Author Topic: Microstock Co-Op For and By Photographers (Read 33283 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #50 on:** December 24, 2009, 21:16 »

I'll keep my fingers crossed, because hopefully a free website will ultimately promote a paid website. Cause we don't have any paid websites now. Merry Christmas everyone!

louoates · « **Reply #51 on:** December 24, 2009, 23:06 »

The fastest way to kill a good idea is to listen to other well-meaning folks. True innovation is rarely a group effort. Where the next profitable micro-stock site will come from and how it will be constructed is still unknown. But what I can guarantee is that it will come. The concept of the site that will dominate this business five years from now is probably rattling around in someone's brain right now. This evolution occurs over and over in every industry. Every one. Most of us are just looking from the sidelines. But it should be a lot of fun to see how micro-stock looks at the end of 2010. Happy New Year to all!

sukha · « **Reply #52 on:** December 25, 2009, 01:08 »

The idea of forming a Co-Op for Micro stock photographers appears to be interesting. But from the operation point of view I think it is not so easy. Most Co-op are not very successful.

Co-op are not open to public. It caters for its own members only and and profits that the Co-op gain is distributed to members as dividend. Hence if you want to be part of the Co-op, you need to buy shares in the Co-op. It is therefore not free in the first place. It is just another form of company.

Management of Co-op is under the control of committee members elected from the members and the election of committee members may be carried out annually or at any suitable time period subject to the conditions stated in its Constitutions.

Therefore from what I see, Co-op can only be formed within a country but to open up world wide may not be possible.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #53 on:** December 25, 2009, 02:21 »

Merry Christmas everyone.

Best,
Jonathan

Eireann · « **Reply #54 on:** December 26, 2009, 14:11 »

Hi PellixQL - have you read what FD-Amateur had to say about the Co-Op? Some very good points there, worth your attention. Please consider them.
There's a lot of work involved, but if you're willing to do it, support will come. Build it and they'll be there.

@Sharpshot - yes, I agree.

@HQImages - One more 'yes' vote. I strongly believe that things can be changed for the better. No matter how advanced they seem to be, there's always room for improvement. We just need to want it hard enough. I'm optimistic, I like your attitude and last, but not least, I live in Dublin. By now you already know you've won my support and all my images.
Note regarding 'free images' - none of my stock images can go for free. That's not the point.
Let us know when the site is ready and I'll be there.
Happy Holidays

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #55 on:** December 26, 2009, 14:31 »

Quote from: Eireann on December 26, 2009, 14:11

@HQImages - One more 'yes' vote. I strongly believe that things can be changed for the better. No matter how advanced they seem to be, there's always room for improvement. We just need to want it hard enough. I'm optimistic, I like your attitude and last, but not least, I live in Dublin. By now you already know you've won my support and all my images.
Note regarding 'free images' - none of my stock images can go for free. That's not the point.

Actually that was the point. Giving away free images.

Sure, there is room for improvement. A better way to connect sellers to buyers, or a better way to control our prices, or us, actually hiring the agency to represent us, keeping our interest in the forefront. Something. However, that doesn't and shouldn't involve giving away our content. New ideas are great to hear. Unfortunately around here, we just hear more of the same 'ole, like "Another groundbreaking microstock site".

Eireann · « **Reply #56 on:** December 26, 2009, 21:30 »

Hi Sjlocke,
if the point was to give away free images, I must have missed it.
I won't do that. We've got Flickr already and I'm not a member.
However, I think there's more to the story than just a bunch of photographers coming together for no other purpose than to give images away for free.
And there's definitely more to you than the dark figure of doom and gloom who, at strategic moments, descends upon this forum and mercilessly trashes into oblivion all hopes and dreams of newcomers.
Come on!
Enthusiasm is good, new blood is needed and there's nothing wrong in trying. We might fail a thousand times, but there's always the last hope, the 1001 night.

On a more personal note congratulations on being the only one IStock black diamond to stand up for the little people; strangely enough sometimes even against their own will.
Your voices made mighty giants like Getty and H&F back up and listen. Again it's the stuff of fairy tales, but it's impressive and you proved it; it can come true.
Now wish the Irish women good luck and tell us what did you get for Christmas!
Have a merry one!

FD · « **Reply #57 on:** December 27, 2009, 06:05 »

Quote from: Eireann on December 26, 2009, 14:11

Hi PellixQL - have you read what FD-Amateur had to say about the Co-Op? Some very good points there, worth your attention. Please consider them.
There's a lot of work involved, but if you're willing to do it, support will come. Build it and they'll be there.

Thanks, since the discussion got detracted into the (non)sense of free images. A co-op or any new site can only succeed if the content is different from the one on tightly edited collections (LCV) now. You can of course do that on your own but you will sink away in the search engines. That's where a co-op can be better, SEO-wise.

Adeptris · « **Reply #58 on:** December 27, 2009, 11:31 »

Professional Buyers would be hard to attract away from existing suppliers and the general 'search found' buyers do not care who runs a stock image website, photographers, plumbers or monkeys, they are interested in the buying and search experience, as few hoops as possible to get the image and the cheapest package.

The co-op that might survive would be by invitation like FD-Amateur wrote, with a caveat of unique and niche images, a way in or foothold in the specialist marketplace, images that are so unique you cannot purchase them from any other stock sites general search.

We have seen many proposals and many good idea's 'bang and fizzle' on this forum, but none have built the required momentum to succeed, because the artists of stock images come from diverse experiences, high earners, low earner, large portfolio's, small portfolio's, part-time, full time, hobbyist etc:

There have been many new offerings over the last two years, some embraced by the artists because of the nice upload, none have taken the market by storm, and it would require a new model, markets and method of delivery for any success.

'Microstock Co-Op For and By Photographers' is not enough to bring the artists or buyers flooding in, as a high percentage of nothing is still nothing!

David

cathyslife · « **Reply #59 on:** December 27, 2009, 16:45 »

Quote

Free images will attract plenty of traffic, and my hope is that can be converted into cash at some point,

converted into cash for who?

I know this conversation has come up many times on this board. I personally will not give away free images in the hopes of getting something in the future. That is NOT a good business plan. To me, your thinking needs to be reversed. Someone only gets something for free after they have paid for something.

I totally agree and am all for a website whereby most of the proceeds from the sale go to the contributor, not the middle man, though. Whether that's a co-op or whatever. But I don't see free being in the mix at all, especially in the beginning.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #60 on:** December 27, 2009, 17:18 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 27, 2009, 16:45

I know this conversation has come up many times on this board. I personally will not give away free images in the hopes of getting something in the future. That is NOT a good business plan. To me, your thinking needs to be reversed. Someone only gets something for free after they have paid for something.

I totally agree and am all for a website whereby most of the proceeds from the sale go to the contributor, not the middle man, though. Whether that's a co-op or whatever. But I don't see free being in the mix at all, especially in the beginning.

Right - this doesn't sound like a business plan was written or anything was thought out. "hope" and "some point" certainly shouldn't interest anyone.

PixelBitch · « **Reply #61 on:** December 27, 2009, 21:58 »

An elephant is a mouse designed by a committee

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #62 on:** December 29, 2009, 17:40 »

Pixelbitch,

Great saying : ) Have a super New year.

Best,
Jonathan

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #63 on:** December 29, 2009, 19:49 »

I came to this discussion a bit late, but can't believe that anyone who has been selling stock for more than a few months would go for the idea of being more "fair" to contributors by putting together a website and offering a better royalty split.

CanStock started in June 2004 with the notion of being more fair to photographers with higher prices and better percentages for the photographer. In spite of Duncan's hard work and great intentions the site never generated much in the way of sales. A clear headed (if crude) businessman's take on this situation: "40% of f#*@ all is still f#*@ all"

Working on the marketing end of things is a very big deal. Without some business plan as to how a new site would generate sales, discussion of terms for contributors is premature and irrelevant.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #64 on:** December 30, 2009, 12:05 »

Yep, Building a site is easy. Selling images is hard.

Best,
Jonathan

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #65 on:** December 30, 2009, 12:35 »

Instead of creating a site, why not just do a Photoshelter Virutal Agency?

They have a full-blown RM/RF/Print stock system already in place.

Kone · « **Reply #66 on:** December 30, 2009, 19:55 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 30, 2009, 12:35

Instead of creating a site, why not just do a Photoshelter Virutal Agency?

They have a full-blown RM/RF/Print stock system already in place.

Hi PaulieWalnuts,

I know that this isn’t quite the place for this, but are you a member of Photoshelter? If so, are you selling anything there? You don’t have to answer here, you could p.m. me.
If there is already a thread about this that you know of, could you please show me?

Thanks a lot,
Kone

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #67 on:** December 30, 2009, 20:10 »

Not a member. Just doing a free trial to evaluate it.

I'm guessing you're asking about selling anything there because you think it's a stock agency. It used to be. Now it's just a backend system to enable photographers to sell their own stock. You need to do the marketing because Photoshelter doesn't market to buyers. The PS Virtual Agency allows multiple photographers to create their own agency which is what I think the OP is suggesting.

Kone · « **Reply #68 on:** December 30, 2009, 20:21 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 30, 2009, 20:10

Not a member. Just doing a free trial to evaluate it.

I'm guessing you're asking about selling anything there because you think it's a stock agency. It used to be. Now it's just a backend system to enable photographers to sell their own stock. You need to do the marketing because Photoshelter doesn't market to buyers. The PS Virtual Agency allows multiple photographers to create their own agency which is what I think the OP is suggesting.

Thanks for clearing that up for me

Kone

sharpshot · « **Reply #69 on:** December 31, 2009, 04:27 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 29, 2009, 19:49

I came to this discussion a bit late, but can't believe that anyone who has been selling stock for more than a few months would go for the idea of being more "fair" to contributors by putting together a website and offering a better royalty split.

CanStock started in June 2004 with the notion of being more fair to photographers with higher prices and better percentages for the photographer. In spite of Duncan's hard work and great intentions the site never generated much in the way of sales. A clear headed (if crude) businessman's take on this situation: "40% of f#*@ all is still f#*@ all"

Working on the marketing end of things is a very big deal. Without some business plan as to how a new site would generate sales, discussion of terms for contributors is premature and irrelevant.

I don't think Canstock is a good example, wasn't Duncan working part time on his own most of the time? Some of the sites were doing well paying me 50% commission, I don't mind a lower commission for higher earnings but I get the feeling now that the extra money is going to the sites investors. They must have lower storage and advertising costs now than a few years ago. It is a shame that it looks like they are taking the easy option to increase their profits by raising prices and reducing our commissions.

sharpshot · « **Reply #70 on:** December 31, 2009, 04:31 »

Photoshelter might be an option or we could form an alliance with one of the sites we like and pledge to give them a decent amount of exclusive content to try and attract more buyers. I think that is going to be the best way to get buyers interested now.

FD · « **Reply #71 on:** December 31, 2009, 07:09 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 31, 2009, 04:31

Photoshelter might be an option or we could form an alliance with one of the sites we like and pledge to give them a decent amount of exclusive content to try and attract more buyers. I think that is going to be the best way to get buyers interested now.

I had the same idea a few months ago about Clustershot, that is much cheaper than the huge fees that PS ask. I thought that PS would give extra exposure, but PaulieWalnuts said they don't. We could pressure Clustershot - as a group - to add some simple but needed changes, for instance adding different license types.

They also should add the option to link ports there together, so that the search can be limited to the members of the group, and "similars" shown are also limited to the group. In that case, it would be a virtual agency if the group agrees on a common price scheme. Now, you can have images there for 1$ and 300$. As the Featurepics experience showed, buyers get confused by divergent prices.

They should also add the option for at least 2 sizes: websize and full size, with different price points. Clustershot thinks along different lines (see their forum), but as a group, they could be pressurized to add a few vital features. The integration though, is still a big issue. Adeptris has been talking about that in other threads.

And finally, technicalities are one point, but marketing is the main. Since all contributors on Clustershot are paid individually, there should be an organizational framework to do proper marketing, beyond simple SEO. What you'll get then is another stock site.

sharpshot · « **Reply #72 on:** December 31, 2009, 07:50 »

If enough of us got together and used twitter, myspace, facebook etc. to market a site, I am sure we could get something going. There are various design forums and some contributors are designers, so perhaps they have contacts we could use? It will probably take a lot more than that but with so many ways to communicate now, it might not be as difficult or expensive as it seems.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #73 on:** December 31, 2009, 08:12 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on December 31, 2009, 07:09

Quote from: sharpshot on December 31, 2009, 04:31
Photoshelter might be an option or we could form an alliance with one of the sites we like and pledge to give them a decent amount of exclusive content to try and attract more buyers. I think that is going to be the best way to get buyers interested now.
I had the same idea a few months ago about Clustershot, that is much cheaper than the huge fees that PS ask. I thought that PS would give extra exposure, but PaulieWalnuts said they don't. We could pressure Clustershot - as a group - to add some simple but needed changes, for instance adding different license types.

PS may give some extra exposure from buyers who drop in to see what they have. I don't know how often that happens. But PS is not actively pursuing buyers.

As far as I know the Standard system that allows Virtual Agencies and website integration is $30 per month and PS takes 10%. I wouldn't call those fees huge especially for the system they're providing.

Adeptris · « **Reply #74 on:** January 02, 2010, 05:49 »

As said Photoshelter have the VA option, the structure is already in place and tested, they have a monthly or yearly charge and take 10% of any transaction.

First question is content, a general stocksite with generic content is a non-starter and will end up a dead duck, so you will need a common interest for a specialist agency, this limits the number of artist as you do not want to be competing within the co-op, maybe a travel image agency.

Thinking 'out the box' if you are self promoting and marketing with specialist content then the buyers will be wanting to request images that are not in the library, how about an old fashioned agency concept where buyers are approved and invoiced month end, then you can look at a free package called resourcespace, another opensource ecommerce with digital downloads is a product called nopCommerce, these cut out PhotoShelter but require webspace and some skills in setting up etc:

The biggest problem will be sharing the workload between the co-op members and finance, the only way I could see this working would be by a percentage of any sale being taken by the co-op, and a form of co-op share issue, where the more you put in the more you get out.

What would be the royalty rates would really depend on software choices, an agency could run on as little as 10%-15%, and if self promotion is to work, then affiliates would be needed so another 10% - 15%, if we are then talking about 70% for the photographer we are back at the starting point with a Photoshelter VA.

Looking at other sites where you can self promote, then you can look at the social networking tools at The3DStudio.com, but linking back there will also expose your potential customers to the general collection and they become a customer of the site and not your customer, that will be the same on any co-op where other artist may benefit from your hard networking.

Having asked several times about these type of solutions the feedback has been so small that it has not been worth starting, I can have a stock imaging site up and running in a few hours, I have spare domains and capacity on my reseller account, but there is not the real interest other than in the topics here, turning topics into action is a lot harder.

David

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Microstock Co-Op For and By Photographers (Read 33283 times)

Sean Locke Photography

louoates

sukha

Jonathan Ross

Eireann

Sean Locke Photography

Eireann

FD

Adeptris

cathyslife

Sean Locke Photography

PixelBitch

Jonathan Ross

Jo Ann Snover

Jonathan Ross

PaulieWalnuts

Kone

PaulieWalnuts

Kone

sharpshot

sharpshot

FD

sharpshot

PaulieWalnuts

Adeptris

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors