MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Time for an iStock replacement site?  (Read 10203 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Microbius

« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2013, 04:42 »
+1
Agree, GL have a great attitude and payment structure. They remind me of what IStock used to be like in the good old days. We just need to start directing buyers there.

Also there was a project going on for artists to have their own sites linked together discussed a while back, not sure where that is at the moment in terms of rollout.


« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2013, 04:44 »
0
Why not invite the former founder of Istock to extablish a new agency? Take all the good things that made Istock successful and make it better by not repeating past mistakes.   I would think any non-competition clause would have run its course by now.
Like selling to Getty for a wad of cash, knowing full well what Getty's reputation was prior to the deal?

Anyway, he's busy doing other things now, and if he wasn't I wouldn't touch him with a barge-pole

Exactly!  he must shed tons of tears right now watching the vast amounts of SS and FT, IPOs, etc.  There is nothing wrong with Getty! as long as you keep them separate from micro, which really isnt their game at all and instead of poking around in this flee-market they should concentrate on all their other ventures.

« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2013, 05:01 »
0
Why don't we all get behind an existing site like GL and make a new day there? They may be willing to work with us

« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2013, 05:04 »
+1
I guess I'm of the opinion that if you have a network of buyers, are a top contributor, and have the knowledge and skill to run a successful site, why would you want to share that with everyone in the microstock world? Keep it for yourself, earn all the money and save yourself some headaches.

Because the most money is always to be made in harnessing the efforts of others. As John D Rockefeller said;

I would rather earn 1% off a 100 people's efforts than 100% of my own efforts.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2013, 05:06 »
0
Quote
One reason that may not work on a large scale is the amount of $ it would take to get if off the ground such as advertising, storage, etc.

I've discussed this with other iStockers and the reason it hasn't got off the ground is mainly the huge cost, it requires a very large investment.

« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2013, 05:11 »
+3
If istock forces me to give up exclusivity to protect my IP then I will never go artist exclusive again anywhere. Image exclusivity? Yes.

If enough people are interested and especially if Sean endorses the site, then I would support pushing GI forward.

Many inepedenents have pointed it out for years that it is best for the artist if several sites keep competing with each other and for our content. However, i still believe that the internet favors extralarge Marketplaces.

With istock/getty going down, it will probably be Shutterstock.

« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2013, 05:12 »
0
Y'see I'd be willing to stump up something in the vicinity of 4 zeros if we could get 10 or 20 other big contributors to do the same to get the thing running... Sean?

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2013, 05:18 »
+1
Quote
Y'see I'd be willing to stump up something in the vicinity of 4 zeros if we could get 10 or 20 other big contributors to do the same to get the thing running... Sean?

OK, you get 20 people willing to do the same, that's $10,000 ( I'm assuming you mean dollars, I could be wrong), let's say you find those 20 and they've all got 10k to put in, that's still only $200,000. That may sound a large amount but when you start adding startup costs, web site development, advertising etc etc, that just doesn't go very far. And this was the conclusion of a group of people, not just me being negative and pessimistic.

« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2013, 05:26 »
0
I was thinking more the vicinity of 20k, but that's semantics at this stage.

I guess it all depends how scalable ktools is initially, I mean Sean got his site up and I'd imagine he didn't drop even 3k on it-could be wrong.

If there's enough will there's gotta be a way... ;)

« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2013, 05:26 »
0
It would be great to get a fresh site moving. GL looks good to me. I would back them but I reckon they would need to offer artist or image exclusivity. Personally I did'nt like SS when I was with them. Its alright if you constantly uploading but I tend to work in spits and spurts and it was'nt working for me.

« Reply #35 on: January 15, 2013, 05:38 »
0
Photoshelter had over 1 million dollars and famously got burned and stepped out of stock quickly. but yuri arcurs is still up and running with his site.

I think it would be more helpful if we share important basics of light boxes/real time business data etc...with other sites. the istock infrastructure is extremly clever and designed to be a self regulating marketplace. from my experience with video, I can see that many sites have some of the elements, but nobody has them all. and obviously there is much that can be improved, but istock hasnt been modernized in years.

good brainpower can save a lot of money and this community has a lot of brains.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 05:41 by cobalt »

« Reply #36 on: January 15, 2013, 05:44 »
+2
What if contributors were allowed to buy 51% of shares in a new site and the other 49% was offered to investors?  That way we would keep control and should be able to get a big lump sum from investors.  Why would anyone want to invest in a new site when so many have failed?  The USP would have to be most of the istock exclusives jumping ship.  Then if every non-exclusive had to submit 100 exclusive images to get shares, the site would have a lot of exclusive content.  That just might be enough to attract the old istock buyers.

« Reply #37 on: January 15, 2013, 06:07 »
0
It would take too long to start a new microstock site from scratch between funding, infrastructure and marketing. By the time the site was up and running Getty will have found a way to lock in or make our images worthless to buyers. If we were to all jump together we would need to be doing it within the next three months. I think the preferred solution would be for "ex-exclusives" to all stick together and move to the same place together. That way the buyers would be more likely to move en masse with us.
What we could do is get a board of 10 trusted exclusives to broker a deal with an existing site to take us in under some kind of exclusive-esque conditions. That way we bring our brain power and talent to an existing infrastructure.

aspp

« Reply #38 on: January 15, 2013, 06:13 »
0
If you transfer your allegiance from one site to another your new home will sooner or later let you down. Better to be non exclusive. People talk about building something new to replace Istock - but it would costs millions to keep a site running if that site has the sort of traffic you would need to make the sort of impact required to replace Istock. I am sure that most of us would rather be photographers.

The best hope/solution one day will be a system under which people have their own sites built to a common format and with a unified trusted payment system and search. A cell structure with a unified front end. Perhaps running on Amazon EC2 (everyone pays for their bit) but also designed to be portable enough to moved elsewhere either in whole or in part. That would be the revolution. A marketplace.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 06:16 by aspp »

mattdixon

« Reply #39 on: January 15, 2013, 06:15 »
+1
For an ethical Stock site to be truly successful it would have to be run as a CO-OP with all the legal framework in place. Not that difficult to do, it would only take about 20 or so full time contributors to get it going.

« Reply #40 on: January 15, 2013, 06:30 »
0
SS don't want exclusive images, FT have lots of the same problems istock has.  DT don't even have video.  I suppose not having video is a drawback with GLStockImages as well?  I don't think Pond5 do vectors yet, they've been great to work with and pay 50% commission non-exclusive.

It's difficult to find a current site that would be ideal for all istock exclusives.

« Reply #41 on: January 15, 2013, 07:30 »
+2
If you transfer your allegiance from one site to another your new home will sooner or later let you down. Better to be non exclusive. People talk about building something new to replace Istock - but it would costs millions to keep a site running if that site has the sort of traffic you would need to make the sort of impact required to replace Istock. I am sure that most of us would rather be photographers.

The best hope/solution one day will be a system under which people have their own sites built to a common format and with a unified trusted payment system and search. A cell structure with a unified front end. Perhaps running on Amazon EC2 (everyone pays for their bit) but also designed to be portable enough to moved elsewhere either in whole or in part. That would be the revolution. A marketplace.

You're nearly there!

If you have an Amazon Kindle have you ever wondered why Kindle books often cost as much if not more than the paper version? After all, the ebook doesn't need paper, ink, printing or manual distribution or delivery. How can it cost more? Amazon always say, when people ask that question, that "It's the publisher who sets the price for e-books." That is true ... but it's not the full story.

Books have traditionally been sold in the trade by what became known as the 'Wholesale agreement'. The publisher gives the book a list price and then sells it to the retailer for half of that price (nominally). The retailer is free to sell the book at whatever price they want to (even as a loss-leader) but the publisher will always get their set amount.

When Steve Jobs wanted to sell music via iTunes he had to get the music industry onboard and so effectively bribed them with what became the 'Agency agreement'. The publisher sets their own price for their product and when a sale is made the money is split 70/30 in favour of the publisher. The Agency agreement then became the 'industry standard model' for the App Store and also for iBooks. Amazon didn't have any choice but to step in line if they wanted to be part of the future of e-books. If the price for a Kindle book is discounted it's because the publisher has decided so __ not Amazon.

I think the ideal solution for the stock industry, both micro and macro, would be for a major internet player, such as Amazon or Google, to offer us the 'Agency agreement' for our products. We get to set our own prices and we get to keep 70% of the sale price. Perfect. We could actually afford to sell our images much cheaper and still make more money.

Rather than start our own 'co-op agency' (which is never, ever going to work for more reasons than I can be bothered to list) we should concentrate our efforts on how we can persuade a suitably big player to take us onboard. Who would be the 'perfect partner' and why?

« Reply #42 on: January 15, 2013, 07:41 »
0
Quote
Books have traditionally been sold in the trade by what became known as the 'Wholesale agreement'.

This is no longer the case in the UK, where this was scrapped some time ago, not sure what happens elsewhere. The Agency agreement is on the way out too.

« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2013, 07:54 »
0
Quote
Books have traditionally been sold in the trade by what became known as the 'Wholesale agreement'.


This is no longer the case in the UK, where this was scrapped some time ago, not sure what happens elsewhere. The Agency agreement is on the way out too.


Are you thinking of the Net Book Agreement which was deemed illegal in 1997?

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

Where did you read that the Agency agreement is "on the way out"?

« Reply #44 on: January 15, 2013, 08:07 »
0
I think the one person rubbing his hands right now is Jason from PicturEngine. What would stop all exclusives to move content to their server and keep it exclusive and take 100% of the sale. As soon as word got out that everyone moved to PE, buyers will flock and everybody happy.

This is perfect timing for Justin, as I believe he's very close to full launch.

have you tried to submit? its a mix of iStock/Alamy, actually way worst!

Actually, I have my whole portfolio there.  I don't believe the submission process is anywhere near as bad as Alamy.  My only complaint at the time was the title not being filled in by the IPTC data.  Justin stated a while back that they were working on that.  It's been a while since I've submitted, so I don't know if it's been fixed.  As a whole, I'm very happy with Picturengine.  Looking forward to their launch. 

« Reply #45 on: January 15, 2013, 08:07 »
0
Getting confused with my quotes, hence the empty space below :-[

Quote
Where did you read that the Agency agreement is "on the way out"?


http://tinyurl.com/b57mwt9

I'm busy and haven't had time to read this fully and thus it may not be relevant, in which case I apologise
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 08:10 by john_woodcock »

« Reply #46 on: January 15, 2013, 08:08 »
0
.

« Reply #47 on: January 15, 2013, 09:59 »
0
Also there was a project going on for artists to have their own sites linked together discussed a while back, not sure where that is at the moment in terms of rollout.


I'm not sure if you are referring to this thread about selling on your own site, but we are making good progress. Having the ability to link individual sites together into one marketplace is definitely somehting that we're planning to offer, but perhaps not in the initial launch.

We'll have some more news for you fairly soon.

« Reply #48 on: January 15, 2013, 10:09 »
+1
Lets pick GL and run with it, they will add video if the demand and collection is there!

« Reply #49 on: January 15, 2013, 15:03 »
0
Lets pick GL and run with it, they will add video if the demand and collection is there!

I like the GL interface and their options for sellers seem to be very nice. Opened account.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
6477 Views
Last post September 15, 2009, 13:58
by a.k.a.-tom
15 Replies
4806 Views
Last post December 22, 2010, 14:31
by donding
5 Replies
3093 Views
Last post March 12, 2011, 08:12
by microstockphoto.co.uk
61 Replies
8759 Views
Last post July 02, 2014, 20:05
by dbvirago
3 Replies
3244 Views
Last post September 22, 2020, 11:35
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle