MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Bruce, Our Knight in Shining Armor? Stocksy Co-op  (Read 47595 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

XPTO

« Reply #200 on: February 09, 2013, 08:34 »
+1
^^^There's sites doing all that already and they can't make an impact on the big 4.  I think they do need a USP and as there isn't an exclusive images only microstock site, that's one idea that might work.

Are there sites doing the same thing? I have no doubt, but have they given origin to a discussion the size this one already has, and it's just in the beginning? Did they have someone notorious and experienced in the stock world to carry things forward? Or the funding this one may have? Or have they've been created in the exact time as this one is being created with everyone reaching the breaking point over the known agencies? Did any of those started to create the buzz this one is creating among IS exclusives?

I bet they don't have a cent of the initial push Stocksy already has, even without people knowing anything in concrete. And that makes all the difference.

Plus, mentioning exclusive content in the RF segment is a total parody. A complete non-sense. How many exclusive images at IS cannot be found through similars in about 10 or 15 other agencies by tenths of contributors? But I might be wrong. Maybe there are buyers that are gullible enough to buy that advertising...


Poncke

« Reply #201 on: February 09, 2013, 08:36 »
-1
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.
There are not only two options, and everyone's port, expectations and are different. People can read all the infor about the different micros here and made their own decision. What's right for 'you' or 'me' isn't necesarily right for Tom, Dick, or Harry.

Exactly.

I dont need the income from photography, but I do like the extra money. I sell micro, macro, POD, direct and do freelance. Its all adding up. And if one fails, there is still the others.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #202 on: February 09, 2013, 08:50 »
+2
Quote
Laugh at me all you want.

I wasn't laughing at you per se, it was the suggestion that iStock is going to 'fall over' this year. I think someone here mentioned once that you sound very immature, I'd have to agree with that

I have no idea if $56k  is an impressive income or not, but as you mention it I assume it must be. My income is measured in 's so is not directly comparable.
You say you make $300 a month from microstock. Although it's less common now, I used to think it was a bad week if I made less than that a day. I'm not boasting, I'm just trying to demonstrate that the exclusive/not being exclusive argument appears very different from different financial perspectives.

Quote
So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income.

IF IS falls over, as you suggest it may, I would be inconvenienced but not, as you put it, screwed, as I have freelance income. I have been in the business a long while and have a number of regular freelance clients.
I suppose I feel I am trying to explain an alternative scenario to the one that assumes being exclusive at IS is an unmitigated disaster and everyone
should/must leave ASAP, but it is rather like swimming against the tide.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 09:08 by vlad_the_imp »

« Reply #203 on: February 09, 2013, 08:58 »
+12
I don't feel that comfortable as a non-exclusive.  Several sites are almost as bad as istock.  SS is so dominant that they hold most of my eggs.  I hoped there would be a few years before SS started cutting commissions but having seen the BigStock announcement, I have no confidence in that anymore.  So I'm not going to be critical of an exclusive that earns more than 99% of the people who post here.  We're all in a difficult situation at the moment and I hope things will improve for everyone but its hard to be optimistic at the moment.

« Reply #204 on: February 09, 2013, 09:03 »
+2
I don't feel that comfortable as a non-exclusive.  Several sites are almost as bad as istock.  SS is so dominant that they hold most of my eggs.  I hoped there would be a few years before SS started cutting commissions but having seen the BigStock announcement, I have no confidence in that anymore.  So I'm not going to be critical of an exclusive that earns more than 99% of the people who post here.  We're all in a difficult situation at the moment and I hope things will improve for everyone but its hard to be optimistic at the moment.
Yes I agree.   Although SS aren't as prominent for me as they seem to be for most people as I do very well at DT also, it still feels very precarious with us being stabbed in the back by virtually all sites.

« Reply #205 on: February 09, 2013, 09:15 »
0
If all the top contribs, with 5,000 images or more each submit 1000-5000 images to Stocksy they need to get about 300 top contributors to get to 500,000 images. And then you will probably only have people in situation images and travel images. That will only attract a very limited amount of buyers and you will be competing with the likes of Yuri's people images.

If you want to make  it attractive, you need all kinds of contributors. But if you make the review process like Istock or Shutterstock you are guarenteed to have a high quality varied library. Which will benefit buyers and sellers.

Building on what Poncke said, 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. I am not super familiar with licensing but is there any way Bruce could differentiate the Stocksy collection via how the licenses are written? I think it's wise to consider "other differentiators" in addition to image quality, "who the photographer is".  The have to be very careful to not fall into the trap of having all these Vetta-style images which have limited value.  This is not to suggest that Vetta images are "Crapsy" just that most are heavily pushed in PS and are more specialized than generic images.  I have many huge sellers that are generic, non-Vetta quality that Stocksy would be foolish to not have in their collection if their goal is to attract buyers...and the same with practically everyone in this forum.

The flip side is that they have a different clientele in mind that would preclude such generic images, a niche clientele of sorts.  Just thinking out loud.  I am on 14 MS sites (well 13, been approved at Veer for awhile but their image processing is so clunky and time consuming that I've just not uploaded anything yet) and if the Stocksy model was a fit (win-win for both me and Stocksy), I would consider moving most or all of my best sellers there as exclusive images once they have a proven clientele.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 09:22 by Mantis »

« Reply #206 on: February 09, 2013, 09:36 »
0
I must be tired to find this so amusing, but I checked out the Christmas Tree (6900 dls) they spoke of on FB by Silvanworks and IS suggests to also look at another one... when I clicked their suggestion it was no longer available for purchase!  ???  A D-day deactivation perhaps?   Haha, they've lost their bestest Christmas trees.

LOL maybe it was mine, I deleted several Christmas trees and all of my best selling images.

Poncke

« Reply #207 on: February 09, 2013, 09:37 »
0
Quote
Laugh at me all you want.

I wasn't laughing at you per se, it was the suggestion that iStock is going to 'fall over' this year. I think someone here mentioned once that you sound very immature, I'd have to agree with that

I have no idea if $56k  is an impressive income or not, but as you mention it I assume it must be. My income is measured in 's so is not directly comparable.
You say you make $300 a month from microstock. Although it's less common now, I used to think it was a bad week if I made less than that a day. I'm not boasting, I'm just trying to demonstrate that the exclusive/not being exclusive argument appears very different from different financial perspectives.

Quote
So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income.

IF IS falls over, as you suggest it may, I would be inconvenienced but not, as you put it, screwed, as I have freelance income. I have been in the business a long while and have a number of regular freelance clients.
I suppose I feel I am trying to explain an alternative scenario to the one that assumes being exclusive at IS is an unmitigated disaster and everyone
should/must leave ASAP, but it is rather like swimming against the tide.
Its not an impressive salary, I am not boasting either, I am just saying I am doing just fine as is. It was related to your patronizing comment I just make a few dollars a year doing photography. For you its your day job, if you make 10k a month being exclusive then kudos to you. I can only dream of that. But 10k says nothing without knowing your overhead, still its impressive.

I see where you are coming from now, but still I would look for other options to spread the risk in case something bad does happen. Tough job, I wouldnt want to be in your shoes.

Good luck.

« Reply #208 on: February 09, 2013, 09:53 »
0
I don't feel that comfortable as a non-exclusive.  Several sites are almost as bad as istock.  SS is so dominant that they hold most of my eggs.  I hoped there would be a few years before SS started cutting commissions but having seen the BigStock announcement, I have no confidence in that anymore.  So I'm not going to be critical of an exclusive that earns more than 99% of the people who post here.  We're all in a difficult situation at the moment and I hope things will improve for everyone but its hard to be optimistic at the moment.

Exactly, I know five IS exclusives ranging in downloads from 60K to past black diamond who have stopped uploading because of the loss of faith in IS.  I was warned of what getty does to contributors before the changes.  With their desire to find out how to cash out with paying the artist I am hoping for their demise in microstock. 

But you cannot have your images competing against each other lowering the price with a click away.  I believe Yuri's problem is he has 60K awesome images floating around out their available for pennies on the dollar compared to his site.  If he removed all his images from the competition, then he would have a great chance to become a giant.  The other sites must be starved of content.

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. 

A co-op would reward fairly and capture the community feel sucked out by 1 owner getting very rich off the the contributors like Jon and Getty.  That is not a community no matter what rebecca tells you.   




vlad_the_imp

« Reply #209 on: February 09, 2013, 09:53 »
0
Quote
It was related to your patronizing comment I just make a few dollars a year doing photography.

If I sounded patronising I apologise, sometimes I write without thinking. I'd also add I don't make 10k now, that was then, this is now, sale are down overall for everyone pretty much at IS.

Quote
I see where you are coming from now, but still I would look for other options to spread the risk in case something bad does happen.

Believe me, I do look, I do plan, I am in this with my eyes wide open and no illusions about the desire of big business to screw every dollar out of us.I pretty much gave up on freelance work when earnings were highest, I'm now doing a lot more again, and happy to do so and be less beholden to any microstock company. Lets just agree to hold slightly differing views on things whilst realising we all must try and gain strength from each other. :)

« Reply #210 on: February 09, 2013, 10:03 »
+2
Quote
At this point, does anyone care if their relationship ends with IS?
A lot of people still make a lot of money at IS, whatever your experience may be. Many people rely on their IS income to pay their rent and mortgage and feed their family. If my income from there was cut off with 30 days notice it would be a disaster, so perhaps a little more empathy wouldn't go amiss.

While I appreciate your position, the only people wholly dependent on IS for their earnings are those who chose to be in that position. There have been multiple warning signs over the last several years, none of which many exclusives heeded.

It's like buying stock at $200 and ignoring terrible earnings calls while it drifts to $20, and then trying to blame the market or asking your broker to keep you afloat. Sorry, but nobody put a gun to your head and made you stay exclusive through all the warning signs. I don't owe anything to a company which has worked to exploit photographers for multiple years.

If they go down, you get a job somewhere else. I'm not cheering for Wal-Mart to outsell local businesses just because a lot of people work there and might need to find other employment if Wal-Mart failed.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 11:11 by djpadavona »

« Reply #211 on: February 09, 2013, 10:04 »
0
Quote
It was related to your patronizing comment I just make a few dollars a year doing photography.

If I sounded patronising I apologise, sometimes I write without thinking. I'd also add I don't make 10k now, that was then, this is now, sale are down overall for everyone pretty much at IS.

Quote
I see where you are coming from now, but still I would look for other options to spread the risk in case something bad does happen.

Believe me, I do look, I do plan, I am in this with my eyes wide open and no illusions about the desire of big business to screw every dollar out of us.I pretty much gave up on freelance work when earnings were highest, I'm now doing a lot more again, and happy to do so and be less beholden to any microstock company. Lets just agree to hold slightly differing views on things whilst realising we all must try and gain strength from each other. :)


And since none of you know anyone elses personal financial positions, maybe empathy could be extended to EVERY contributor who has lost income from these agencies. Even this "embittered" contributor who lost money she needed to pay bills with when she decided to implement her plan b. i just had a jump on you, i did it a year ago.  ;)

« Reply #212 on: February 09, 2013, 10:13 »
+1
I honestly don't understand what's all the fuss around exclusive images! People, we're talking about RF!

There's not a single thing about exclusive in this licensing model, and in 2013 no one will be producing content that isn't available at other sites through similar images and concepts, or that will be replicated the next day. The only images that could take advantage of the exclusiveness should be under the RM license. But RF... c'mon...

Stocksy doesn't need to reinvent the wheel or enter in the "fake" exclusiveness concept to attract a large number of buyers and be successful. It just needs:

1 - Competitive prices
2 - A good site working properly
3 - Good customer service
4 - A very large, diverse and quality collection from high value productions to isolated apples
5 - Tenths of thousand of motivated photographers advertising for free all around the world valuing millions in the traditional advertising
6 - And finally, to promote the sustainable concept of the agency near the buyers.

The last point is absolutely critical for the success of this agency.

If a buyer has good prices, a good site and service, plus a large collection of high quality images, which means all the things he probably get from other agencies, but on top of that he understands that he's helping the producers of the content - which will be able give him more quality photos in the future - I have no doubt many buyers will go to Stocksy.

So, I personally don't feel that the exclusivity of images is anything important in distinguish Stocksy from other agencies. Just offer the same as the best ones plus something they cannot equal: totally motivated contributors and a positive feeling to the buyers for doing a good and fair thing.

After all this I don't doubt that stocky will start to have exclusive content, but that will happen because people will stop supplying other agencies voluntarily.

Great post. Good to see some common sense being written on this subject. Exclusivity of images is not particularly valued by buyers whereas keen prices, relevance of search results and variety most definitely is.

I think having to pay a nominal amount per upload (it could be as little as 20c to cover inspection costs) would be a practical and cost effective means of stopping individual contributors 'spamming' the library with multiple similars or LCV work.

« Reply #213 on: February 09, 2013, 10:15 »
+2
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.

ShadySue

« Reply #214 on: February 09, 2013, 10:17 »
+1
Exactly, I know five IS exclusives ranging in downloads from 60K to past black diamond who have stopped uploading because of the loss of faith in IS.
And a quick shifty over there yielded at least 5 BD indies and 5 BD exclusives who are uploading like nothing had happened.

« Reply #215 on: February 09, 2013, 10:19 »
-1
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.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 10:24 by Mantis »

« Reply #216 on: February 09, 2013, 11:08 »
+1
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.

« Reply #217 on: February 09, 2013, 11:23 »
+4
I don't share the excitement about stocksy that was commonly expressed on the first pages of this thread.

I mean I have no problems to believe in good intentions and good payment share - but getting the buyers is difficult these days. Looking at the smaller agencies; and looking at the 2ns attempt of Stockxpert guys I don't have much optimism about the possible future of stocksy.

I would be glad to be wrong with that expectation :)

« Reply #218 on: February 09, 2013, 11:33 »
0
The solution in the long term would be this: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/selling-rf-images-is-really-not-that-hard-php-developers-wanted/msg296884/?topicseen#new

I wish Stocksy all success but I have my doubts that it will work out the way many here hope.

« Reply #219 on: February 09, 2013, 12:07 »
0

Quote
If IS falls over this year, you are screwed.

I just have to laugh at comments like this. You have been in the business a few months, probably earn a few hundred dollars a year, but feel free to pontificate about just about everything to do with microstock, with very little real experience.

Laugh at me all you want. It has nothing to do with how much experience I have. I made over 3000 dollar profit since I started selling photos 10 months ago. I guess I am doing just fine next to my 56.000 dollar day job. I am a fast learner.

It has everything to do you with what you said yourself and common sense.

You say you cant leave IS because it will be a disaster. So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income. Thats why me and other people say its best to spread the risk. How tough that may be, you better get started before its too late. THis doesnt apply to micro stock, but to any situation in life. And I have plenty experience with that.

I didnt attack you dude, I just made an observation. No need to get personal imo.

What you fail to understand, given your lack of experiencie in the field, is that the risk, the risk of saturation, the risk of falling income, the risk of being betrayed by the site owners, is global. Micro sites are all in the same habitat. Diversifying, not having all egss on one basket means to spread your work at your income out af micro, and even out of RF or RM. That's what I did years ago, even if having a really healthy monthly income at istock.

Poncke

« Reply #220 on: February 09, 2013, 12:18 »
-1

Quote
If IS falls over this year, you are screwed.

I just have to laugh at comments like this. You have been in the business a few months, probably earn a few hundred dollars a year, but feel free to pontificate about just about everything to do with microstock, with very little real experience.

Laugh at me all you want. It has nothing to do with how much experience I have. I made over 3000 dollar profit since I started selling photos 10 months ago. I guess I am doing just fine next to my 56.000 dollar day job. I am a fast learner.

It has everything to do you with what you said yourself and common sense.

You say you cant leave IS because it will be a disaster. So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income. Thats why me and other people say its best to spread the risk. How tough that may be, you better get started before its too late. THis doesnt apply to micro stock, but to any situation in life. And I have plenty experience with that.

I didnt attack you dude, I just made an observation. No need to get personal imo.

What you fail to understand, given your lack of experiencie in the field, is that the risk, the risk of saturation, the risk of falling income, the risk of being betrayed by the site owners, is global. Micro sites are all in the same habitat. Diversifying, not having all egss on one basket means to spread your work at your income out af micro, and even out of RF or RM. That's what I did years ago, even if having a really healthy monthly income at istock.

I do not fail anything. I know you all love to bash the newbie, but at least make sure you got all facts before you to the bashing.


I dont need the income from photography, but I do like the extra money. I sell micro, macro, POD, direct and do freelance. Its all adding up. And if one fails, there is still the others.

« Reply #221 on: February 09, 2013, 14:13 »
0

Quote
If IS falls over this year, you are screwed.

I just have to laugh at comments like this. You have been in the business a few months, probably earn a few hundred dollars a year, but feel free to pontificate about just about everything to do with microstock, with very little real experience.

Laugh at me all you want. It has nothing to do with how much experience I have. I made over 3000 dollar profit since I started selling photos 10 months ago. I guess I am doing just fine next to my 56.000 dollar day job. I am a fast learner.

It has everything to do you with what you said yourself and common sense.

You say you cant leave IS because it will be a disaster. So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income. Thats why me and other people say its best to spread the risk. How tough that may be, you better get started before its too late. THis doesnt apply to micro stock, but to any situation in life. And I have plenty experience with that.

I didnt attack you dude, I just made an observation. No need to get personal imo.

What you fail to understand, given your lack of experiencie in the field, is that the risk, the risk of saturation, the risk of falling income, the risk of being betrayed by the site owners, is global. Micro sites are all in the same habitat. Diversifying, not having all egss on one basket means to spread your work at your income out af micro, and even out of RF or RM. That's what I did years ago, even if having a really healthy monthly income at istock.

I do not fail anything. I know you all love to bash the newbie, but at least make sure you got all facts before you to the bashing.


I dont need the income from photography, but I do like the extra money. I sell micro, macro, POD, direct and do freelance. Its all adding up. And if one fails, there is still the others.

Well, that's the correct way. If the main source of income fails, extra money don't pay the expenses if you only had this main source of income besides the extra money. Doing so many things besides microstosk and your day job must be titanic. Although is possible to do much more that the sum of all having the knowledge and one big and focused rf micro portfolio. Today, true. Tomorrow never knows.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 14:16 by loop »

Poncke

« Reply #222 on: February 09, 2013, 14:41 »
-6
Ok, I am done talking in this thread. I wish all the veterans good luck. I am sorry for having an opinion.  ;)

« Reply #223 on: February 09, 2013, 14:53 »
0
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.

I'm not saying to do it but it can be done by creating a company then transferring your istock account to the company. The company is exclusive with istock but you personally are technically only an employee of the company and not exclusive. When you shoot for the company they go to istock exclusively and when you shoot under your own name you can do what you wish.

« Reply #224 on: February 09, 2013, 14:56 »
+2
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.

I'm not saying to do it but it can be done by creating a company then transferring your istock account to the company. The company is exclusive with istock but you personally are technically only an employee of the company and not exclusive. When you shoot for the company they go to istock exclusively and when you shoot under your own name you can do what you wish.
And they can terminate your account as they wish. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
405 Replies
67815 Views
Last post March 03, 2013, 17:16
by lisafx
192 Replies
41167 Views
Last post April 22, 2013, 17:30
by leaf
Stocksy is Alive

Started by Artist « 1 2 ... 5 6 » Stocksy

141 Replies
31385 Views
Last post December 30, 2013, 04:38
by topol
2 Replies
2634 Views
Last post March 26, 2013, 08:42
by BrianM
34 Replies
9613 Views
Last post May 08, 2013, 21:55
by shudderstok

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results