Quote from: topol on March 26, 2013, 13:57

[size=78%]you don't have to purchase anything... but you need to dedicate images, and if you want a sizeable port, lots of production time in the future... so it doesn't come cheap actually. actually could become the hugestest waste of time in recent years.[/size]

I thought a co-op meant that members would need to put money in for shares in the co-op. not exactly purchasing anything, but certainly investing. Or are those the details the outsiders will never know about and members of the club will never speak about?

You did purchase things; camera equipment, lighting, models, props  and your valualbe time.   The acceptance gets you membership.  Your split of the profits should be in ratio to your sales and the size of files or profit on your downloads.  The more you buy in coops the more dividens you get back.  Here the more you sell the more dividens you should get back if the venture is profitable.  No profits no dividens.  Also first in first paid.

No shares so no controlling interest by a few small players who could profit by selling the entity.   That doesn't mean some members won't be elevated. 

Quote from: iStop on March 25, 2013, 14:44

The total amount of content might be a bit light for a full on site launch though. They have just under 120 contributors and perhaps about 50,000 images online or less. That probably does not offer enough subject coverage yet to make it a worthwhile stop for designers yet. They will have to grow that a bit more first I think.

I Agree, and only 2,200 people images... a bit tiny for a launch.

I think its funny when people say you need x amount of images considering on istock if you think back to positioning on best match in a search subject.   First page top left first slot of best match gets more dl than the second photo, second gets more than 3rd.  First row photo gets more than second row.  second row gets more than 3rd row.  1st page gets more than 2nd page.  1st image on 1st row on popular best match search word could 50 dls a day.   4th page photo could get a couple of dls if it was moving up.   

  Knowing this the drop off of interest on past the first page is like of a cliff, how many images are needed on a search word? People stay in the shallow end when looking for images on a search word. 

Darn pulled up stocksy.com and was re-directed to instagram 

Watch my blog on Monday...

Monday.. Your blog..?  Can't I just pull up Stocksy.com and check it out for myself by then?

Judging by the last three series on your blog,  Stocksy is going to be a hit.  They are very well done.  No wonder IS/getty was afraid of the competition.  It will be interesting if the download numbers are going to be displayed like in the beggining on IS.

Yes, this is quite alarming.  March has always been my #1 month for sales at Istock and this month very very slow.

It has picked up for me this month.  Especially with the dec/jan gi sales.   Maybe they are helpling exclusives in the best match because the survey asked a lot of questions that would show a conern about losing exclusives. 

Quote from: shudderstok on March 12, 2013, 19:33

...Hell the fella who is the brainchild behind it could have done this "co-op" concept with his old agency, but chose not too and sold out for a bunch of millions knowing who it was being sold to and the way they operate. Now it's time to get all "grassroots" and moral with Shlocksy? Give me a break man.

To be fair, you know that you, me, and everyone else in here would have done the same thing as Bruce if we were in that position.

Anyone really think they'd turn down $50 million? Anyone?

Sad part (relativity speaking) is that he stayed there and saw IS was worth at least 1 Billion dollars before he left. 

How many people create and sell a company worth 1 billion us dollars.  Especially from nothing!!

I thought it was just because no-one works at iS on a Sunday to switch it off, but according to Sean's blog:
To anyone concerned, or interested, my portfolio will continue to be licensed on iStockphoto for a couple more weeks, due to a technical issue.  That�s fine, because the extra income will help in the upcoming dry spell when it is no longer there.  Thanks.

Great for Sean - as the technical issue isn't his fault, he is no doubt free to sell anywhere else he chooses from today.

That does give him a buffer until stocksy opens and other sites get his work.

Quote from: davidgoh on March 07, 2013, 10:26

I don't like that it's cheap. But the way I see it, that's the way the industry is moving towards, and it's very quickly becoming the norm. I think it's all about dealing and adapting.

No, actually that's where we were.  We should be moving away from that.

It's not just that the price went up too much, it's compounded by reducing the payment % to most contributors.  How do you raise prices and the reduce commissions.  Not a very good long term strategy for keeping contributors and buyers happy. 

If you shot the album cover for "the head and the heart" from 2010 you are golden.

I agree with leaf - instead of shotgunning, you may want to wait until after the 25th to have a better idea, and it should be pretty clear then, I'd think.

Hey leaf quoted me in saying that!

It is your choice to submit in the dark.   If your porfolio is not the best work,  then I would question people saying that stocksy does not know what they are doing by judging it to be a contributor.   

Quote from: zeamonkey on February 26, 2013, 03:49

I got the invitation and looking through the contributor aggreement, i dont see image exclusivity mentioned anywhere.

I can't imagine it not being image exclusive.  If, by the very nature of a co-op, a contributor is essentially a part-owner why would you compete with yourself by having your same images elsewhere?

Not sure how this makes the artist work more valuable.  Portfolios are like fingerprints.   The work is distinguished by all the factors that make creative artist.   I can see very simular traits in porfolios  as long as they have one shooter.   How would it be image exclusive if it is not subject, location, model, concept, "100 more words could go here" exclusive.  To me that would not work.  How would Yuri's site be doing if he yanked all his work on other sites before launch.

It's funny to see the reaction of SS and IS/getty to this start up. Jon says being exclusive is bad for (photographers and the industry).   While getty boots out anyone who is known to be involved with stocksy.   

What does that tell you about the top two agencies.   

It says Jon got paid $400 million convicing you not to be exclusive with IS.   And getty says "oh crap" we cannot compete and have to buy our competition and load them up with old getty owned junk at very high prices.  And both don't want to pay you much for your work.   

I can't believe as a artist you would not run to stocksy if they become as good as the Bruce owned IS was with a larger payout. 

  The way a co-op works is they pay you a split of the profits that come based on how much you sell.   While paying you 50% of the sale price of an image.  Didn't getty say paying us 40 and 20 percent was unsustainable?

It would expose getty/SS and who ever esle for the rip offs they are.