As I'm still exclusive, I won't be participating at the moment but I did take a look and thought I'd offer a couple of suggestions. I think this may not be much, but as long as the overhead is low, it can't hurt to give it a whirl.

1. Put something other than a flower picture up top. No cats, flowers or sunsets - you won't look serious. I know all of those sell, but I don't think it sends the right message as a banner. Perhaps if each participating site donated one banner and then you rotate through them?

2. Give the page a title to show up in the browser window - Untitled Document isn't all that catchy

3. Have a thumbnail picture, or small banner of a row of thumbs, with each agency - I want to see images.

4. Put a contact e-mail on the home page

5. Put purchase direct and save money as the first item

6. I think you need to address model releases and "safety". Saying something about all these portfolios have model released images that are fine for commercial use. Some people may be afraid they'll land up in the mess that some companies did when their agencies grabbed un-released images from Flickr (wasn't it Virgin?)

7. Consider a referral badge as well as a request to spread the word. I don't know what the code required would be to implement a scheme to give a small discount to referred customers on their first purchase (or first $xx) but that might be a thought.

'6. I think you need to address model releases and "safety". Saying something about all these portfolios have model released images that are fine for commercial use. Some people may be afraid they'll land up in the mess that some companies did when their agencies grabbed un-released images from Flickr (wasn't it Virgin?)'

That's a bigger issue isn't it?  Can you 'trust' all these independent sites?  Can you 'trust' copy on a link page?  People pay agency/portal fees to know there is some oversight.

Why not start a non-profit stock agency that pays 100% (after operating costs) to its contributing artists, something around 80% commissions.  Non-profits can still have salaried employees....just reasonably salaried employees.  The goal of such an agency would be similar to an artists guild with a competitive storefront. That would really be an ideal situation.

is anyone able to participate? What if you have sub par photographers wanting in... doesnt that bring down the overall look of the site? Will there be inspectors?

I much prefer the idea of a non-profit agency because it would be so much easier for the buyers.  I just can't see how us all having our own separate sites with a links page is going to work.

I�m with sjlocke and PaulieWalnuts on this. These attempts at something are futile for anything but venting frustration.

The best solutions currently available (though far from ideal) is using Photoshelter Virtual Agency or wholeheartedly backing up some (preferal one or two in unison) of the "Fair trade" sites. The clue (and challenge) is to get a massive move in the same direction.

I�m with sjlocke and PaulieWalnuts on this. These attempts at something are futile for anything but venting frustration.

The best solutions currently available (though far from ideal) is using Photoshelter Virtual Agency or wholeheartedly backing up some (preferal one or two in unison) of the "Fair trade" sites. The clue (and challenge) is to get a massive move in the same direction.

  I don't see it as venting frustration. I started my site to sell my own work and make some money. Getting other sites to link to my site is about the most basic SEO thing you can do. If someone is going to give me one, then I'm going to jump on board.

The worst thing that can happen is we can waste about 5 minutes of our time adding a few links.  The best thing that can happen is our list can grow, and we can get the attention of some designers.  What's the risk:reward ratio on this investment?

BTW I had my first sale today.  $4.99 for an extra small size photo (600 pixels long side).  Beat that with a microstock agency.

Quote from: lightscribe on February 25, 2011, 11:01

Why not start a non-profit stock agency that pays 100% (after operating costs) to its contributing artists, something around 80% commissions.  Non-profits can still have salaried employees....just reasonably salaried employees.  The goal of such an agency would be similar to an artists guild with a competitive storefront. That would really be an ideal situation.

Sorry, that's not sustainable. It won't survive for long!

Says who?
There has to be one important thing to be taken in account. Many Submitter are buyers too, like me. I buy arround 100 images per month as a freelance designer and for web designs. If only the contributors who are buyers too, and tehre should be many, give a preference to an photographer run agency, it should be AT LEAST enough money to keep it going and worthwhile.

I am not throwing cold water on any ideas or trying to discourage anyone, whether it's a coop or individual sites you are talking about starting or have started. We started small 14+ years ago and it might have sounded to some folks like a crazy idea at the time.

But I am wondering if you have actually figured out what your "royalty" will amount to if one of your photos sells and if you know all that's involved in doing for yourselves all the things a good agency does for you.

After paying the hosting fees, merchant fees, etc. etc. etc., what will you get if a $2 photo sells? And is that enough for it to be worthwhile for you?

Good luck to all who are willing to put in the time and effort to improve their life! Competition is not a bad thing. It can improve things for buyers and sellers both.

[email protected]

Yes, it is. As said before, I work ALOT in Server administration and take care of various projects. Cost is not THAT much (Advertising is a huge chunk, true), but the rest is overseeable. We would need some capital, but no really huge figures. Starting out maybe with a decent VPS for a acouple of month to get the code running, then picking up a dedicated server. The script installation, if we don`t code it ourselves, may take 1 day, the customization (if I would do it alone), maybe three weeks with all the design. Payment setup is easy these days...in addition to paypal, moneybookers, etc, I recommend an pure CC merchant like 2checkout. the legal part can be done as an offshore company. I see no point in dealing with US tax laws and withholding here. It might be an UK limited as some american companies are more friendly to UK companies than e.g. Panama corporations, which would be cheaper.

Well, I could talk an hour here. Dealing with those things is nothing new for me and I offer here all my help  :-)

greets

Quote from: sharpshot on February 25, 2011, 06:59

I would be interested if buyers only had to sign up once and could then buy images from any site.  I just don't see it working for everyone if buyers have to sign up to everyone's personal site.

agreed, I think this will be the week spot in something like this working.  If the buyer could just use a central payment method though, it would be quite easy for them - especially if they didn't have to sign up for anything.  Just fill their cart and one click pay through paypal or something.

This is why I suggested a Photoshelter Virtual Agency.

The idea is that to a buyer it looks like one agency although it's multiple contributor portfolios. And there's one log-in and multiple payment options for buyers plus RM and RF models. So technically you could have millions of photos like a regular stock site except the contributors keep 90% (I think).

But would need more effort than a link page such as:
- Creating the strategy
- Setting pricing
- Reviewing images
- Providing customer service
- Managing fiances
- Managing SEO
- Managing marketing
- Etc

It would also need a leader plus people and money to get off the ground beyond just the monthly Photoshelter fees.

But 90% sure does sound nice.

Quote from: ProArtwork on February 25, 2011, 12:29

Sorry, that's not sustainable. It won't survive for long!

Says who?
There has to be one important thing to be taken in account. Many Submitter are buyers too, like me. I buy arround 100 images per month as a freelance designer and for web designs. If only the contributors who are buyers too, and tehre should be many, give a preference to an photographer run agency, it should be AT LEAST enough money to keep it going and worthwhile.

You are talking about Coop which may be the ideal plan and not Non-profit. Non profit is usually for educational and/or charitable organization seeking tax exempt deals. Non profit comes across as a negative connotation now in days in the US.

Quote from: velocicarpo on February 25, 2011, 13:14

Quote from: ProArtwork on February 25, 2011, 12:29

Sorry, that's not sustainable. It won't survive for long!

Says who?
There has to be one important thing to be taken in account. Many Submitter are buyers too, like me. I buy arround 100 images per month as a freelance designer and for web designs. If only the contributors who are buyers too, and tehre should be many, give a preference to an photographer run agency, it should be AT LEAST enough money to keep it going and worthwhile.

You are talking about Coop which may be the ideal plan and not Non-profit. Non profit is usually for educational and/or charitable organization seeking tax exempt deals. Non profit comes across as a negative connotation now in days in the US.

Exactly. I`m not so much into non-profit :-)