Author Topic: Microstock Co-Op For and By Photographers (Read 33324 times)

PellixQL · « **on:** December 23, 2009, 12:23 »

photoco-op.com is available for $10 for anyone of you microstock photographers who has the balls to stand up and fight for your creative rights. Stop getting screwed by the companies that are in this for themselves and have no respect for the artists.

All you have to do is provide me with a reasonable plan to create a microstock photography co-op web site that the best in the business will want to join. That's it! I'm not looking to make money from this. I'm a graphic and web designer that dabbles in photography, but I use this stuff in my paying gigs and I keep seeing the prices go higher. Don't you want to see more money in your pockets instead of some computer hacks?

Maybe I'm a fool to think this can happen, I don't know. What do you all think?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** December 23, 2009, 12:26 »

Our savior!

cybernesco · « **Reply #2 on:** December 23, 2009, 12:38 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 23, 2009, 12:26

Our savior!

I though he was supposed to be borned on Dec 25th?

PowerDroid · « **Reply #3 on:** December 23, 2009, 12:49 »

I think building a website for something like this is putting the cart before the horse.

The real question is, who would be in favor of setting up a co-op? Once a group of people take up the cause, lay out a mission and action items, and begin the recruitment process, then things like setting up an official website and how it would be paid for could be considered.

Myself, I'm skeptical of unions or trade groups. I'm open to considering a proposal should someone want to put some time into it, but I've always preferred exercising my power as an individual. If I feel that any of the agencies are treating me unfairly, I'll walk. (This isn't my main source of income, so I can afford to take this stand... but I can see how others might have more vested interest in seeing something like this happen to protect their livelihoods.)

cthoman · « **Reply #4 on:** December 23, 2009, 13:14 »

I agree. I'm skeptical that a group would adequately represent my interests as well.

lisafx · « **Reply #5 on:** December 23, 2009, 13:15 »

All good points PowerDroid.

I have always maintained I would be happy to join a co-op or trade group, but I lack the skill set or time to devote to starting or running one.

I suspect most of my fellow photographers are in the same boat

.

PellixQL · « **Reply #6 on:** December 23, 2009, 14:24 »

What if the co-op web site worked something like the social media sites where photographers can manage their own work, profile, home page, etc. All of their image search keywords would be aggregated and users could then purchase directly from the photographer with a very small (2-3%) going back to the co-op in order to pay someone to manage the site and other organizational minutia.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in doing this myself, but I bet the co-op could be self-sustaining with enough buy-in from top contributors.

elvinstar · « **Reply #7 on:** December 23, 2009, 14:30 »

I'd like to see some of your work (website designs) before committing to this project.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** December 23, 2009, 14:34 »

A free for all site where everyone would try to undercut the next wouldn't work for me. I like the stock portal system where price within a site is regulated.

dk · « **Reply #9 on:** December 23, 2009, 14:43 »

I've given this some thought in the past and i think this could only work like a free flickr site with an add to cart option. It wouldn't possible to review all the files without paying reviewers so everybody can upload what they want with only an automatic plugin checking for excessive purple fringe, acceptable image size and resolution etc. As for a way to sort good files from bad files further every buyer could have the option to rate and comment on the file he bought.

About the prices, i think they should not be more expensive than the other micro agencies.

PowerDroid · « **Reply #10 on:** December 23, 2009, 16:09 »

Quote from: dk on December 23, 2009, 14:43

About the prices, i think they should not be more expensive than the other micro agencies.

For it to be successful, prices would have to be dramatically lower than the other micro agencies.

For any new product to get market share from a well-established product, it has to offer a big benefit to the customer. The three areas to look at are quality, selection and price. On quality... a co-op upstart could only strive to be on par with the big players, so no reason for the customer to switch on that point. On selection... by definition a new site will have a tiny fraction what the big players have, so we'd get clobbered there. Which leaves price... it's the only place in our control where we could make a compelling case for a buyer to get images from us and not the big players. If a co-op offered images at half the price, maybe even a third of the price of the agencies, and only a few percent went back to the co-op for operational costs, perhaps we'd come out ahead.

A nice idea, but I'm afraid it's a pie in the sky. Still, if anyone wants to take up the cause, I'd be willing to explore it.

PellixQL · « **Reply #11 on:** December 23, 2009, 16:35 »

Quote from: elvinstar on December 23, 2009, 14:30

I'd like to see some of your work (website designs) before committing to this project.

Again, I'm not really interested in creating or managing this by myself, but I wonder if there is enough interest in this idea among Microstock Group members to make it happen as a coordinated effort, maybe with some sort of community of designers and photographers contributing to the site's creation and maintenance. The idea of this thought exercise being that the best ideas (and wondering if this is one) will eventually percolate long enough and then produce something worthwhile.

If it matters, I'm a freelance designer working by myself and, at age 51, I have no illusions that this can be my big ticket/last hurrah. I'm more interested in the idea and willing to help some. I might even get the courage to submit some of my own photos. Thus far, I have just done some ad hock photography for promotional pieces (mostly for Print) and I'm not confident about their quality or universal appeal.

If you are still interested in some of my web site work, check these recent and not so recent sites out (please be Kind):
newbielink:http://finepotter.com/ [nonactive] (utilizes Wordpress)
newbielink:http://www.projectimplicit.net/fpi/ [nonactive] (I created the template and logo, no control over the content or navigation)
newbielink:http://www.virginia.edu/case/ [nonactive] (created logo, template and information architecture, although things have been altered somewhat since launch)
newbielink:http://markcollinswatercolors.com/ [nonactive] ( old school web design, but still pretty nice looking, I think)

alias · « **Reply #12 on:** December 23, 2009, 16:46 »

There exists the possibility of creating some model by which photographers could deal directly with stock buyers. But first you have to solve two key issues which are crucial to buyer trust : quality control and proof of ownership. Maybe a big company could do it.

A co op isn't going to work. A manageable co op is not going to have enough images. And a site with enough images is not going to work as a co op. More than a few will argue making business impossible.

Co op is an old model which works where there is some underlying political or social link between the photographers or when they want to control how their work is used. It really does not apply to the world of stock.

m@m · « **Reply #13 on:** December 23, 2009, 16:51 »

It seems I've heard this idea some place before!....uuum, let me think, was it last year or at the beginning of this year?...just can't say!...at that time it did not worked because the big portfolio contributors would not go for it (specially the IS exclusives)...why would it work NOW?!
Great original idea dude!!!!!!!!

PS: Anyone remembers: Batman, Tan, Puravida, M@M and several others..........

sharpshot · « **Reply #14 on:** December 23, 2009, 17:08 »

I am all for doing something. Wont be around much until the new year but I really think we need to find a better way to get our images to the buyers. It costs far too much at the moment and the sites are cutting their costs and reducing our commissions. I would like to show them we can do this by ourselves if we need to.

dk · « **Reply #15 on:** December 23, 2009, 17:15 »

Quote from: PowerDroid on December 23, 2009, 16:09

Quote from: dk on December 23, 2009, 14:43
About the prices, i think they should not be more expensive than the other micro agencies.

For it to be successful, prices would have to be dramatically lower than the other micro agencies.

I agree that as a new product it would have to be cheaper to compete with the established agencies but if we do that we should soon expect lower prices at all the sites. Selling a little more expensive or at the same price we wouldn't undervalue our images further.

Alias is right proof of ownership is going to be hard without paying someone to take care of legal issues. About quality control though i think that the same way you can find good images through the mass of photos on flickr you could find through this site too.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #16 on:** December 23, 2009, 19:20 »

Co-op should have lawyers all around the world... Calgary especially so you really can fight rights...

Until then... I will just observe ;-)

Freedom · « **Reply #17 on:** December 23, 2009, 21:12 »

If you want to do this credibly, the first step is to find a number of photographers who are willing to act as trustees for the site, and form a legitmate trust under the law of certain country. The second step is to set up a trust fund in a credible bank so all the money paid by the photographers will go to the trust. The trustees can determine how the money are to be used, including those for the site development. I suggest that the initial trustees loan some money to the trust to get it going and retain a lawyer who is willing to give some pro bono hours (working for free but will have the expenses reimbursed by the trust).

FD · « **Reply #18 on:** December 24, 2009, 03:15 »

The idea has been brought up here before. If this would be just another stock site, it will definitively fail. There should be an USP, that would set a coop image bank aside from the existing ones and would tackle some weaker points of those.

1. Invitation only. Contributors are co-opted in based on their general karma and existing portfolio. No reviewers: those contributors are matured enough in the business to review their own work. Reviewing costs eat up the bulk of the capital of any beginning site. Buyers should be able to inspect all parts of the image at full size (watermarked and windowed).

2. Warranty: by the contributors themselves. The recent trend to warrant images by the agents induced a lot of red tape, overhead, undue rejects, and costs. The contributor warrants that all recognizable people have been released, and that he did his best to remove or avoid copyrighted elements. Based on these promises, the buyer should take his own responsibility based on the image content.

3. Freedom of content, the end of LCV rejects. The contributor decides what might have commercial value, not the site. This will bring in unique content, something that buyers have been asked for a long time.

4. Temporal content exclusivity: contributors are committed to offer all their new content exclusively on the co-op site for a reasonable period of 14days-1month, before they start uploading to the vested agents.

5. All contributors should have a confidential oversight of sales, gross income, and costs. They should decide the individual earnings percentage, based on these numbers, and all business decisions should be made by them, by majority vote.

6. The site itself should be buyer-centered, simple and very easy to use. No annoying sidebars or fields with bargains, free offerings, news. Commodity: for the pay-as-you-go purchase, no registration should be required. Prices should be higher than on existing sites. The competition should not be about price, but about content (see 3,4).

7. The heart of any site is about the search engine. Instead of addressing the search algorithm as the lowest priority (what killed YAY), it should be the highest one. There should be at least 2 options: ranked by relevance, and ranked by popularity/sales within relevance.

8. The site should not compete with our existing fine agents, rather complement them. Buyers can have a normal car for day to day commuting, and have a SUV for occasional weekend fun. The non-competition intent is further clear by the higher prices.

Perhaps we are talking about the next generation stock? But are we ready?

alias · « **Reply #19 on:** December 24, 2009, 04:27 »

1. The best artists and authors in the world still need editors and curators.

2. You are going to need good insurance to give that warranty any value.

3. See 1.

5. If you have enough contributors to provide adequate content (millions of images) then they will never reach consensus on anything.

Quote from: FD-amateur on December 24, 2009, 03:15

Perhaps we are talking about the next generation stock?

I doubt it.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #20 on:** December 24, 2009, 06:55 »

So, this all sounds like "Blend Images". Group of photogs gets together, starts agency, splits revenues, etc. I'm surprised someone hasn't come along to point that out

.

Kone · « **Reply #21 on:** December 24, 2009, 09:04 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 23, 2009, 17:08

I am all for doing something. Wont be around much until the new year but I really think we need to find a better way to get our images to the buyers. It costs far too much at the moment and the sites are cutting their costs and reducing our commissions. I would like to show them we can do this by ourselves if we need to.

I am all with you.

Kone

hqimages · « **Reply #22 on:** December 24, 2009, 09:33 »

There is a web site being developed currently for free images, made for and managed by the photographers themselves.. it won't be online for a while, but it is developing very fast, and that site could evolve to include a paid section along with the free images.

As regards legalities, it is a legal minefield if everyone own's the web site (co-op), if you get sued what happens? 500 of you have to go to court? That's why it's generally better to have one person responsible for the web site.. I don't know what the solution is but it will be interesting to see how this web site works out that problem and I'll post a link and more info here when it's launched!

ljupco · « **Reply #23 on:** December 24, 2009, 09:52 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 06:55

So, this all sounds like "Blend Images". Group of photogs gets together, starts agency, splits revenues, etc. I'm surprised someone hasn't come along to point that out .

Yeah it seems like that, but the only difference would be that it wouldn't be a group, it would rather be a mass of photographers - at least 30-50 thousand in my opinion for it to work. Then the game would change. We can offer the images slightly above the commission that we receive now, and we'll be much cheaper than the current stock sites and still retain the current revenue.

I'm also all for doing something. Remember, if someone told you several years ago that most of the people in the world would be connected via the Internet, and they would share their thoughts, ideas, pictures in a way Facebook operates, many of us would have laughed at the idea. I'm sure Mark Z. laughs at us now.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #24 on:** December 24, 2009, 10:00 »

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 09:33

There is a web site being developed currently for free images, made for and managed by the photographers themselves.. it won't be online for a while, but it is developing very fast, and that site could evolve to include a paid section along with the free images.

As regards legalities, it is a legal minefield if everyone own's the web site (co-op), if you get sued what happens? 500 of you have to go to court? That's why it's generally better to have one person responsible for the web site.. I don't know what the solution is but it will be interesting to see how this web site works out that problem and I'll post a link and more info here when it's launched!

Woo! Free images! Whose smart idea was that?

ljupco · « **Reply #25 on:** December 24, 2009, 10:08 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 10:00

Woo! Free images! Whose smart idea was that?

Isn't that how iStock started to operate ?

disorderly · « **Reply #26 on:** December 24, 2009, 10:26 »

Quote from: ljupco on December 24, 2009, 10:08

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 10:00
Woo! Free images! Whose smart idea was that?

Isn't that how iStock started to operate ?

Started, yes. But then they figured out that people were willing to pay. Do we really want to go back to the beginning?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #27 on:** December 24, 2009, 10:28 »

Quote from: ljupco on December 24, 2009, 10:08

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 10:00
Woo! Free images! Whose smart idea was that?

Isn't that how iStock started to operate ?

Yeah, 8 years ago! And look where we are today. No reason to go backwards in time. Also, once the collection went past Bruce's images, you had to upload and be downloaded to get credits to download others' works.

ljupco · « **Reply #28 on:** December 24, 2009, 11:02 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 10:28

Quote from: ljupco on December 24, 2009, 10:08
Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 10:00
Woo! Free images! Whose smart idea was that?

Isn't that how iStock started to operate ?

Yeah, 8 years ago! And look where we are today. No reason to go backwards in time. Also, once the collection went past Bruce's images, you had to upload and be downloaded to get credits to download others' works.

I guess it was like that, but my point wasn't the need to start another iStock all from beginning, but to underline the things that startups like Youtube, Facebook, iStock have in common, and that is community work, lots of people willing to do something together, not for the money, but for the sake of doing it.

And we won't be doing it for the money, we will be doing it for a fair treatment, for a fair cut of the revenue.

alias · « **Reply #29 on:** December 24, 2009, 11:43 »

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 09:33

As regards legalities, it is a legal minefield if everyone own's the web site (co-op), if you get sued what happens? 500 of you have to go to court? That's why it's generally better to have one person responsible for the web site.. I don't know what the solution is but it will be interesting to see how this web site works out that problem and I'll post a link and more info here when it's launched!

This is why I believe that the way forward, if one ever emerges, will be a different business model completely rather than a website owned by anyone. Maybe some sort of P2P market place. Perhaps guaranteed via some sort of 3rd party bond - the marketplace maybe taking a transaction charge. Or something.

That said, I doubt it will happen. We might be old and jaded here but the customers I talk to are still completely wowed by how great IS is and see it as a great new thing. Most of them would be ex Getty customers. Microstock is still the revolution.

hqimages · « **Reply #30 on:** December 24, 2009, 12:44 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 10:00

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 09:33
There is a web site being developed currently for free images, made for and managed by the photographers themselves.. it won't be online for a while, but it is developing very fast, and that site could evolve to include a paid section along with the free images.

As regards legalities, it is a legal minefield if everyone own's the web site (co-op), if you get sued what happens? 500 of you have to go to court? That's why it's generally better to have one person responsible for the web site.. I don't know what the solution is but it will be interesting to see how this web site works out that problem and I'll post a link and more info here when it's launched!

Woo! Free images! Whose smart idea was that?

True to form I see Sean.

ap · « **Reply #31 on:** December 24, 2009, 14:02 »

Quote from: alias on December 24, 2009, 11:43

This is why I believe that the way forward, if one ever emerges, will be a different business model completely rather than a website owned by anyone. Maybe some sort of P2P market place. Perhaps guaranteed via some sort of 3rd party bond - the marketplace maybe taking a transaction charge. Or something.

i think the key concept here is to create a 'non profit' organization where there are no owners or stockholders to gain from the profits earned. the aim or mission is to allow photographers to not only have a say in running the organization but also to get a fair commission without a middleman.

if run as a non profit, then the photographers can elect board members who will direct the operations of the website and appoint any necessary employees or recruit volunteers.

the hurdle faced by any new stock company is getting enough buyers or establishing a brand. you can either drop prices, or offer a valued added product. on the first, there is a lot of room to maneuvre. i mean photogs are only getting a small percentage (20 - 60%) of the image price anyways. on the latter, a photog run stock agency is both a novelty with some cachet if people start contributing fresh new ideas, etc.

these are just very rough thoughts since we're just throwing ideas around.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #32 on:** December 24, 2009, 14:38 »

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 12:44

True to form I see Sean.

Maybe you'd like to enlighten us as to the rationale behind a site to give away images for free "managed by the photographers themselves" and why we should be excited?

hqimages · « **Reply #33 on:** December 24, 2009, 15:08 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 14:38

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 12:44
True to form I see Sean.

Maybe you'd like to enlighten us as to the rationale behind a site to give away images for free "managed by the photographers themselves" and why we should be excited?

Don't worry about it Sean, it's not something you would be interested in.

disorderly · « **Reply #34 on:** December 24, 2009, 15:23 »

Assuming for a moment that this discussion is anything other than academic, wouldn't it be easier to either start a new agency or acquire one and let the contributors become stockholders in the new firm? That way they could make money either from their sales or from the value of their shares. And entrusting decisions to a management team will work better than waiting for a consensus to form.

Of course, that leads to the first big hurdle: making that agency a success against much larger and well entrenched agencies that are already in place. That'll require marketing, and that takes money. Unless submitters are willing to front the expenses of a startup, someone else will have to be found. That someone will expect equity, which takes away from the submitters' share. And we're back to a set of big questions: is there room for another agency, how will it differentiate itself, and how will it find a large enough customer base in an already crowded market?

hqimages · « **Reply #35 on:** December 24, 2009, 15:28 »

Quote from: disorderly on December 24, 2009, 15:23

Assuming for a moment that this discussion is anything other than academic, wouldn't it be easier to either start a new agency or acquire one and let the contributors become stockholders in the new firm? That way they could make money either from their sales or from the value of their shares. And entrusting decisions to a management team will work better than waiting for a consensus to form.

Of course, that leads to the first big hurdle: making that agency a success against much larger and well entrenched agencies that are already in place. That'll require marketing, and that takes money. Unless submitters are willing to front the expenses of a startup, someone else will have to be found. That someone will expect equity, which takes away from the submitters' share. And we're back to a set of big questions: is there room for another agency, how will it differentiate itself, and how will it find a large enough customer base in an already crowded market?

It is possible to compete, and to be a success in the microstock market even with the stiff competition, stockxpert proved that.. unfortunately they did it a bit TOO well and attracted a take-over, but it does show that a new site, once it has the backing of the community, can thrive.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #36 on:** December 24, 2009, 15:53 »

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 15:08

Don't worry about it Sean, it's not something you would be interested in.

If you're offering to give away what all of us are producing for revenue, I'm sure we're all interested in it.

hqimages · « **Reply #37 on:** December 24, 2009, 15:55 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 15:53

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 15:08
Don't worry about it Sean, it's not something you would be interested in.

If you're offering to give away what all of us are producing for revenue, I'm sure we're all interested in it.

Funny, Getty seems to quite like free image web sites.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #38 on:** December 24, 2009, 16:02 »

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 15:55

Funny, Getty seems to quite like free image web sites.

Boy, that is funny.

Quote

There is a web site being developed currently for free images, made for and managed by the photographers themselves.. it won't be online for a while, but it is developing very fast, and that site could evolve to include a paid section along with the free images.

You obviously made mention of this to get some attention, so what's the deal?

hqimages · « **Reply #39 on:** December 24, 2009, 16:06 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 16:02

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 15:55
Funny, Getty seems to quite like free image web sites.

Boy, that is funny.

Quote
There is a web site being developed currently for free images, made for and managed by the photographers themselves.. it won't be online for a while, but it is developing very fast, and that site could evolve to include a paid section along with the free images.

You obviously made mention of this to get some attention, so what's the deal?

I made mention of this because I notice this topic is brought up a lot, and I think some people would like the idea to happen, but think it never will. Just wanted to let everyone know that this idea has taken fruit with a number of photographers, and is going to happen at some point in the future. The exact shape/form isn't definate yet, but when it is I will post more about it.

That alright with you Sean?

alias · « **Reply #40 on:** December 24, 2009, 16:22 »

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 15:28

It is possible to compete, and to be a success in the microstock market even with the stiff competition, stockxpert proved that..

That was set up at a time when there was investment money slopping around

When microstock first came along it didn't exist

It filled a hole in the market which, it turned out, existed. IE much lower prices for RF.

If you were looking to invest in an idea I think that the thing to do now would be to find a different model which works in a world where microstock does exist.

I keep imagining something more like a stock market, an interface between buyers and sellers with a transaction fee. And probably a fee to post content too. A completely different model.

Not that I think it will likely happen because I cannot see how it would offer the buyers anything which does not currently exist.

hqimages · « **Reply #41 on:** December 24, 2009, 16:36 »

Quote from: alias on December 24, 2009, 16:22

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 15:28
It is possible to compete, and to be a success in the microstock market even with the stiff competition, stockxpert proved that..

That was set up at a time when there was investment money slopping around

When microstock first came along it didn't exist It filled a hole in the market which, it turned out, existed. IE much lower prices for RF.

If you were looking to invest in an idea I think that the thing to do now would be to find a different model which works in a world where microstock does exist.

I keep imagining something more like a stock market, an interface between buyers and sellers with a transaction fee. And probably a fee to post content too. A completely different model.

Not that I think it will likely happen because I cannot see how it would offer the buyers anything which does not currently exist.

Stockxpert didn't attract an investor until it was already a success and pulling a profit, and it was only launched in 2005, so I do personally think that proves you can enter the market even today, and make a thriving web site. I can understand people who think it isn't possible, but I believe it is.

hqimages · « **Reply #42 on:** December 24, 2009, 16:41 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 10:28

Quote from: ljupco on December 24, 2009, 10:08
Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 10:00
Woo! Free images! Whose smart idea was that?

Isn't that how iStock started to operate ?

Yeah, 8 years ago! And look where we are today. No reason to go backwards in time. Also, once the collection went past Bruce's images, you had to upload and be downloaded to get credits to download others' works.

Not 8 years ago, Istock currently own and run sxc.hu, a stand-alone free image web site.

alias · « **Reply #43 on:** December 24, 2009, 16:48 »

You are going to need a lot of money.

I do not understand what you are planning to offer buyers better than what fantastic sites like the Getty family already do. If you talk to buyers you will find that they have very positive opinions of IS and the Getty sites.

hqimages · « **Reply #44 on:** December 24, 2009, 17:01 »

Quote from: alias on December 24, 2009, 16:48

You are going to need a lot of money.

I do not understand what you are planning to offer buyers better than what fantastic sites like the Getty family already do. If you talk to buyers you will find that they have very positive opinions of IS and the Getty sites.

No point in knocking something before you've seen it. Free images will attract plenty of traffic, and my hope is that can be converted into cash at some point, in a similar way to istock's use of sxc, anyway, Happy Holiday's all

alias · « **Reply #45 on:** December 24, 2009, 17:15 »

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 17:01

Free images will attract plenty of traffic,

Bandwidth is expensive.

hqimages · « **Reply #46 on:** December 24, 2009, 17:17 »

Quote from: alias on December 24, 2009, 17:15

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 17:01
Free images will attract plenty of traffic,

Bandwidth is expensive.

So is advertising space

Happy Holidays!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #47 on:** December 24, 2009, 18:36 »

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 16:06

I made mention of this because I notice this topic is brought up a lot, and I think some people would like the idea to happen, but think it never will. Just wanted to let everyone know that this idea has taken fruit with a number of photographers, and is going to happen at some point in the future. The exact shape/form isn't definate yet, but when it is I will post more about it.

Sorry, some people would like the idea of a free giveaway site to happen, but think it never will? I'm not sure that market research is correct.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #48 on:** December 24, 2009, 18:37 »

Quote from: alias on December 24, 2009, 16:48

You are going to need a lot of money.

I do not understand what you are planning to offer buyers better than what fantastic sites like the Getty family already do. If you talk to buyers you will find that they have very positive opinions of IS and the Getty sites.

Yep, no use in using a free, giveaway site to cross promote ... what? Just another site? Guess the future will tell...

hqimages · « **Reply #49 on:** December 24, 2009, 19:06 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 18:36

Quote from: hqimages on December 24, 2009, 16:06
I made mention of this because I notice this topic is brought up a lot, and I think some people would like the idea to happen, but think it never will. Just wanted to let everyone know that this idea has taken fruit with a number of photographers, and is going to happen at some point in the future. The exact shape/form isn't definate yet, but when it is I will post more about it.

Sorry, some people would like the idea of a free giveaway site to happen, but think it never will? I'm not sure that market research is correct.

A free site that could ultimately promote a paid section/website, Sean, this idea isn't something you would ever be interested in, and that's absolutely fine.

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

willie · « **Reply #75 on:** January 03, 2010, 18:48 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2009, 10:00

Woo! Free images! Whose smart idea was that?

well said Mr. Locke (or Superman re your awesome IS avatar)

i fear the idea of a co-op is redundant. a more practical and viable plan would be to simply support one of the sites that is already running well. one that gives you the higher commissions that we all look for, and one that does not plan to jump ship to suddenly force us to accept pennies once it becomes successful.

which site would this be? ah, ...alas.. that is the question !!!

FD · « **Reply #76 on:** January 03, 2010, 22:44 »

Quote from: Persue-d on January 03, 2010, 18:48

which site would this be? ah, ...alas.. that is the question !!!

First of all this thread has been derailed into free images, and secondly the right site doesn't exist yet. I'm fine with iStock, but SS makes me many times more. And DT makes me more too. When I wake up in the morning and I look into the mirror (with a blur of 10px) I can at least say that I'm poor (missing all those exclusive perks), but I'm free.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Microstock Co-Op For and By Photographers (Read 33324 times)

lisafx

alias

m@m

alias

alias

alias

alias

alias

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors