I think this could also be a venue for some already existing site like fotolia or dreamstime. They would just need to put the exclusive images on a separate site and market them differently.

sound good Bobby, in theory though if it is invite only to established professionals then they should be able to keyword without spamming

Quote from: photoshow on July 09, 2009, 15:08

Here are my personal 12 steps to a better agency. I know a few of these items would be unpopular with the masses of microstock contributors but IMO they would be good for the buyer.

1. It would not be a crowd sourcing site. It would be by invite only and those invited would be the individuals who have proven that they know and understand production photography and can concept and create true stock images, not just happy snapshots that might find a handful of sales per year but images that are truly commercial stock. Yes it would be an elite collection for professional content producers.  Crowdsourcing agencies fill a market niche and there are already more then enough of these agencies out there but I have yet to see a true professional microstock site. In short "YES" it would be an elite agency for elite content providers and it would attract elite clients and as such would be able to pay elite commissions (by current Microstock / Midstock Standards)

2. It would have an approved camera list and that list would not include point and shoots, not even the best of them. I know that there are P&S cameras out there capable of creating useful stock but this would not be the place for that stock.

3. It would be an agency that understands what it means to be an agent. It would treat its contributors like the important backbone to the business that they really are. It would be an agency that understands that the Agent Works for the Content Producer not the other way around.

4. It would offer both RF and midstock priced RM collections. RM Collections would have to be exclusive to the agency and similars from same shoot would not be allowed on other agencies. RM submissions would have to stay with the agency for a minimum of 24 months. RF submissions could be removed at any time.

5. It would offer subscription sales for web res - web use images only. All print usage would be on a per image license

6. There would be no RF Extended license. Extended rights fall into the territory of RM and would be priced and licensed accordingly.

7. Key wording would be done by agency staff not by content creators. This service would come at a cost of a 3% lower commission across the board. This would not be negotiable as it is the only way to truly prevent the keyword spam issues.

8. It would offer a clean intuitive GUI for both buyers and Content providers.

9. Content providers would FTP images and the submission process would end there for the content provider. There would be no instant personal gratification in the submission process. Images would be reviewed and key worded by agency staff in a timely manner (7-21 days)

10. A logical model release management tool would be provided that would allow content providers to upload one copy of MR and then apply it to every image of that model in bulk by allowing them to assign a searchable ID# to model and link it to the release. Model releases would be submitted with a head shot of model attached and then would be available to a top level agency staff member only. Releases and models private information would not be available to image reviewers.

11. There would be no image acceptance rejection appeal process. The agency would either choose to represent an image or they would not, simple, cut and dried.

12. There would be a solid and professional support staff that would communicate openly with content creators and content creators would have a personal agent within the agency that they would work with on all issues that require communication with the agency. There would be no contributor forums, this would be a business not a community. If there was a support issue that issue would be taken up with the content providers agent who would then escalate action up the ladder as required.

This is the best suggestion for a new stock agency I have heard so far! (If I would be invited of course ) I would love to see something like this take off.
The only thing I do not like is point 6. I understand the thing with RM, but you hereby limit buyers by not offering them to use extended lienses for RF images.

Quote from: photoshow on July 10, 2009, 02:40

Oh I would not prevent them from being able to license an RF image for extended uses. I would simply make them purchase an RM license and pay more appropriate fees for the extended rights. The right to reproduce and sell images for $50 or so is ludicrous. To be able to do it for that minimal fee and still have RF rights to do it over and over, naw that is a bad practice that we should have never allowed.

Ok that makes sense. Now someone please start this agency 

I like this discussion. I just finished watching a whole slew of movies (old ones, as I don't watch TV , don't own one, only DVD player via my computer), and there is one scene, can't remember which movie, where the protaganist asks, "How can I trust you to do what I want?" The answer was , "It has nothing to do with trust, mutual interest is the only bond here!" (I think I saw someone else said the same thing, but in a different way. Maybe they watched the same movie...).

Anyway, the point is , this sums it up for the success of any  relationship, not just business, and even more here in micro stock.

At this moment it seems absence of mutual interest is growing. I like to see the sites find and re-establish this mutual interest. Without that, there is really no one anyone with common sense will be moved to accept exclusiveness, or even be faithful to one site, no matter how many sales you get.

I truly feel getting the consensus of a topic like what Perry has here, would be a good first step towards achieving that. But which of the big wigs will be interested in reading what we say here?

Another thought:

Why not market to publishing houses with a contract that takes into consideration Print Runs and Seat Restrictions?  A number of publishing houses do not use stock photos because the licensing contracts do not take into consideration Print Runs and Seat Restrictions.  You could even charge a slightly higher price.

Although, I'm not so sure about limiting photos to a specified list of cameras.  New cameras come out every year or two and keeping up with that list would be daunting.  Also, there are some point and shoots on the market whose quality is equal to a low end to mid point SLR.  I have one such camera and a lot of my sales came from the photos produced using it.  But, then again--I'm fairly new to this.

Marburg

Like I said, not everything would be popular with the masses and this is one of the primary objections I would expect but as it would be an invite only agency dealing with pros it would be expected that they would be shooting pro gear. You can trust that the Rebels, Nikon D50, D70 grade of cameras would not be on the list. Keeping up with the list would be easy as it would only be updating the new crop of high end Prosumer and Pro DSLR and above cameras.

As I said there are plenty of existing outlets for point and shoot imagery. An agency such as this would be focusing their marketing on a different grade of client, ones who would need to be able to incorporate images in ad campaigns that would range from Web to Billboard and other forms of large format printing. Images from a 10 MP point and shoot sensor simply do not contain the pixel quality needed for these types of end use.

Quote from: photoshow on July 10, 2009, 12:05

Like I said, not everything would be popular with the masses and this is one of the primary objections I would expect but as it would be an invite only agency dealing with pros it would be expected that they would be shooting pro gear. You can trust that the Rebels, Nikon D50, D70 grade of cameras would not be on the list. Keeping up with the list would be easy as it would only be updating the new crop of high end Prosumer and Pro DSLR and above cameras.

As I said there are plenty of existing outlets for point and shoot imagery. An agency such as this would be focusing their marketing on a different grade of client, ones who would need to be able to incorporate images in ad campaigns that would range from Web to Billboard and other forms of large format printing. Images from a 10 MP point and shoot sensor simply do not contain the pixel quality needed for these types of end use.

There are a few dangerous assumptions in this statement: 1 - pros always shoot with 3000$+ gear, 2 - the correlation with type (price) of gear and snapshot-ness [P&S cams always make snapshots, Progear always makes superior stock] - 3 customers mostly buy for billboards and large print.

When I quickly glance at my latest Dreamstime sales, the only maximum sizes are sold in subscription. I need 10,000 of those sales to finance a Canon D5-MKII. Maximum is almost never sold in PPD: those are medium, small, x-small. At that reduction, it doesn't matter at all whether the picture is made by a Hasselblad or a D90.

Billboard and large print is a tiny part of the market. To accommodate those customers, one could create a separate collection within the agency composed of top photographers with top gear. But the agency will miss the bulk of income if they neglect the vast majority that only needs web size or sidebars. Related to this: no agency should allow maximum size to be sold in subscription.

It's good to see a friendly thought provoking discussion with lots of brainstorming and ideas shared in a respectful way. I love the quote about mutual interest--that is the key--success comes when something is "win-win". I am part of an established 3D (expanded into 2D) resource web site business. I have been reading this forum to become more familiar with the microstock industry. We are trying to make changes in how we handle stock images and you all have some good ideas that might be able to help us improve more quickly. Hopefully some of you will join us now or later, but that's not my reason for posting.

From the business standpoint I see a problem with some of the suggestions. They are nice dreams but to put them into practice would mean someone is going to be doing a lot of work for free which usually won�t last long. Competition is not a bad thing though I am not sure Mr. Sears and Mr. Penney would agree. If the new �clones� don�t offer what the market demands, they won�t be around very long but you never know when one of them might be the next Google! Low prices and great products are good but excellent customer service (whether the "customer" is the buyer or the seller) is key. I don�t think that many buyers are looking for totally unique products�they want quality products, good value and good service.

For anyone who says "great idea, start that site and I will put my photos on it", remember that someone has to run a business and that's a big job. Even though Perry�kudos to him for sharing his �dreams��says he isn�t planning to start that dream business, there�s always someone who thinks it would be nice to have their own agency and doesn�t realize the time and money involved. Not only setting up the business entity and web site but the day to day operations and ongoing costs for merchant accounts, business banking fees, data servers, hardware, etc. Even suggesting that photos be exclusive on one site means someone has to police it. A person with good photography skills may not have the time and/or skill set to make a go of running a business in addition to taking photos.

Puravida is right about the buyer connection�the double edged sword: is it more important to work on increasing artists/photos or buyers? Both, of course! But in any business it takes time to build up a customer base as well as merchandise. There�s no point in having the ultimate collection of exclusive images if no one comes into the store to look at them. And if buyers flock in but we don�t have the merchandise to meet their needs, we�re sunk.

We continue to grow our business by paying an above average royalty, offering fast and personal customer service and working every day to steadily increase both buyers and sellers. We�ve done it with 3D over the past 14 years. During that time our business changed and evolved to meet the needs of our artists and buyers. We don�t make money unless our artists make money but we still work every day to improve and upgrade our web site and our business. We are not alone in valuing a mutually beneficial experience--others also value what we value.

Thanks for sharing your dreams and ideas. And please continue to share concrete suggestions and things you want to see in that ideal stock photo agency!

For anyone who says "great idea, start that site and I will put my photos on it", remember that someone has to run a business and that's a big job. Even though Perry�kudos to him for sharing his �dreams��says he isn�t planning to start that dream business, there�s always someone who thinks it would be nice to have their own agency and doesn�t realize the time and money involved. Not only setting up the business entity and web site but the day to day operations and ongoing costs for merchant accounts, business banking fees, data servers, hardware, etc. Even suggesting that photos be exclusive on one site means someone has to police it. A person with good photography skills may not have the time and/or skill set to make a go of running a business in addition to taking photos.

If I had to start up a new microstock website

This was the title of a topic here on the MicroStockGroup, and there are many good points raised from the Photographers, but the general consensus is along the lines of a microstock boutique agency, with exclusive content both RF and RM, much along the lines of the Istock Vetta collection, invited contributors and selected content.

This is an option that many other microstock site might already be looking to follow, I thought hard about what would be my target market ,and I still really think that the largest most under serviced asset users, are still bloggers and content providers, and the small sizes are still the future of this industry, the niche collections are the cream and do have a place but are an already limited revenue stream.

Blogging and website content has fast become the domain of the industry, with many self-acclaimed analysts, commentators and critics just like me, from people that think they have a valid point to make and just want to share their perspective, to the many professional bloggers who will review that latest gadgets or bit of software in their given field, and report back in words, sounds, movies and pictures their findings to the world wide web blogosphere.

As a blogger and content provider what do I want?
I want some easy tools that allow me to write a blog and post this to the internet, I use the program Windows Live Writer for my content,  I not only use this software for blogs but most of my other website content is updated using Windows Live Writer, with all content delivered direct from my desktop, if I have an image that I own on my hard drive, I can insert this into my post and Live Writer will send this to the website for me when I publish.

But I do not use images much simply because of the hassle in getting the right asset, I could stop what I am doing, go to Istock search for an appropriate image and download it, but that is all time consuming, and if my credits have run out I just pay for another ten credits, so often where an image would add value to my content I do not bother to use one.

I would like to be able to insert a licensed asset into my posts without advertising or having to leave the application I am using, I also do not want to pay for ten credits if I need just two to complete a post, I do not want to download a large size that is far to big for my content needs, and I only want to purchase a licence to use the asset once, as I am not likely to use it again.

As a Microstock artist what do I want?
I want as many license sales as I can get, I do not want any illegal use of my assets, I want my assets to reach and be seen by as many customers as they can, I want a fair commission payment based on usage, a monthly payout if I have transactions not when I reach a commission level.

If I had to start up a new microstock website
I would want a service that resolved the above issues and serviced the largest markets, the content when uploading should only be sized for the web, with the image pixels 240, 360, 480 longest side, an international controlled vocabulary maximum 10 keywords, an easy to use and intuitive interface, easy asset acceptance process and a fast search engine.

Once there were 300,000+ assets the customer website and plug-ins could be launched, the growth would be slow and organic 24 � 36 months, as the target customers are bloggers and content authors, the marketing tools will be these users and not marketing campaigns, blogger, tweeter, reviewers, social network websites.

If a customer was writing a blog on roses, it should just be a matter of menu > Plug-Ins > Images, then enter keywords > search > select > confirm > download or insert.

The confirm would pop up a dialog for the customers login details, if the customer is out of credits the plug-in would allow the customer to enter a value they want to add to their account, this could be $1 to pay for the image, or any other amount, based on the customers details the transaction would then be processed and the asset delivered, metadata within the image would have the embedded �transaction ID� and date.

Contributors would upload their images and submit, if the asset is selected then their would be no further weighting in the search based on sales or views, each asset and artist would be a peer and of equal footing, the asset selection process would be simply to find all assets that match the keyword search and randomize them, so if there were 100 assets returned for a keyword search, each new search with the same keywords would show the 100 assets in a different order.

This process needs to be monetized, so the price structure is simple, artist 55% website 45%, there would be only licensed web use, three sizes and prices with no discounts, 240px=$1.00, 360px=$1.50 and 480px=$2.00, monthly payments any amount if revenue is greater than the payment transaction cost, any artist or customer closing an account would be charged a fixed fee of 5% with a maximum of $5.

Other licensed usage for an asset could be arranged directly with the artist.

But then this is only another �what if�     

Some interesting ideas but you're thinking like a contributor not a stock agency business owner. If you were on the other side of the business you'd feel differently.