MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Would you support or invest in a new agency owned by a collective of contributors

No, I wouldn't contribute content or support
Yes, I'd contribute content
Yes, I'd invest and contribute content

Author Topic: New co-op owned RF/RM agency  (Read 13467 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: September 17, 2010, 15:18 »
0
I think it would be best to firmly commit to not offering subscriptions, then turn around and offer subscriptions with no opt-out once everyone had uploaded a massive number of files... ;)

Very good Holgs!

One side of my thinking says that there is a huge market for subscriptions and, if total market dominance was our ultimate objective, then we would need to supply it. Don't forget, if we had all the best microstock photographers, then we'd have much more leeway to adjust pricing to our liking.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks that I see is that any owner-photographer could be determined a 'competitor' by the existing agencies and have their account closed. Being as most of the biggest and best contributors rely on their microstock income how would they cope in the transition time required for the new agency to grow?


Microbius

« Reply #51 on: September 17, 2010, 15:20 »
0
I'd be totally up for subs.
The problem with the model is that it separates the contributors interests from the site owners. They no longer act as an agent, the more downloads you get the more money they lose.
With a company where profits are split between contributors this conflict disappears.

« Reply #52 on: September 17, 2010, 15:27 »
0
I'd be totally up for subs.
The problem with the model is that it separates the contributors interests from the site owners. They no longer act as an agent, the more downloads you get the more money they lose.
With a company where profits are split between contributors this conflict disappears.

Absolutely. That's it exactly. Not sure you could sell it to Madelaide though!

« Reply #53 on: September 17, 2010, 15:37 »
0
I'd be totally up for subs.
The problem with the model is that it separates the contributors interests from the site owners. They no longer act as an agent, the more downloads you get the more money they lose.
With a company where profits are split between contributors this conflict disappears.

Absolutely. That's it exactly. Not sure you could sell it to Madelaide though!

I agree that there should be subs too. Although there's no reason you couldn't give the option to opt out of subs for content that was exclusive to the site and for premium content.

« Reply #54 on: September 17, 2010, 15:41 »
0
We want a new agency, where we will control "the profit" because we believe that the current state of redistribution of income is not fair to the photographers.We produce images but stock agency perform the technical part of business and almost whole marketing (smaller part is still on contributors). So we think that someone in this "bipolar community" is overestimated his / her work and takes too big part of cake... That is main reason why idea about "contributors agency" exist...

Microstock market is limited, and large agencies keep most of that market. So if you would like to establish a non-exclusive agency, we have to rip off part of the market from existing agencies...For that, must be some good reason why customers  want to move from IS or SS etc. at our new agency... If the "new agency" is non-exclusive for contributors, that means that all portfolios on the "new agency" are still available on other existing agencies.... So, there is no reason for switching customers to the new agency, except maybe cheaper prices ...The only good reason could be a new exclusive agency, and completely withdraw of big part of photographers and their portfolios from existing agencies to the "New agency"...

There is no revolution with any kind of new non-exclusive agency... :( Just another "Low earner"...
« Last Edit: September 18, 2010, 03:38 by borg »

« Reply #55 on: September 17, 2010, 15:48 »
0
The only good reason could be the a new exclusive agency, and completely withdraw of big part of photographers portfolios from existing agencies...

There is no revolution with new non-exclusive agency... :( Just another "Low earner"...

Exactly. I think the agency would probably have to start mainly non-exclusive (on images) but hopefully with as much exclusive content as contributors could afford to give. The transition time whilst it grows is always going to be the difficult bit. The ultimate goal would be for all images to be exclusive __ why would you want to make profits for others by selling them elsewhere.

Noodles

« Reply #56 on: September 17, 2010, 15:49 »
0
There is a window of opportunity here - I'd like nothing better than to see a small, up and coming MS company change the status quo!

« Reply #57 on: September 17, 2010, 16:27 »
0
Subs? Count me out.   :-\

« Reply #58 on: September 17, 2010, 17:15 »
0
I don't think subs are a good idea or that they would be necessary. New systems are coming which will make microtransactions a lot less costly. This one is supposed to be coming from Paypal soon:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_paypal_micropayments

If you don't like Paypal, the credit card banks are working on their own super-cheap microtrans systems. When they arrive, there will be no need to make customers pay for credit packages or subscriptions because the overhead expense for a single transaction will be so small.

These new microtrans systems should shake things up in the microstock agency business and could be an opening for a new agency started by microstockers which would not require credits or subs and which could give contributors a higher percentage and still make a profit or, if a co-op, break even.
 

« Reply #59 on: September 17, 2010, 17:31 »
0
Subs would be great, if they are priced right and we were paid a fixed percentage commission.  Buyers like subs, so I don't see much point in eliminating a large market.

« Reply #60 on: September 17, 2010, 17:55 »
0
I want a real agent one who loves me and wants to make lots of money, a co-op would be great I buy my groceries at them. I'd like some where that only makes money if I do I would not give anyone money to sell or manage my work but I would happily give them a reasonable cut. I would join a real image co-op.

Sometimes I am just annoyed with the lack monetary worship I receive, and when I look at other peoples work I think my wonder there is so much amazing talent in the world so much beauty why do we not honer this kind of action with some good wadges. We sure need many avenues.

I would produce different levels of work, subs are paying my bills so its is viable on a effort based pay, kind of like an hourly wadge that pays you endlessly.

I like people who pay for my work, its nice makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, I like companies that pay me monthly just like my bills come in. I like dreaming with other people about possibilities some do create change. I want to have coffee and snacks with my fellow artists and plot against the machine.

« Reply #61 on: September 18, 2010, 01:27 »
0
 .
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 14:36 by attator »

« Reply #62 on: September 18, 2010, 02:15 »
0
^^^Or we could just use alamy.  They already give most of their profits to medical research and pay 60% commission.  Perhaps they could be persuaded to open a microstock site, they already sell microstock images in their main collection and many contributors and buyers don't like that.

« Reply #63 on: September 18, 2010, 02:32 »
0
Agencies where all contributors are part-owners have already been tried and tested and with a misserable outcome of greed, jealousy and beefing about whom are to have the biggest shares.
Not a good idea. count me out please.

In a properly set up coop, everybody are paied the same. They the the agreed commision per picture sales. At the coop's general asembly it can be desided to payout profits to the owners each year, and this is payout in porportion to how much the contributer contributed of sales.

Perfectly democratic and fair.

« Reply #64 on: September 18, 2010, 02:49 »
0
.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 14:35 by attator »

RacePhoto

« Reply #65 on: September 20, 2010, 14:32 »
0
Agencies where all contributors are part-owners have already been tried and tested and with a misserable outcome of greed, jealousy and beefing about whom are to have the biggest shares.
Not a good idea. count me out please.

In a properly set up coop, everybody are paied the same. They the the agreed commision per picture sales. At the coop's general asembly it can be desided to payout profits to the owners each year, and this is payout in porportion to how much the contributer contributed of sales.

Perfectly democratic and fair.

Good that you mentioned that because some people want the investors to be more like benefactors, and make nothing. Why should I "invest" in a business/co-op when I get nothing back? The reason for investing is the same as the reason why artists want money for their work. Everyone needs to make a fair share of the profits, or it fails.

Then someone says, they want high commissions, but low prices, to attract buyers and make more for artists. Hey, where does that money come from? There has to be a balance, where the profits are paid fairly but the prices are also held up, or there's no profit to operate the business and the whole thing shuts down. Overpaying contributors is the fastest way to drive a nail in the coffin of a business. Sell on the basis of price competition alone, will also kill a business.

Number One: it would be a nice working co-op if someone could come up with a way to balance... a fair commission, profit sharing, operating expenses and investors getting a good return for their money.

Then the other part is marketing, exclusive images, and attracting buyers, or there's no reason for #1. I don't think that competing with subs is important. On Demand for people who need one photo now and then. Buyers credits for people who buy more, would give them their price advantage. Just like anything else, volume buyers get a lower price. That means lower profits for the supplier. You can offer a deep discount (like losing money on every sale with subs!) and make bushels of money at the same time, to pay all the people in Number One.

« Reply #66 on: September 20, 2010, 15:17 »
0
Here is how a real coop work:
- xxx number of contributer join and form a coop, at a general assembly. Coop but me open to any contributer.
- the rules and laws of the coop are defines, and agreed upon at general assembly.
- They each come up with an equal amount of money, and so buy in to a qqual part of the coop (one one part pr. contributer)
- A group of representative are selected among the contributers.
- A board of director are selected among the contributers, by the board of representatives. All elections are by voting among all contributers.
- Manegement and staff are hired.
- coop i up and running
- Contributer gets for instance 60% royalty on sales
- 10% is let at coop for 12 months for funding.

Each year elections are held for: Board of representatives, which again selects the borad of directors. Board of directors hires and fires management.

Each year, theres a general assembly, at which among other things, the distribution of profit (if any) are desided. For instance if profit is good and money not needed for company delevopment, an amount of the coop profit can be payed out to the owners, porportional to how much money each contributers sales made the previous year.

Good luck - btw - it works - some of the biggest european companies within agricultural products and distribution are coop's.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #67 on: September 20, 2010, 15:50 »
0
Would it be possible that those who contributed money in the funding of the coop as well as those who join the funding in the future, receive a set amount according to the amount they contributed. Some contributors could not afford $1000. Some can afford more like $100. The amount of money you put it would determine the amount you would receive in bonuses at the year end. Just like stocks...the more stocks you own the more you make..the less you own the less you make. If any given contributor wants to contribute more money annually then they would receive a higher percentage based on the amount of capital they invest. As for the % they would receive per sale....I think that should be a set percentage straight across the board. I even think that it should be open to other contributors that don't have to pay. Those who don't pay get their regular commission, but wouldn't get bonuses at the year end. The option should be left open annually to contribute more for a higher rate of return or if they have not contributed, have the option to do so. A lot of math needs to be done to project the cost of advertising and marketing because that is where the expense needs to be. Don't know if it would work but that's my thoughts.

« Reply #68 on: September 20, 2010, 15:57 »
0
Would it be possible that those who contributed money in the funding of the coop as well as those who join the funding in the future, receive a set amount according to the amount they contributed. Some contributors could not afford $1000. Some can afford more like $100. The amount of money you put it would determine the amount you would receive in bonuses at the year end. Just like stocks...the more stocks you own the more you make..the less you own the less you make. If any given contributor wants to contribute more money annually then they would receive a higher percentage based on the amount of capital they invest. As for the % they would receive per sale....I think that should be a set percentage straight across the board. I even think that it should be open to other contributors that don't have to pay. Those who don't pay get their regular commission, but wouldn't get bonuses at the year end. The option should be left open annually to contribute more for a higher rate of return or if they have not contributed, have the option to do so. A lot of math needs to be done to project the cost of advertising and marketing because that is where the expense needs to be. Don't know if it would work but that's my thoughts.

The it has nothing to do with a coop. The coop everybody is equal. You could put in more money, but it would not give you any extra money out or any more influence. A coop is a "one man" - "one vote" system.
The coop is selvfunding through the money that comes from the submitter when they buy in, and through witholding a percentage of the commision for for instance 12 months.

« Reply #69 on: September 20, 2010, 15:58 »
0
You can't keep letting people buy in, because their resulting payout based on investment percentage would go down and down.

« Reply #70 on: September 20, 2010, 15:58 »
0
Good luck - btw - it works - some of the biggest european companies within agricultural products and distribution are coop's.
In Russian, a coop is a sovjet, I think.  ;)
Why do they work in Europe? The agricultural ones certainly because they take (well paid) politicians in as board members and they have a monopolist and political agenda. They eradicated all competition from private companies and they dominate the market - while the politicians on their board form a powerful lobby to keep the EU subsidies up: 50% of the EU budget goes to farming subsidies, just crazy. Having a tax-exempt coop is a sweeter way to maintain collectivism than a communist coup.  :P

This has nothing to do with a photographers' coop of course, but don't mention the big monopolistic anti-free market agricultural coops in continental Europe as an example.

I also have to advise strongly against Denmark as the seat for such a coop, for purely monetary reasons. Denmark is a half-hearted member of the EU with many opt-outs, and very small country with its own currency, not the euro.
I assume the bookkeeping will have to be done in the Danish currency. What if the international markets decide the Danish currency would be a nice target to speculate against a la baisse? They tried it with the euro last May but they failed since the euro-zone has very deep pockets. Greece would have gone down the drains if it wasn't in the eurozone. What if a contributor asks payout and the Danish currency overnight dropped by 40%?

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #71 on: September 20, 2010, 16:02 »
0
Would it be possible that those who contributed money in the funding of the coop as well as those who join the funding in the future, receive a set amount according to the amount they contributed. Some contributors could not afford $1000. Some can afford more like $100. The amount of money you put it would determine the amount you would receive in bonuses at the year end. Just like stocks...the more stocks you own the more you make..the less you own the less you make. If any given contributor wants to contribute more money annually then they would receive a higher percentage based on the amount of capital they invest. As for the % they would receive per sale....I think that should be a set percentage straight across the board. I even think that it should be open to other contributors that don't have to pay. Those who don't pay get their regular commission, but wouldn't get bonuses at the year end. The option should be left open annually to contribute more for a higher rate of return or if they have not contributed, have the option to do so. A lot of math needs to be done to project the cost of advertising and marketing because that is where the expense needs to be. Don't know if it would work but that's my thoughts.

The it has nothing to do with a coop. The coop everybody is equal. You could put in more money, but it would not give you any extra money out or any more influence. A coop is a "one man" - "one vote" system.
The coop is selvfunding through the money that comes from the submitter when they buy in, and through witholding a percentage of the commision for for instance 12 months.

So what would it be called??? A private corporation where shares are only sold to contributors?

« Reply #72 on: September 21, 2010, 10:22 »
0
Good luck - btw - it works - some of the biggest european companies within agricultural products and distribution are coop's.
In Russian, a coop is a sovjet, I think.  ;)
Why do they work in Europe? The agricultural ones certainly because they take (well paid) politicians in as board members and they have a monopolist and political agenda. They eradicated all competition from private companies and they dominate the market - while the politicians on their board form a powerful lobby to keep the EU subsidies up: 50% of the EU budget goes to farming subsidies, just crazy. Having a tax-exempt coop is a sweeter way to maintain collectivism than a communist coup.  :P

This has nothing to do with a photographers' coop of course, but don't mention the big monopolistic anti-free market agricultural coops in continental Europe as an example.

I also have to advise strongly against Denmark as the seat for such a coop, for purely monetary reasons. Denmark is a half-hearted member of the EU with many opt-outs, and very small country with its own currency, not the euro.
I assume the bookkeeping will have to be done in the Danish currency. What if the international markets decide the Danish currency would be a nice target to speculate against a la baisse? They tried it with the euro last May but they failed since the euro-zone has very deep pockets. Greece would have gone down the drains if it wasn't in the eurozone. What if a contributor asks payout and the Danish currency overnight dropped by 40%?

I think that luckely, you don't know much about Denmark.... Biggest problem with the Danish Krone against the euro, which it's tied to, is that the krone is too strong.... We have to keep lowering rates to keep it down....
Danish kroner is on of the most stable currencies in Europe...

A better argument for not placing it in Denmark would be the tax on the payouts, and here I don't know about the exact rules.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 10:24 by Nordlys »

« Reply #73 on: September 21, 2010, 15:02 »
0
You can't keep letting people buy in, because their resulting payout based on investment percentage would go down and down.
That's only if everyone really did own a transferable 'share' of the business.

Take the example of a classic golf club which is a not-for-profit organisation in the ownership of it's members. The club's only purpose is to provide a course with club house facilities for the member's enjoyment. To join the club you pay a 'joining fee' in addition to annual subs. The joining fee is effectively a contribution to the investment of the previous members who originally set up the club but it is not a transferable share and is not refunded when the member leaves the club. A golf club is still a business with several employees but no individual member can profit or sell their share of it.

Microbius

« Reply #74 on: September 21, 2010, 15:22 »
0
The it has nothing to do with a coop. The coop everybody is equal. You could put in more money, but it would not give you any extra money out or any more influence. A coop is a "one man" - "one vote" system.
The coop is selvfunding through the money that comes from the submitter when they buy in, and through witholding a percentage of the commision for for instance 12 months.
Reasons why an actual co-op wont work. You can't run an agency with one man one vote when man A has a portfolio of 10000 images and man B has 2.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
5684 Views
Last post September 30, 2007, 18:42
by stokfoto
6 Replies
3144 Views
Last post August 27, 2008, 19:50
by vonkara
42 Replies
9784 Views
Last post July 14, 2015, 16:49
by jamesbenet
2 Replies
1697 Views
Last post December 16, 2014, 11:39
by Jo Ann Snover
3 Replies
1002 Views
Last post December 05, 2018, 17:10
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results