pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs beginning  (Read 24949 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 20, 2013, 10:44 »
-1
i once mentioned it in public elsewhere, so it's not a big secret:

every single photoshoot overall production cost is usually 2000 to 3000 EUR for us. sometimes much more. rarely less. every single shoot. in "super cheap" Estonia.

if we've done our job very well, we can get it back in one year. if we make it good, it takes 2 to 3 years. if we are extremely lucky and hit jackpot, it can sometimes be 6 to 9 months.  if we fail (it means if we performed "above average"), we never get this money back. "it's ok" quality never pays back on stock nowadays. if you produce just "above average" it effectively means you're in charity business, donating designers with your money and effort.

in average, it takes 1.5 to 2 years for us to get to ground zero level for photoshoot. then we start to profit. if someone still buys it after 2 years.

it's a tough business.

so don't be illusioned, people. it's not about the location you're living in. it's about fighting for market every single day, no days off, no vacations. wherever you live. microstock is not Eldorado it used to be back in 2005. not anymore. and never will be. if you're able to deliver good-selling content, you can compete. if you're not - living in Vietnam or Zimbabwe will not help you.

Tho you have a lot of truth there, it obviously will help you if you can cut costs to half or quarter of what your competition need to spends, simply by operating in a low cost country. Also because most microstockers are basically coming from flippin' burgers, no art education or anything, they don't realize that the average quality of microstock is pathetically low. 80%+ (maybe 90+) of the stock is almost completely useless junk with inapt, unattractive models, poor lightning, ridiculous post processing, dogs in the back garden, snapshots of pigeons, relatives, stray cats, supposed-to-be funny selfies, etcetc...


« Reply #26 on: July 20, 2013, 10:45 »
+3
Its right it is business and profit making for the agencies, and you and yuri.

But what about all the hobbyists, they are as you said: supporting designers. Or profit is being made on people who does not make a profit. Isnt that called exploitation, like in the 16 tons a day song?

It can be compared to fishing an fishermen, when first the commercial fishermen have caught most of the fish, it does not pay to fish anymore and they stop.
The hobbyists continue to fish they are happy if just they catch something.
I can see its a brilliant setup for the agencies, very profitable. But in its nature it is exploitative.

And what about you, dolgachov, we have heard that yuri found other ways. Are you also planning to. Is micro still sustainable for a professional?
 I can understand if you dont want to tell, but I would be very interested in any comment on sustainability and also the hobbyist factor.

« Reply #27 on: July 20, 2013, 10:48 »
0
Thanks for everyone's comments!  Really brings to light many things I was in the dark about. 

Dolgachov--totally agree with you on many things.  This is a business.  The whole point of my post was not to complain about the high costs in the U.S. and other European countries.  Rather, I wished to understand the business model of contributors with large volume and high quality.  I find Yuri's business model to be very intriguing, and if anything, his scale of production should be emulated---not his work. 

It's not just about taxes though.  It's about standard of living.  In the U.S., a good cup of coffee from Starbucks can cost $2 vs. in India a good cup of coffee is $.20.  Or take for example, my friend who lives in Moldova.  His apartment monthly rent costs $300--the same apartment in the U.S. costs $3000.  You can't deny the point that if you have some money saved up in the U.S., you could stay afloat longer in another country with a lower standard of living, allowing you to put in more work hours for your photography rather than trying to do this in the background of a part-time job.  It is true you need your own creative ideas...but it sure as hell helps A LOT to have lower costs, lower taxes, and lower standard of living.  That's why U.S. corporations move overseas--to increase profits.

It's the same thing as with every other job that moved out of the U.S...

« Reply #28 on: July 20, 2013, 10:48 »
+1
Thanks for everyone's comments!  Really brings to light many things I was in the dark about. 

Dolgachov--totally agree with you on many things.  This is a business.  The whole point of my post was not to complain about the high costs in the U.S. and other European countries.  Rather, I wished to understand the business model of contributors with large volume and high quality.  I find Yuri's business model to be very intriguing, and if anything, his scale of production should be emulated---not his work. 

It's not just about taxes though.  It's about standard of living.  In the U.S., a good cup of coffee from Starbucks can cost $2 vs. in India a good cup of coffee is $.20.  Or take for example, my friend who lives in Moldova.  His apartment monthly rent costs $300--the same apartment in the U.S. costs $3000.  You can't deny the point that if you have some money saved up in the U.S., you could stay afloat longer in another country with a lower standard of living, allowing you to put in more work hours for your photography rather than trying to do this in the background of a part-time job.  It is true you need your own creative ideas...but it sure as hell helps A LOT to have lower costs, lower taxes, and lower standard of living.  That's why U.S. corporations move overseas--to increase profits.

Cost of living really isn't that bad in the U.S. It is not the cheapest, but it is also nowhere near the most expensive.

« Reply #29 on: July 20, 2013, 10:51 »
+1

... I find Yuri's business model to be very intriguing...


How can you? You basically don't know anything about his business model, neither do the rest of the ppl here. What if he was heavily leveraged f.e.? You will never know.

« Reply #30 on: July 20, 2013, 10:54 »
0
]
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:06 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #31 on: July 20, 2013, 11:00 »
0
Is micro still sustainable for a professional?

looking at his latest approvals at FT (over 1300) I would say yes ;D

calcaneus10

« Reply #32 on: July 20, 2013, 11:00 »
+1

... I find Yuri's business model to be very intriguing...


How can you? You basically don't know anything about his business model, neither do the rest of the ppl here. What if he was heavily leveraged f.e.? You will never know.



Yes, you are right topol...I don't know anything about his business model.  I should rephrase my sentence--I would be very grateful to be able to learn more about how his business model works.

« Reply #33 on: July 20, 2013, 11:08 »
+1
Is micro still sustainable for a professional?

looking at his latest approvals at FT (over 1300) I would say yes ;D

Im not so sure.
I think the factories are dumping their content all over in these the last days.
But what would I know, I cannot comprehend the factories. They must be selling to another martket also, so the images are already paid for.

I mean what sort of business can you have that can produce a variation of all kinds of subjects from grapes to models in the 10.000 pic scale. Hired hands, hired photoshoppers, collections you have achieved?
I cannot understand where the pictures come from.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2013, 11:14 by JPSDK »

« Reply #34 on: July 20, 2013, 11:08 »
-1
Thanks for everyone's comments!  Really brings to light many things I was in the dark about. 

Dolgachov--totally agree with you on many things.  This is a business.  The whole point of my post was not to complain about the high costs in the U.S. and other European countries.  Rather, I wished to understand the business model of contributors with large volume and high quality.  I find Yuri's business model to be very intriguing, and if anything, his scale of production should be emulated---not his work. 

It's not just about taxes though.  It's about standard of living.  In the U.S., a good cup of coffee from Starbucks can cost $2 vs. in India a good cup of coffee is $.20.  Or take for example, my friend who lives in Moldova.  His apartment monthly rent costs $300--the same apartment in the U.S. costs $3000.  You can't deny the point that if you have some money saved up in the U.S., you could stay afloat longer in another country with a lower standard of living, allowing you to put in more work hours for your photography rather than trying to do this in the background of a part-time job.  It is true you need your own creative ideas...but it sure as hell helps A LOT to have lower costs, lower taxes, and lower standard of living.  That's why U.S. corporations move overseas--to increase profits.

Err...$3000 a month would rent you a mansion where I live. Cost of living varies greatly from place to place in the U.S. I'm sure I could hire people to do photo processing for $7.25 an hour if that's what I wanted to do. Or I could use the internet to have people in India  or China do it. I could probably hire a stock shooter for $15 an hour, no problem.

Ron

« Reply #35 on: July 20, 2013, 11:12 »
+1
To me it seems way too long to break even after 2 years on a 2000 dollar investment. The risk is way too high as well. Anything can happen in two years.

« Reply #36 on: July 20, 2013, 11:15 »
+1
To me it seems way too long to break even after 2 years on a 2000 dollar investment. The risk is way too high as well. Anything can happen in two years.

actually he talked in EUR, so its more like 2627$, peanuts anyway ;D

calcaneus10

« Reply #37 on: July 20, 2013, 11:32 »
+1
peanuts in the U.S. but not peanuts in India :)

« Reply #38 on: July 20, 2013, 11:37 »
0
peanuts in the U.S. but not peanuts in India :)

sure it can also feed a family of 10 in Africa during a few years if you want to put it that way but in fact I was talking about the currency difference not what we can do with it :)

Lev

« Reply #39 on: July 20, 2013, 12:07 »
+2
Its right it is business and profit making for the agencies, and you and yuri.

But what about all the hobbyists, they are as you said: supporting designers. Or profit is being made on people who does not make a profit. Isnt that called exploitation, like in the 16 tons a day song?

 I can understand if you dont want to tell, but I would be very interested in any comment on sustainability and also the hobbyist factor.

very easy. job or business is where people get PAID. hobby is something people are PAYING FOR. there is no other way. if some hobbist out there has an illusion it works other way, he'd better stop dreaming and wake up.

back in 2005 and until 2008 there was a fiesta on micros when hobbists had a chance to profit a bit and even make a living from micros. some of them used this chance to grow up to pro level and get ready to compete with newcoming pros on this market. but most just believed they can eternally make a living being just hobbists. now they are effectively out of this market. no more nonsence. if you are hobbist, you should either grow up to pro or you should pay for your hobby.

« Reply #40 on: July 20, 2013, 12:20 »
0
Good answer.
I agree. Somehow.
But there could be a bit more to it, such hobbyist could be the only providers of a certain niche material. And such he would always have downloads.
Like geology pitures, rare earths and such.

What happens for a hobbyists if he stays competitive  or better within his nische?

Im trying to say that the competition is different in the main stream as in the niches?


lisafx

« Reply #41 on: July 20, 2013, 12:28 »
+2
Interesting.  We seem to have two different schools of thought here.  One is that this business is no longer sustainable for hobbyists and will be left to the high end pros.  The other is that this business is no longer sustainable for the high end pros, and will eventually only be populated mainly by hobbyists. 

I tend to believe the second.  Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?  Regardless of the volume you produce, I don't see how it will be possible in the long term. 

"The meek will inherit the Earth", and the hobbyists, who don't need to see a profit, will most likely eventually inherit the microstock market.

I believe it is already happening.   
« Last Edit: July 20, 2013, 12:33 by lisafx »


« Reply #42 on: July 20, 2013, 12:34 »
+1
Interesting.  We seem to have two different schools of thought here.  One is that this business is no longer sustainable for hobbyists and will be left to the high end pros.  The other is that this business is no longer sustainable for the high end pros, and will eventually only be populated mainly by hobbyists. 

I tend to believe the second.  Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?  Regardless of volume, I don't see how it will be possible in the long term. 

"The meek will inherit the Earth", and the hobbyists, who don't need to see a profit, will most likely eventually inherit the microstock market.

I believe it is already happening.   

I actually think both will happen. That the two will split off at some point. It just seems like the natural evolution.

lisafx

« Reply #43 on: July 20, 2013, 12:40 »
0
Interesting.  We seem to have two different schools of thought here.  One is that this business is no longer sustainable for hobbyists and will be left to the high end pros.  The other is that this business is no longer sustainable for the high end pros, and will eventually only be populated mainly by hobbyists. 

I tend to believe the second.  Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?  Regardless of volume, I don't see how it will be possible in the long term. 

"The meek will inherit the Earth", and the hobbyists, who don't need to see a profit, will most likely eventually inherit the microstock market.

I believe it is already happening.   

I actually think both will happen. That the two will split off at some point. It just seems like the natural evolution.

Makes sense.  Where do you envision the pros going?  Staying in micro, or migrating to RM and/or small boutique agencies?

Lev

« Reply #44 on: July 20, 2013, 12:41 »
+2

I tend to believe the second.  Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

lisafx

« Reply #45 on: July 20, 2013, 12:42 »
0

I tend to believe the second.  Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

Good luck :)

« Reply #46 on: July 20, 2013, 12:42 »
0
hasnt it already happened? For the nische markets?

Fx it is not sustaibnable for a hobbyist in rare earths to be an istock exclutive. He needs all the downloads he can get from whatever source. And every agency has a few, that goes his way,

Meaning... such a hobyist must be and is  per definition non exclusive.


lisafx

« Reply #47 on: July 20, 2013, 12:47 »
0
hasnt it already happened? For the nische markets?

Fx it is not sustaibnable for a hobbyist in rare earths to be an istock exclutive. He needs all the downloads he can get from whatever source. And every agency has a few, that goes his way,

Meaning... such a hobyist must be and is  per definition non exclusive.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if I read you correctly you are saying that hobbyists have to be non-exclusive?

I don't see why that would be the case.  By definition, hobbyists don't need to turn a profit, so they can pretty shoot what they want and put it where they like, even if that means exclusivity. 
« Last Edit: July 20, 2013, 12:58 by lisafx »

« Reply #48 on: July 20, 2013, 12:54 »
0
the hobbyists dont have to be anything. They can upload one pic, get one sale oand delete it again.

But the general pressure on hobbyists works towards non exclusive and heing spread out all over.

« Reply #49 on: July 20, 2013, 13:09 »
0
the all hobbyist talk is interesting but I don't believe it is that relevant once we all have different money needs in terms of living and also in terms of expenses while creating new content so a relative small income can be enough to survive in this industry, sure it isn't very stable but reading Lev's last post makes us thing that the all myth behind "microstock is dead" is once again false

apart from that I also think that the "hobbyists" represent a very small % of the files sold so the professionals (even the ones having small income) will continue to be the ones providing new salable content

at some point all these hobbyists will eventually turn into professionals too even if they keep their "day job" and then they will be upset with agencies cuts, etc


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
18876 Views
Last post August 07, 2018, 13:05
by Pauws99
13 Replies
13464 Views
Last post October 08, 2020, 10:40
by Uncle Pete
59 Replies
14006 Views
Last post November 29, 2022, 06:40
by falantus
5 Replies
3000 Views
Last post March 29, 2022, 19:19
by OM
22 Replies
3196 Views
Last post January 30, 2024, 09:58
by SuperPhoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors