Author Topic: Creating One Agency to Represent us All (Read 21422 times)

sharpshot · « **Reply #25 on:** October 19, 2012, 09:24 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 19, 2012, 08:06

....And if you wanted to pay, you would have all jumped all over PictureEngine....

I think some of Justin's comments put me off that. Some of us had legitimate concerns about how we were going to get our money back when the PictureEngine was indexing any site that had over a million images for free. Something didn't feel right, I was concerned that I would never get more money than I was being asked to pay out. Did you think is was that great an idea and that it was presented to us well?

I would be willing to pay for a well thought out site that had a realistic chance of making me some money.

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** October 19, 2012, 10:27 »

The technical details are completely beyond me, but I have always been willing to join up and also pay a membership fee if a serious site is created that will link all our existing sites together.

gostwyck · « **Reply #27 on:** October 19, 2012, 12:16 »

Quote from: bobbigmac on October 19, 2012, 06:46

Some technical input since I already work in this space... I've toyed with this idea in the past (still loosely am considering something similar for picWorkflow), and everytime I've tried to come up with a way to do it, I run into the following issues:

1) Technically, regularly pulling data from and maintaining changing data, across a wide variety of sites (hundreds at-least to be financially viable) is very VERY difficult. I have a couple of tools which pull complex data from just 13 microstock sites and simple data from 40+, and both are an absolute nightmare to maintain.

2) To perform step 1, costs money, as the OP suggested 'no fees', but then states a small annual fee for upkeep, presumably thinking of server-costs, would leave little-to-no development or marketing budget.

3) Storing images would be essential, as if any source site went down, the image-buyer would still need access to thumbnails, and not-caching those would be a big error because of any inconsistencies in the source data leading to unpresentable search results.

4) The site to be viable would probably work best if it took a cut of every sale (which other similar services have done), but then the participating artists would figure "hey, people are buying my images, why am I paying 20% to this middleman service now I have the customers", thus making the need for it to be an end-to-end, not just a referral service.

5) Maintaining relationships with that many artists and supporting both userbases (artists and buyers), and that many sites, would again be a total nightmare.

6) The issue of who handles payments is tricky, the buyers want a single-point service, but the OP suggests artists handling payments.
From my research 2 things buyers want above all else are:
a) A good search engine, with a useful relevance algorithm so they spend less time searching (hard to do).
b) A fast, simple and transparent payment structure with no hoop-jumping.

My solution:

1) Photoshelter already does a good job of providing a network of sites for selling your work, if you don't like microstock, sell from your own site and spend a few bucks (on Fiverr if you're cheap, on odesk/freelancer if you have a couple of hundred to spare) on content marketing people (pickup some link builders (white-hat only) and content writers/enrichers, and actually add some web-friendly content around your images).

2) Don't like agencies that keep 80% plus of the income? Easy... Don't sell through them. Plenty of people will, but vote with your feet and the agencies will listen if enough people do so.

Not a full-service solution, but just my 2c, gave me an idea for a blog post though too, thanks
Bob

^^^ Great post Bob. Interesting detail of the technical difficulties.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #28 on:** October 19, 2012, 13:41 »

One of the issues that I don't think has been mentioned so far (and there have certainly been some significant ones) is assuring buyers that they are licensing images that are legally safe to use. If you remember, a few years back Getty sales reps were trying to discourage buyers from purchasing from iStock with this FUD (when Getty already owned iStock, no less!).

If each artist is responsible for their own work, inevitably someone new to the game, or reckless, or just mistaken, will offer something with unreleased images or of protected property. Buyers concerned that they can't trust a purchase from this coop will buy elsewhere.

Once you start down the path of inspecting images, even just for model/property release issues, on top of handling search, payments, refunds and customer support, you've just about created an agency.

I'd love to have an alternative to the agencies, but we need to be realistic about the buyer expectations and experience. They will probably be moving from one of the existing sites to this new site and won't put up with something cobbled together of band aids and bailing wire. And whoever controls the search engine has to be someone we'd trust (so they don't start selling preferential position like supermarkets sell shelf space or Facebook is now trying to have you promote your own posts).

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #29 on:** October 19, 2012, 13:46 »

All very well but how would this master agency attract buyers? I mean its not exactly as if all the others are closing down, is it and with some 100 million pics already floating around, we could hardly offer anything new?
Its extremely difficult to lure away buyers from already established businesses, thats why newer agencies simply cant make it no matter what they promise.
This idea is great but at the moment it seems an uphill struggle, especially with most of todays buyers who doesnt seem to care about quality at all.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 19, 2012, 14:41 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 19, 2012, 13:46

All very well but how would this master agency attract buyers? I mean its not exactly as if all the others are closing down, is it and with some 100 million pics already floating around, we could hardly offer anything new?
Its extremely difficult to lure away buyers from already established businesses, thats why newer agencies simply cant make it no matter what they promise.
This idea is great but at the moment it seems an uphill struggle, especially with most of todays buyers who doesnt seem to care about quality at all.

we don´t need to do 10k $ per day like Yuri, not on the 1st

Sean, its time to continue it, perhaps Bob (picNiche etc) can give you some help if necessary, I am all for it!

gostwyck · « **Reply #31 on:** October 19, 2012, 15:38 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 19, 2012, 13:46

All very well but how would this master agency attract buyers? I mean its not exactly as if all the others are closing down, is it and with some 100 million pics already floating around, we could hardly offer anything new?
Its extremely difficult to lure away buyers from already established businesses, thats why newer agencies simply cant make it no matter what they promise.
This idea is great but at the moment it seems an uphill struggle, especially with most of todays buyers who doesnt seem to care about quality at all.

Exactly. We know SS spend $30M+ per year on 'sales & marketing' and I'm sure that other agencies expenditure will be on the same sort of scale. How indeed would the 'master agency' attract buyers unless they have a similar war-chest of cash?

Jo Ann made a very good point about the credibility of the licenses to the buyers too. There will always be contributors who attempt to game or cheat the system, not to mention others who upload stolen content. Who is going to police all that side of things?

Poncke · « **Reply #32 on:** October 19, 2012, 16:02 »

Paypal is available in 190 countries, and handles 24 currencies. Thats almost the entire world.

cidepix · « **Reply #33 on:** October 19, 2012, 16:14 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 19, 2012, 15:38

Jo Ann made a very good point about the credibility of the licenses to the buyers too. There will always be contributors who attempt to game or cheat the system, not to mention others who upload stolen content. Who is going to police all that side of things?

- Stolen content -if reported- can be taken down easily..

- This site WILL SAY on it's tagline: "It is a search engine only, to help you find artist sites, use them at your own discretion, Master Search Engine is not responsible for any issues"

Done!

Any contributor "who is cheating" would only hurt his/her own credibility.. not the site's..

Also, who says there has to be a legal assurance? After all, if taken to court, innocent buyer will not be punished anyway.. Only the provider of illegal content is at risk and why would the buyers worry about that?

istock is clever.. they sure know how to fool corporate people who have C.Y.A. (cover your ass) mentality

Poncke · « **Reply #34 on:** October 19, 2012, 16:30 »

Quote from: cidepix on October 19, 2012, 16:14

Quote from: gostwyck on October 19, 2012, 15:38
Jo Ann made a very good point about the credibility of the licenses to the buyers too. There will always be contributors who attempt to game or cheat the system, not to mention others who upload stolen content. Who is going to police all that side of things?

- Stolen content -if reported- can be taken down easily..

- This site WILL SAY on it's tagline: "It is a search engine only, to help you find artist sites, use them at your own discretion, Master Search Engine is not responsible for any issues"

Done!

Any contributor "who is cheating" would only hurt his/her own credibility.. not the site's..

Also, who says there has to be a legal assurance? After all, if taken to court, innocent buyer will not be punished anyway.. Only the provider of illegal content is at risk and why would the buyers worry about that?

istock is clever.. they sure know how to fool corporate people who have C.Y.A. (cover your ass) mentality

Really? Thats naive thinking.

cidepix · « **Reply #35 on:** October 19, 2012, 16:33 »

Quote from: Poncke on October 19, 2012, 16:30

Quote from: cidepix on October 19, 2012, 16:14
Quote from: gostwyck on October 19, 2012, 15:38
Jo Ann made a very good point about the credibility of the licenses to the buyers too. There will always be contributors who attempt to game or cheat the system, not to mention others who upload stolen content. Who is going to police all that side of things?

- Stolen content -if reported- can be taken down easily..

- This site WILL SAY on it's tagline: "It is a search engine only, to help you find artist sites, use them at your own discretion, Master Search Engine is not responsible for any issues"

Done!

Any contributor "who is cheating" would only hurt his/her own credibility.. not the site's..

Also, who says there has to be a legal assurance? After all, if taken to court, innocent buyer will not be punished anyway.. Only the provider of illegal content is at risk and why would the buyers worry about that?

istock is clever.. they sure know how to fool corporate people who have C.Y.A. (cover your ass) mentality

Really? Thats naive thinking.

No! it's not..

You use google, don't you? When you find a shopping site through google, and they cheat you and take too much money from your credit card, will you blame google?

after all, you found the site using google..

The site I am talking about is "the google of personal stock photo sites".. Nothing more..

Maybe I wasn't very good in making it clearer..

cr8tivguy · « **Reply #36 on:** October 19, 2012, 16:44 »

Wow I went away for 24hrs, and lots of great responses.

Lot of great ideas.
We are creatives here, and we're all on Microsites, or we wouldn't be here. The biggest problem we all have is the massive % of $$$ they take, and mostly terrible customer service.

Back to my original idea...
1.Creating a Stock Agency that pays the contributor at least 50% or more. (This is very complex Setting a new website up I know) Thus why I think Photoshelter is the best alternative for individual photographers can set up their own sites the way they like, and price their work they way they like.
2. The OurStockAgency.com idea would be a Google Image search idea. Client searches in the search box for their image. The site grabs images from each and every individual photographer sites keywords and put together pages of images for the client to view. When the client finds the image clicks on the image to buy. Site directs them to the photographers site, and makes the sale there. PHotoshelter delivers the digital image to the client, and photographer pays part of the royalty back to "OurStockAgency.com" website.
3. Money generated from the site would help pay for Advertising, website upkeep. Staff etc.
4. Important to recruit every photographer to join in and make a massive transition from all the agencies combined to have the maximum effect on the market.

I know this isn't an easy task, but there is enough of us out there that can pull our $$$ and talents together to make this a reality! I'm all for it...
Let's hear some more Ideas and let's get this rolling!

Poncke · « **Reply #37 on:** October 19, 2012, 16:51 »

Quote from: cidepix on October 19, 2012, 16:33

Quote from: Poncke on October 19, 2012, 16:30
Quote from: cidepix on October 19, 2012, 16:14
Quote from: gostwyck on October 19, 2012, 15:38
Jo Ann made a very good point about the credibility of the licenses to the buyers too. There will always be contributors who attempt to game or cheat the system, not to mention others who upload stolen content. Who is going to police all that side of things?

- Stolen content -if reported- can be taken down easily..

- This site WILL SAY on it's tagline: "It is a search engine only, to help you find artist sites, use them at your own discretion, Master Search Engine is not responsible for any issues"

Done!

Any contributor "who is cheating" would only hurt his/her own credibility.. not the site's..

Also, who says there has to be a legal assurance? After all, if taken to court, innocent buyer will not be punished anyway.. Only the provider of illegal content is at risk and why would the buyers worry about that?

istock is clever.. they sure know how to fool corporate people who have C.Y.A. (cover your ass) mentality

Really? Thats naive thinking.

No! it's not..

You use google, don't you? When you find a shopping site through google, and they cheat you and take too much money from your credit card, will you blame google?

after all, you found the site using google..

The site I am talking about is "the google of personal stock photo sites".. Nothing more..

Maybe I wasn't very good in making it clearer..

Apples and pears. People go to your engine to find photos, not everything that was ever posted on the internet since its beginning.

If they get burned once or twice they will never use your search engine again. They need to know that whenever they get to a photo on a site its legit. DOnt underestimate bad word of mouth. Things go viral in a second, good or bad. If they click on a photo and need to worry if its a legit site, or investigate first you lose the sale. If it happens too often you lose the customer.

cr8tivguy · « **Reply #38 on:** October 19, 2012, 16:56 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 19, 2012, 13:46

All very well but how would this master agency attract buyers? I mean its not exactly as if all the others are closing down, is it and with some 100 million pics already floating around, we could hardly offer anything new?
Its extremely difficult to lure away buyers from already established businesses, thats why newer agencies simply cant make it no matter what they promise.
This idea is great but at the moment it seems an uphill struggle, especially with most of todays buyers who doesnt seem to care about quality at all.

The Main Idea is for Each and every Photographer to leave the Agencies! Pull their images and have full control over them again. If we take our images back. The buyers have no choice but to buy from us direct! Yes it's an uphill battle, but were the ones who let them take control and pay us on an average 20-40%. Really we've shot ourselves in the foot more than once.

Yes there are legal issues, yes there are problems with content not meeting quality standards. Yes there are going to be problems. But let's join together used what we've learned from the agencies and do better! There will be enough Advertising $$$ and more left over to pay for such things. The best thing we can do is get the word out, to our fellow photographers, that something great is coming for them, and explain were in this together, and that we control our images and destiny, not the big bully Stock Agencies.

Stand up and fight for your Rights!!! (Bob Marley)

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #39 on:** October 20, 2012, 03:43 »

Quote from: cr8tivguy on October 19, 2012, 16:56

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 19, 2012, 13:46
All very well but how would this master agency attract buyers? I mean its not exactly as if all the others are closing down, is it and with some 100 million pics already floating around, we could hardly offer anything new?
Its extremely difficult to lure away buyers from already established businesses, thats why newer agencies simply cant make it no matter what they promise.
This idea is great but at the moment it seems an uphill struggle, especially with most of todays buyers who doesnt seem to care about quality at all.

The Main Idea is for Each and every Photographer to leave the Agencies! Pull their images and have full control over them again. If we take our images back. The buyers have no choice but to buy from us direct! Yes it's an uphill battle, but were the ones who let them take control and pay us on an average 20-40%. Really we've shot ourselves in the foot more than once.

Yes there are legal issues, yes there are problems with content not meeting quality standards. Yes there are going to be problems. But let's join together used what we've learned from the agencies and do better! There will be enough Advertising $$$ and more left over to pay for such things. The best thing we can do is get the word out, to our fellow photographers, that something great is coming for them, and explain were in this together, and that we control our images and destiny, not the big bully Stock Agencies.

Stand up and fight for your Rights!!! (Bob Marley)

yeah thats exactly what I figured you meant and you do realize its easier to win the jackpot at Vegas, dont you? there are severall people here depending on agencies for their support of families, etc and most of these are the heavy contributors.

Most of ther serious micro contributors are too deep rooted, too involved and not really in the mood for gambling.

fotografer · « **Reply #40 on:** October 20, 2012, 03:59 »

Quote from: cr8tivguy on October 19, 2012, 16:56

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 19, 2012, 13:46
All very well but how would this master agency attract buyers? I mean its not exactly as if all the others are closing down, is it and with some 100 million pics already floating around, we could hardly offer anything new?
Its extremely difficult to lure away buyers from already established businesses, thats why newer agencies simply cant make it no matter what they promise.
This idea is great but at the moment it seems an uphill struggle, especially with most of todays buyers who doesnt seem to care about quality at all.

The Main Idea is for Each and every Photographer to leave the Agencies! Pull their images and have full control over them again. If we take our images back. The buyers have no choice but to buy from us direct! Yes it's an uphill battle, but were the ones who let them take control and pay us on an average 20-40%. Really we've shot ourselves in the foot more than once.

Yes there are legal issues, yes there are problems with content not meeting quality standards. Yes there are going to be problems. But let's join together used what we've learned from the agencies and do better! There will be enough Advertising $$$ and more left over to pay for such things. The best thing we can do is get the word out, to our fellow photographers, that something great is coming for them, and explain were in this together, and that we control our images and destiny, not the big bully Stock Agencies.

Stand up and fight for your Rights!!! (Bob Marley)

Unfortunately that is unlikely to ever happen and the agencies know it that is why they can do what they like with us. If I pull out of all agencies I need to be 100% sure that I can earn enough elsewhere immediately. My bills have to be paid,my family have to be fed. Anybody that takes stock seriously is in the same position so all you will get is hobbiest which will make no difference to anything anywhere.
I agree that it is a wonderful idea if it could happen but it won't anytime soon.

Poncke · « **Reply #41 on:** October 20, 2012, 04:01 »

I am sure there are hobbiests that take better photos then many professionals

fotografer · « **Reply #42 on:** October 20, 2012, 04:23 »

Quote from: Poncke on October 20, 2012, 04:01

I am sure there are hobbiests that take better photos then many professionals

I'm 100% sure that there are. I wasn't talking about image quality I was talking about the fact that they won't get enough images to make a difference. Anybody that is making a lot of money on stock can't afford the risk of pulling their images from all stock sites. Even Yuri didn't do that when he started his own site.

Poncke · « **Reply #43 on:** October 20, 2012, 04:34 »

Quote from: fotografer on October 20, 2012, 04:23

Quote from: Poncke on October 20, 2012, 04:01
I am sure there are hobbiests that take better photos then many professionals
I'm 100% sure that there are. I wasn't talking about image quality I was talking about the fact that they won't get enough images to make a difference. Anybody that is making a lot of money on stock can't afford the risk of pulling their images from all stock sites. Even Yuri didn't do that when he started his own site.

I see your point now.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #44 on:** October 20, 2012, 07:33 »

Quote from: Poncke on October 20, 2012, 04:01

I am sure there are hobbiests that take better photos then many professionals

I think youre right actually. The exeption might be conceptuals, possibly we have the edge there. The amateur seem to have a fresh approach, etc, perhaps even seeing things we dont.

gostwyck · « **Reply #45 on:** October 20, 2012, 08:10 »

Quote from: Poncke on October 20, 2012, 04:01

I am sure there are hobbiests that take better photos then many professionals

Of course there are. Hobbyists can spend as much time and money as they like without any concern to getting a return.

Within my own portfolio my personal favourites are almost entirely those images I took before 'discovering' stock (usually requiring me to drive for miles and wander around for hours waiting for the right light). They don't earn much though.

The 'pro' stock shooter tends to be much better at using his time/money more profitably and optimising commercial opportuntities when they present themselves.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #46 on:** October 20, 2012, 08:14 »

I think the best analogy here is to Amazon rather than Google - what is needed is an Amazon photostore. One site to search for images in individual stores, that will display prices and product information and accept payments. Take a small commission off of each sale with no upfront costs so sellers only pay when they get a sale. For buyers a central site for searches and payments to a single site. Come up with a good business plan and get investors to pay for startup costs. Allow for reviews so people who sell bad images or ones with legal entanglements get called out. I think it could work but will require someone to devote a ton of time - or see if Amazon would be interested.

modviz · « **Reply #47 on:** October 20, 2012, 09:08 »

100 years ago working stiffs were making pennies - working long hours - and with no benefits. Sound familiar? Unions, like it or not, balanced the playing field. Stock agencies have the ideal conditions. They have thousands - many times tens of thousands of people working for them - they pay them pennies for their efforts and they don't have to worry about the upfront costs of running a business - healthcare, dental, holiday pay, etc.

The agencies are empowered. Period. And it'll stay that way as long as WE, the contributors to their enterprises, work as single individuals.

Strength in numbers in a united front allows for a loud, common voice that will be heard by the agencies. If, for example, 123RF goes ahead with its commission cuts in the new year - and everyone pulled out in unison or at the very least, stopped contributing images, it would send a clear and resounding message to other agencies who are considering the same action.

cidepix · « **Reply #48 on:** October 20, 2012, 12:31 »

Actually this thread is a great "hint" for ktools developers..

Imagine how many more sites (and possibly hosting) they will sell if they develop a common search engine that will search "the entire ktools sites network" for free..

who ever does this will be selling thousands of scripts.. That's for sure..

and the project will automatically "fund" itself by selling a lot more scripts..

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #49 on:** October 20, 2012, 13:02 »

ktools is a really low quality option - I have dealt with it only via Warm Picture (i.e. not as a developer of my own site). Just about every aspect of their site is wanting and their search is terrible (worse in the newer version, I believe). I can't see any credible-to-buyers solution coming from them if they can't even get the single site stuff complete and high quality

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Creating One Agency to Represent us All (Read 21422 times)

sharpshot

lisafx

gostwyck

Jo Ann Snover

ClaridgeJ

luissantos84

gostwyck

Poncke

cidepix

Poncke

cidepix

cr8tivguy

Poncke

cr8tivguy

ClaridgeJ

fotografer

Poncke

fotografer

Poncke

ClaridgeJ

gostwyck

sgoodwin4813

modviz

cidepix

Jo Ann Snover

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors