Quote from: pro@stockphotos on February 09, 2013, 09:53

You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images.  IS has agreed to this when asked. 

If this was correct at any point in the past, I would not expect it now, in the current environment.

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on February 09, 2013, 15:02

Quote from: sjlocke on February 09, 2013, 11:08

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on February 09, 2013, 09:53

You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images.  IS has agreed to this when asked. 

If this was correct at any point in the past, I would not expect it now, in the current environment.

It was asked and approved 3 months ago by a big fish

I would love to hear more details ( you can PM me ).  Again, though, 3 months ago is not "now".

They've shrugged at similar scams arrangements in the past - where a husband and wife team put essentially the same stuff on iStock exclusively and elsewhere as independents. Of course, they were standing side by side when they clicked their shutters, or one would press the button and move away from the tripod to let the other one press the button. Entirely right and proper, no doubt, and a great way for a family to get all the exclusive perks plus all the benefits of being independent.

But they can, as someone pointed out, terminate your membership whenever they like without having to provide a reason, so you'd better be very clear about it being OK before trying something like that.

I just hope Saatchi don't kick out Bruce

What some don't understand is that a Plan B may not involve spreading work to other micros. It might not involve micros, or indeed selling images at all.
So for some people it may be worth staying exclusive and focussing on getting their ducks in a row, or whatever that saying is, in other areas of their lives, rather than wasting time on the other micros.

Quote from: Mantis on February 09, 2013, 10:19

Quote from: djpadavona on February 09, 2013, 10:15

Quote from: Mantis on February 09, 2013, 09:15

Bruce would be very wise to NOT lock out the masses, but maybe take this simple approach.  If joe-photographer can meet our acceptance criteria, joe photographer has two options: image exclusivity which will be put in our premium priced collection.  If no, it goes into our general collection at a lower price point.

If it follows the business model that many co-ops have, there might be a financial investment required from all members to get the model up and running. I wouldn't begin to guess on a number, if that is indeed the case. But I guarantee a lot of photographers will be screened out by their unwillingness to make such a commitment.

Most people here would, I think. But I believe the discussion at MSG is by and large carried on by people in the top 20%, and many cases top 1% of contributors. The photographer not on these boards, who uploads maybe 50 or 100 images to DT or SS and then forgets about it, content to make payout once or twice a year, won't even know about Stocksy let alone have an interest in making that type of time/fiscal investment.

If Stocksy were composed of 90% MSG contributors, it would probably be the highest quality microstock collection in existence.

Good post.  And I agree. And depending on the model and the buyer base, I'd be willing to invest something, say in the range of $5 to $10k. Of course I'd have to do some form of cost benefit, be privy to inside information via non-disclosure, etc.

I was wondering if a small "pay-to-play" fee approach might work. It costs a dollar to upload an image. That dollar buys a share of the co-op. The dollar would tend to discourage to many similars and other bad content. The co-op would have a supplementary income for early operations and advertising. If things go well co-op earnings can be returned as distributions later based on the shares held.

I love the idea and It is strikingly similar to something I discussed with IS management back 4 years ago and strikingly similar to a business model we have been developing for www.peopleimages.com. hmmm...
Our only problem and something that have caused almost a full-stop actually and that we have been trying to solve for the interim is: how do you market, promote and service a platform for which you are not making any money? With a Co-Op owned site you can't even get VC investment.
This site will portray Bruce as a gregarious individual and a community supporter, but that might just be the primary outcome. Sales don't just "appear".
It was Getty's team that drove Istock to the success it is today. Istock had a revenue of 10mil USD when sold to Getty despite being a first mover in microstock and having been around for 5 years.

Yuri, the difference between a co-op and Getty would be that in Getty the profits go to shareholders, in a co-op the profits go to members.  In either case, the profit is distributed after all the expenses have been deducted, so there is nothing to stop a co-op marketing and promoting itself the same as Getty does.

They are talking about a 50% commission rate, which is lower than Alamy had up until this year and Alamy still had the resources to grow as well as having sufficient profits to fund its cancer research project on top.

Given that Bruce has extensive experience in funding and running a stock agency and dealing on a daily basis with some of the biggest players in the business, it seems unlikely that he is plunging into a new project without having thought through a viable way of securing the necessary funding. You don't announce a business plan until you are confident you have that particular detail sorted out.

I'd be fascinated to hear exactly what words iStock's management used when you suggested giving all the money to the artists instead of keeping it for the managers and shareholders.  Was it a short discussion, by any chance?

I love the idea and It is strikingly similar to something I discussed with IS management back 4 years ago and strikingly similar to a business model we have been developing for www.peopleimages.com. hmmm...
Our only problem and something that have caused almost a full-stop actually and that we have been trying to solve for the interim is: how do you market, promote and service a platform for which you are not making any money? With a Co-Op owned site you can't even get VC investment.
This site will portray Bruce as a gregarious individual and a community supporter, but that might just be the primary outcome. Sales don't just "appear".
It was Getty's team that drove Istock to the success it is today. Istock had a revenue of 10mil USD when sold to Getty despite being a first mover in microstock and having been around for 5 years.

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on February 10, 2013, 06:28

I love the idea and It is strikingly similar to something I discussed with IS management back 4 years ago and strikingly similar to a business model we have been developing for www.peopleimages.com. hmmm...
Our only problem and something that have caused almost a full-stop actually and that we have been trying to solve for the interim is: how do you market, promote and service a platform for which you are not making any money? With a Co-Op owned site you can't even get VC investment.
This site will portray Bruce as a gregarious individual and a community supporter, but that might just be the primary outcome. Sales don't just "appear".
It was Getty's team that drove Istock to the success it is today. Istock had a revenue of 10mil USD when sold to Getty despite being a first mover in microstock and having been around for 5 years.

There seem to be companies that invest in coops http://www.coopcapital.coop/coopcapital