives

Why do I think such a site could be successful if many other sites were not? Well, the agencies can employ very good people, no doubt. But if you gather the right group of top artists their collective brainpower and creative talents would be massive and very hard to beat and they should be able to create a good alternative to the existing top-sites. Co-ops are very good but I believe in this business you need a strong leadership with a vision.
Why do I think top-artists would want to create such a site? Well, if they want to continue to make meaningful money in this business, they pretty much don't have a choice. In 1-2 years from today the iStock as we know it today might simply no longer exist. And non-exclusivity for everybody is not a solution, in fact it would be an Armaggedon for all stock artists.

Quote from: Poncke on February 04, 2013, 18:32
As mentioned here by 4 different people, it has been explored before and it doesnt work. Otherwise, go ahead and set it up.

If a co-op was a solution, it would already exist.

I totally think it would work.  The reason it doesn't exist is because no one (or group of people) has wanted it bad enough and was motivated enough to set it up.

Quote from: Microbius on February 04, 2013, 19:47
A lot more chance of this working:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/selling-rf-images-is-really-not-that-hard-php-developers-wanted/

Everyone can run their own shop, but linked up together for combined searches. Crowd sources the marketing aspect too.

I tend to agree. That way you get everybody putting in the work to promote their own sites. Everything else is just extra promotion.

-OR-

Everyone could just start selling my work right now:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/microstock-news/earn-extra-money!/

Just throwing it out there.

Quote from: cthoman on February 04, 2013, 19:20

Quote from: mattdixon on February 04, 2013, 19:11
Out of curiosity, if one was set up would you contribute to and support it?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but it really depends on the rules, terms, etc. I have no problem with supporting small start ups if I believe in them, but it has to be right. I'm pretty picky about the new sites I join now.

I cannot see any practical way in which a 'co-op' with thousands of contributors could easily exist whilst also fulfilling statutory legal, accounting and other obligations. It would be a hugely complex thing to establish - much more complex than running a private company. Private companies are relatively simple by comparison.

The thing to look at as an alternative is whether you can establish a common platform with a unified front end in which everyone owns their own bit. A common platform or framework running on Amazon EC2 or some other cloud platform would be my suggestion. And as you join you add your own node according to a common set of protocols.

Quote from: aspp on February 04, 2013, 20:14
I cannot see any practical way in which a 'co-op' with thousands of contributors could easily exist whilst also fulfilling statutory legal, accounting and other obligations. It would be a hugely complex thing to establish - much more complex than running a private company. Private companies are relatively simple by comparison.

Co-op's can be run by directors, contributors can be share holders or paid members, there are many different types. They often run like private companies but the people who work there have a share in the company.

Before iStock sold to Getty it could have easily converted to a Co-op.

Anyway interesting times, there certainly seems to be an appetite for something new.

How about this idea?

We have a coop and pay artists between 20-30%.  Spend a bucket load on advertising and keep a small amount as profit.  Co-op members can buy shares.. as many as they want and when profits are shared or the company goes up in value so would the shares we have.  Things would be run by a team of people and reviewers.. not by the photographers themselves.  ... oh wait... Shutterstock already though of that.

Isn't buying shares in Shutterstock a way of being part of a co-op?

This keeps getting brought up, but other than Dan at Warmpicture, nobody has actually done any follow through. 

If this actually gets off the ground, I am sure many of us would be eager to participate.  I know I would. 

Quote from: lisafx on February 05, 2013, 00:09
This keeps getting brought up, but other than Dan at Warmpicture, nobody has actually done any follow through. 

If this actually gets off the ground, I am sure many of us would be eager to participate.  I know I would.

If anything like this starts with a good commitment, I'm very happy to give technical (engineering) support.

I think Warmpicture is only for a select group of photographers, not really a co-op in the trad sense of the word, imo.