I am sure everyone has their own views of starting a microstock website but easiler said than done.
Calling them "clone", I dont know if I would put them down. If it were not for other stock agencies, I would not make the money I do make. There is always room for competition even for the "little" companies. Obviously someone is buying from them. Each agency has their own way of running things. I am ok with that.
I am just glad there is a top 10 and would be happy to use any others moving up the ladder.
I would never make my images exclusive. I dont think I would make more doing that.

Hi lephotograph:

It is refreshing to hear your comments. I see and understand of others and although some have a "negative connotation" they are very valid. But it is the positive that keep the possibilities open however small it might be. As you said, there is always room for competition. My best wishes to you. 

Hi photovideo,

 Glad to see people looking towards the future. Would you be kind enough to share some personal or professional background with the group here. I noticed you are anonymous and it would really help to see your work as well as what you will expect from your contributors on quality vs. quantity.
 It really helps me to understand your operation better if I can get some idea of your expertise on the matter of running a stock collection in the past or your capital you plan on investing in this concept. How deep are the pockets to make this thing fly while you are trying to get it off the ground. I don't need exact details but a contact or lead to your own work might really help. Keep on stretching that brain for us, good to see people stepping to the plate especially in raising content providers returns to 50%.

Best,
Jonathan

Hello Jonathan,

Thank you for your kind comments. I wish I can share more information openly, however, there are certain things about the business (such as budget/capital or "unique" ideas) that due to the nature I cannot share.

But I can certainly share details about myself. I have a BA in advertising/digital arts and graduated in 1999. Before I graduated I was hired by a TV station where I developed my interest in television as a Motion Graphic artist. Soon after I was hired by a major nationwide TV network doing the same work. I then relocated to another state and got in to an Emmy Award winning post production house also as Motion Graphic Artist. 4 years later I took an offer in another nationwide TV network.

Beside this I have skills in photography, video editing and film making. When it comes to photography, I shot my own images to use in motion graphics. I learned photography before college and while in college (4 classes). Film making was also part of my major and later got more experience while working in the post house.

I entered the stock industry while working on a motion graphics project. This particular client didn't have much budget to spent on video footage which was $200-$600 per clip and there was not much variety to choose from. So I ended up shooting a sequence of videos which came out "amazing" at "the level" of some of the major RF stock houses.  When many of my colleagues saw the material they suggested me to contact those big RF sites, and I did. One became very interested in getting it as exclusive.

I got busy with projects so I did not focus on it for a while until I have to create more material for another project. (sorry I'm extending myself again... I will make it short) I decided to dedicate time to the creation of material. When I had "enough" (or so I thought at that time) I started to use my own funding to start the project, but then, even before I putting it to work, two new stock houses opened their doors. I joined them and became one of the top sellers for a while... Shortly after I gather a small team and decided to give it a shot doing it ourselves. We started with our own footage.... month later, some of those contributors who we became friends with suggested us to accept their footage, and we did... 

Feel free to PM, I can share more info.

Thanks again for your comments, as you said, we are looking forward to the future. 

Greetings to all:

I recently came across this wonderful site and posted a question about what is it that photographers are looking for in a stock house. Someone directed me to this post and I can say this is the most detailed-well-informed compilation I have ever found in regards to this matter. What I like the most is the fact that you, as professional photographer gather to discuss this ideas.

I am a "CEO" (yes, I rather use quotes ) of an emerging stock video site, but before I decided to pursue this dream (I had it for the longest time) I was a contributor to all major stock video houses, big and small and continue to be a contributor. I'm able to see (probably in a limited way) both sides of the coin. This has helped me to draw some excellent ideas we have implemented to our site and make it "contributor friendly".

Going back to square one, many of our video contributors are also photographers and suggested us to expand to images, which we would like to do,  however, we wanted to make sure we continue that "contributors friendly tradition" by learning more about what contributors are looking for.

I will take many of your ideas to my drawing table and make it part of our site strategy.

Before that, for the sake of the openness this site offer and to contribute to the understanding of how stock house operate (at least small one like site ours) here are my 2 cents is respond to the main ideas.

Perry's ideas are valid considering where he is coming from, and many of you have realized, is not necessarily if the ideas are good or bad, what is even more valuable is that he brought this discussion to the table. Here are my thought on his take:

1) Exclusive images:
As a contributor I don't want to limit my range of income source by going exclusive. In most instance it is not profitable to get, let say, just 60% as exclusive than various percentages from several sites.

As a stock house, selling only exclusive will limit the material quantity driving customers to sites that have the most variety and royalty flexibility. Of course, this does not mean there is not a market for that.


2) Prevent Photographers submitting similar images to other sites
This correlate with point #1, as contributor, I would be limiting my options...
As a stock house, the only way to prevent you from selling in other sites, is to make you sign a legal document agreeing to that. I personally don't like unnecessary legal documents (as many people do)

3) The photographers could pull out their images whenever they want.
As contributor I like this flexibility however, I wouldn't pull out any image as it will limit my income possibilities, that is not even considering the time and effort I put to keywording etc.

As a stock house, I want you to feel flexible, it makes you comfortable, but pulling out may compromise clients who, let say, have items in their bins and counting on them. If you remove them, this customer will not be happy and this is no good. I believe the current standard is fair... Ranging from 14 to 30 days and in some cases 3-6 month.

4) Moderately easy on the technical side
As a contributor: I like this idea.
As a stock house:  Although we are as flexible as you want, I do understand where the other sites are coming from. Many of them are using a business model either inherited by the "old ring" who targeted high end productions, or copied the concept when the microstock was still considered "non threatening". Now they are becoming more flexible in that sense.

In our case we don't limit or reject unless the video is extremely bad. This decision was made when we realized "there is market for everything".  I did a test by shooting myself walking from the leg down... By all standard this video was doom to failure, but surprisingly it got sold 3 times in its life time.

5)  Easy License

I agree in both sides.

6) Clever algorithm that few clicks images sink to bottom
As a contributor, I like the idea. I recall that for a time I was one of the top sellers at 2 different sites, so I know the feeling of having good material + appropriated keywording. However, those the site realized they couldn't prioritize so it became more "even".

As a stock house this would be unfair to other contributors regardless of their inexperience keywording. We would like all people to sell, not just a few ones. The ones who sales will be happy, but the majority of those who don't sell will feel the site is not making them revenue.

7) Easy uploading
Agreed in both counts. We try to minimize that by using templates which make the submission process in just 2 steps, but it has it limitations. This is something there is no scape (at least for now) as information have to be entered.

Fair commission
I agree in both counts. I can say that in video it seems to be more fair, probably because it requires more work. Depending on the site it goes from 35% to 50% as non exclusive and the most I have seen is 60% as exclusive. These are fair values considering the operational expenses. We offer 50% and it will be the same if we decided to make it into the images market.

About other comments I read:

Keyword limitations:
As a contributor I would like to have freedom to use the keyword I see fit for my material, but
as a stock house I want to make sure there is no profanity or anything that can offend anyone in any way. We don't limit keyword unless is rude, crude, or profane. There are some gray areas that require consultation.

Paying in advanced for royalties:
As a contributor I experienced it first hand. This particular site was emerging and quickly died. (It is now being revamped its features and will come back to the market) I did enjoyed the benefit of having a quick commission but I ended up having the feeling of being "trapped". A year later I  returned the money so I can feel "free". Hopefully they will do better this time.

As a stock house and depending on the amount of money and/or contributors, it would take a chunk of money that can be used in other areas that will benefit the business and by default the contributor.

Photoshow also brought some great point, which are great ideas but are somewhat tricky to implement depending on the business model...

1) By invite only site will limit the amount of photographers as well as the amount of clients. Although this has been used in the past by the "old ring" such as Getty Images, they have "change their mind" or better yet, they now understand the market trend and ended up acquiring IStockPhoto (and video) as well as Jupiter Images (with all their agencies such as stockxpert)

2) Approved Camera List
The idea is good, but has it flaws. As a professional in the television and post production industry I can tell you that it is the talent, not the camera. I have seem many material shot on "crappy camera" that look professional, I have seen "crappy material" shot on "expensive as hell" cameras.

Also, a far as I can tell, no agency have the capability of controlling this. What will prevent you from saying you used an "approved camera" when in fact you did not? How will a company know for sure which camera you did used? They have to go by what you say.

As I contributor I once did a sequence of videos that was done in a non-approved video camera. I knew it will get rejected if I mentioned, but I also knew this material was going to sell like hotcakes... I ended up finding the closest pro camera compared to the one I used and that is was approved by the site. Well, it was approved, it did sell like hotcake and it is still selling good in all sites. At the end of the day, I make them money, and I make money myself.

3) Agent that understand contributors are the backbone

I agree in both counts (as contributor and as stock house) This is in fact what we are trying to build. Most of us (internal team) are either filmakers, 3D animators, motion designers and graphic designers... We all know the industry, we understand the industry and we've been making a living on this industry for the past 10-30 years (combined).

Because two of us are contributors to other sites, we understand what is going on from within. We want to implement a functional solution where the contributor is not only a contributor but an integral part of the business, reaping additional benefits as the site grows.

I do agree with points 4, 5, and 6.

7) This is a good idea, but it has a cost. As a contributor I rather gain 3% and submit my own metadata, at the end of the day after an image is submitted that is it, no more work with it, of course this is long term.  Now, there are many agencies that do the submission for you, but they require you to sign a 3-7 years contract. I have material in two of such sites, and I understand the cost of having the employees to do the work. It cost money and they want to protect that investment by signing contracts.

For a small startup business like us this is a big overhead. This is the reason why microstock implemented the idea and soon the big boys joined the concept.

10) One Model Release for all related Material
This idea is great, it was suggested to us while a go by one of our contributors, we are in the process of implementing this.

11) The image rejection in a "yes or no manner" can backfire and it does not offer flexibility to the contributor. As a contributor, I want to be able to submit an image after I took the time to make the necessarily adjustments, images that I know for a fact is selling great in other sites... As a stock house I want contributors to have that freedom... How can they feel they are the backbone if they are being treated with limitations?

12) This is what has been done in the past 15 years (or more). But the new trend in business is community base, the freedom to chat with fellow artists, exchange ideas, discuss equipment... All that has a business value, and of course as an agency we benefit from it... (it may also backfire)  That is even aside from the fact that having forum can increase awareness, reduce non-important technical support inquiries and just have the feeling of being part of something. We are social beings, it is embedded in our nature.

When I decided to open as a business, due to respect, I had to cut back from posting on the sites I contribute material. For a while it made me sad because I became so part of it... This has a value and is very well appreciated by contributors and the agencies.

As I final thought, my comments are by no means written on stone, these are just my perceptions on how I see things from both sides. 'The only permanent thing is change" so these comments may well be obsolete very soon.

This thread has added much value to the information I was looking for in consideration to start offering images in our website. Thank you for having this information available!

Hi there. Let me start by saying this is an wonderful site, I just came across and registered right on the spot. After considering if appropriate or not I finally decided to give it a shot, so here it goes...

I work with a stock footage site (videos) (well in the category of microstock) and we are considering selling stock images, but as many have posted here, the market is so saturated with such sites that it loses the appeal specially for contributors with tons of images.

I was wondering, what do you, as photographer, look for in a stock image site specially that something that will help you decide to join?

One thing we've been trying to do is to come up with a way to somehow make our videographers (or future photographers) part of the company in a way that, if the company ever gets sold or if we reach a level of high income, you get a piece of the pie at the level of your contribution... This has been quite difficult because there are many variables some yet unknown.

So, beside this idea, is there something you as photographer is looking forward to see in a microstock site?