Author Topic: Maybe it's time to make a cooperative microstock agency? (Read 16311 times)

JPSDK · « **Reply #50 on:** August 29, 2012, 08:48 »

Thriving coops have hired staff, that are paid by the surplus.

There is nothing wrong in hiring a over energic salesperson and put him on straight commision.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #51 on:** August 29, 2012, 09:25 »

Quote from: djpadavona on August 29, 2012, 07:58

We have a co-op farmer's market about an hour from my house that draws people from all across the state. It's huge, and hugely successful. People who buy there do so for both the quality, and because they believe in supporting other local people instead of corporations.

I think the difference is, you're dealing with people you can get together with and meet, to hammer out agreements and things. Here, you're dealing with remote people, from all parts of the world, with all kinds of different laws and ways of doing business, and plenty of different views on how things should be done.

I think the earlier observation that SS is your co-op is right on. You can own part of the business, you've helped shape it over the years, etc. What more could you want? What are you looking to get out of this proposed "co-op"? You can't have 2000 people voting on every decision.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #52 on:** August 29, 2012, 10:20 »

I can't stop thinking of how much SS have spent on 'marketing' in 2011, its really 'from the other world' and make us think that is very hard to attract buyers

SS would be down if they haven´t spent over 20 Millions? the constant investment looks like 'old' buyers go way and fresh ones show up, sure they have increased annually the number of downloads but buyers really go and shop around or they wouldn´t need to invest more and more

cthoman · « **Reply #53 on:** August 29, 2012, 10:30 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on August 29, 2012, 10:20

I can't stop thinking of how much SS have spent on 'marketing' in 2011, its really 'from the other world' and make us think that is very hard to attract buyers

SS would be down if they haven´t spent over 20 Millions? the constant investment looks like 'old' buyers go way and fresh ones show up, sure they have increased annually the number of downloads but buyers really go and shop around or they wouldn´t need to invest more and more

It makes me think they throw away way too much money on non-converting ads. Also, I assume some of that might go to pay affiliates like me, so some of it might go back to the peoples.

gostwyck · « **Reply #54 on:** August 29, 2012, 10:33 »

Quote from: cthoman on August 29, 2012, 10:30

Quote from: luissantos84 on August 29, 2012, 10:20
I can't stop thinking of how much SS have spent on 'marketing' in 2011, its really 'from the other world' and make us think that is very hard to attract buyers

SS would be down if they haven´t spent over 20 Millions? the constant investment looks like 'old' buyers go way and fresh ones show up, sure they have increased annually the number of downloads but buyers really go and shop around or they wouldn´t need to invest more and more

It makes me think they throw away way too much money on non-converting ads. Also, I assume some of that might go to pay affiliates like me, so some of it might go back to the peoples.

Don't forget that those numbers also include the expenditure on marketing BigStock too. BigStock does seem to be fairly heavily promoted in Google ad's but it doesn't seem to be having much effect on my sales there.

gostwyck · « **Reply #55 on:** August 29, 2012, 10:34 »

Farmers' co-operatives are often the only practical means of sharing the vast cost of specialised machinery that is needed by each farmer for only a few days or weeks of the year. They don't necessarily help in maintaining prices or securing jobs, in what are often world-wide markets, as 180 pea growers in England found out when Birds Eye cancelled their contracts without notice;

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/05/02/2010/119824/Birds-Eye-cancels-pea-contracts-of-180-East-Anglian.htm

Agriculture has absolutely nothing in common with stock photography so the continual cross-references are pointless.

Stock photographers have been bleating about agency's cuts and wanting to start their own co-operative for decades __ basically for about as long as stock photography has been in existence. It's never happened and it's never going to. There's not even a stock photographers' union, worthy of the name, that actually has any teeth and that would be a much easier and cheaper alternative to a 'co-operative agency'.

djpadavona · « **Reply #56 on:** August 29, 2012, 11:24 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 29, 2012, 09:25

Quote from: djpadavona on August 29, 2012, 07:58
We have a co-op farmer's market about an hour from my house that draws people from all across the state. It's huge, and hugely successful. People who buy there do so for both the quality, and because they believe in supporting other local people instead of corporations.

I think the difference is, you're dealing with people you can get together with and meet, to hammer out agreements and things. Here, you're dealing with remote people, from all parts of the world, with all kinds of different laws and ways of doing business, and plenty of different views on how things should be done.

I think the earlier observation that SS is your co-op is right on. You can own part of the business, you've helped shape it over the years, etc. What more could you want? What are you looking to get out of this proposed "co-op"? You can't have 2000 people voting on every decision.

I'm not convinced that we have a pseudo co-op with SS. Being able to purchase shares allows you to make or lose money with market movement, but it really doesn't give you any say in the running of the organization. I own Disney shares, and nobody is consulting me on the 4 new proposed theme parks they are planning for WDW. We also have no say on the IPO pricing, which may be ridiculously overvalued per Facebook, or may be a fantastic bargain.

Oleg · « **Reply #57 on:** August 29, 2012, 13:23 »

Specific arguments about the unreality "of the agency," I have not heard.
Opponents - write about specific difficulties.
Maybe they just do not have?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #58 on:** August 29, 2012, 13:43 »

Quote from: djpadavona on August 29, 2012, 11:24

I'm not convinced that we have a pseudo co-op with SS. Being able to purchase shares allows you to make or lose money with market movement, but it really doesn't give you any say in the running of the organization. I own Disney shares, and nobody is consulting me on the 4 new proposed theme parks they are planning for WDW. We also have no say on the IPO pricing, which may be ridiculously overvalued per Facebook, or may be a fantastic bargain.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-03-03-disney-shareholder-meeting_x.htm

ShadySue · « **Reply #59 on:** August 29, 2012, 14:09 »

Quote from: Oleg on August 29, 2012, 13:23

Specific arguments about the unreality "of the agency," I have not heard.
Opponents - write about specific difficulties.
Maybe they just do not have?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
See also the GraphXt thread.
If you imagine that everyone putting in 2-3 hours in a lifetime, you are either in fantasyland or you expect thousands of willing helpers.
But have fun, and you can laugh when you're piling in the money.

Oleg · « **Reply #60 on:** August 29, 2012, 14:26 »

I was not expecting 1000 assistants. But I did not expect and enemies.
Opponents I understand you, you think this is futile and will not help. No need to repeat it many many times.
I ask to talk constructively

Poncke · « **Reply #61 on:** August 29, 2012, 16:12 »

I think Oleg was willing to spent 2-3 hours for a lifetime, not in a lifetime. And if everyone involved does 2-3 hours, you have a whole lot of hours.

djpadavona · « **Reply #62 on:** August 29, 2012, 16:12 »

I think most of us are being constructive. I'm telling you that 2-3 hours lifetime per person is not even close to a reasonable expectation, even if you had 1000 people contributing. Running an e-commerce website is difficult. Design takes time. A-B testing takes time. Search position is a long, long battle.

By all means go forward with your project. I'd be happy to be a part of any well run coop. But go forward with your eyes open.

ShadySue · « **Reply #63 on:** August 29, 2012, 16:31 »

Quote from: Poncke on August 29, 2012, 16:12

I think Oleg was willing to spent 2-3 hours for a lifetime, not in a lifetime. And if everyone involved does 2-3 hours, you have a whole lot of hours.

If doing web design/functionality, 2-3 hours wouldn't remotely even cover the liaison. It's much harder/takes more time to construct a site as a team. A lot of people offering 2 -3 hours is not a joined-up project.

I'm just not convinced that oleg really knows how much work/time/expertise it would take to get a site to the state when it could take on the current big hitters.
I also suspect he hasn't worked on many committees.

Poncke · « **Reply #64 on:** August 29, 2012, 16:48 »

I am not disagreeing with that. I dont see this coop work at all. First of all, you need someone to take lead, no matter what business it is. And I am afraid if someone does, the big heads will never listen because they have made it already and would want to do things their way because they know best.

Oleg · « **Reply #65 on:** August 29, 2012, 16:52 »

I assumed that no one wants to do anything.
But I tried to offer it to you.
Say - millions of dollars, investments, business plan, professional management, analysis, research, weather, stock market, quotes, indices ...... is very convenient, smart, I'm not funny.
And when you need something new to do, there is always a chance crap.
And you'll look like a clown. Why would we?
People will say - we were warned.

Agencies pay us probably many.
I do not want to offend anyone
I'm sorry

BImages · « **Reply #66 on:** August 29, 2012, 16:59 »

Why not just create a site with ktools, put some files in it. Make the site appealing and working.
I don't this would take more than 2 months to do..

Then make the legal stuff..

Let's start small and grow.

People that are not interested can always skip this subject forum, and bug the others ones instead.

ShadySue · « **Reply #67 on:** August 29, 2012, 17:00 »

I doubt very much that anyone is offended.
This and similar projects have often been discussed here, and in other places.

I'd agree with Buz, but I'd research and work out the legal issues before I even started.

Oleg · « **Reply #68 on:** August 29, 2012, 17:10 »

I quote myself

Quote

I propose to begin discussion of item number 1. Legal form.
What will it be?, Joint stock company, limited liability company, a cooperative?

Discuss no one

Oleg · « **Reply #69 on:** August 29, 2012, 17:32 »

Quote

I'm just not convinced that oleg really knows how much work/time/expertise it would take to get a site to the state when it could take on the current big hitters.
I also suspect he hasn't worked on many committees.

You suspect wrong.
I built a small production, and organized production of goods.
Those were different directions, medicine, industry, building homes. I am not an expert in these areas, but I organized a group of people (professionals in the right part). I did it with a simple phone (there were not mobile). Yes it was a long time ago, the world changed. Much was on another, other methods different psychology.

ShadySue · « **Reply #70 on:** August 29, 2012, 17:39 »

Fair enough.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Maybe it's time to make a cooperative microstock agency? (Read 16311 times)

JPSDK

Sean Locke Photography

luissantos84

cthoman

gostwyck

gostwyck

djpadavona

Oleg

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

Oleg

Poncke

djpadavona

ShadySue

Poncke

Oleg

BImages

ShadySue

Oleg

Oleg

ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors