MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs comments on Adobe Stock  (Read 40873 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #50 on: October 13, 2015, 08:54 »
+5

For example asking why you didn't review IStock's site speed?

Why you didn't mention IStock gives the lowest flat rate return for subs out there?

Why you didn't mention IStock now has the lowest RPD in the industry?
.

My RPD at istock, including subs it's about 4.7 dollars/image. Certainly, this can change with the new subcriptions plans , or with any pf the frequent changes they do. And RPD it's no so important, diminishing sales is.
But if 4.7 is the lowest RPD in the micro industry, things are no so bad. I supposse yours at SS or anywhere is higher?

I mean for independents (of course), where it is indeed lower than any other site. What you make as an exclusive I don't think is as relevant when discussing an article comparing sites. Even to an exclusive considering dropping the crown, they would want to know how IStock will compare after the fact.

ETA, sorry didn't answer the other part, again, to an independent declining sales are less of a concern if RPD is the worst (which it is) as falling sales probably mean rising sales at a better paying site.

To clarify, for August, the last month for which Thinkstock sales have been updates IS RPD is a good 20 odd percent lower than SS, the next lowest from the major sites
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 08:59 by Justanotherphotographer »


« Reply #51 on: October 13, 2015, 10:37 »
+6
..., and for those of you who dont know me, Im the worlds top selling stock photographer....


Really? I thought I'm the worlds top selling stock photographer...  ;)
Probably both of us are day dreaming...  ;D

« Reply #52 on: October 13, 2015, 10:46 »
+5
Take no notice Yuri! Dont belittle yourself with any involvment with the MSG crowd, just jealousy and depression little people.

On track: myself and many established friends in this business are in fact doing extremely well with Adobe/FT! revenues have skyrocketted some 200% the agency/contributor communication is the best in the business.
Simply can not fault this partnership in any way. So, servers are a bit slow, well all agencies servers are slow. No big deal really.

Agree in regards to MSG as well. Sad to have to say goodbye to what was once a good forum, but now dominated by trolls and unrefined criticism towards basically all establishments. I invited all of them to put their critical comments into real arguments and post them here and I would gladly respond. Guess how many showed up Not one Happy to trash talk, but not to stand up for it.


Don't be so hurry to say good bye, you might want to come back to brag...

« Reply #53 on: October 13, 2015, 10:49 »
+1
Your posts are just proving his point.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2015, 11:01 »
+3
I find Yuri's comments about MSG hilarious. He's been saying for years that MSG has gone down hill. Can anyone remember the golden age when he thought this was a "good forum".

« Reply #55 on: October 13, 2015, 11:18 »
+6
I don't want to generate traffic on his moribund site  :-X

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #56 on: October 13, 2015, 11:20 »
+7
Yuri (on his webpage):
"I dont like the price point Adobe is selling at and I dont think it does anything good to the business. Too low."
Huh?
Adobe's 'regular' price is 29.99/month for ten images (admittedly 19.99 with CC sub, which is their target audience), in each case with rollover up to 120 images.
iStock's new monthly 'sub' is 25/month for ten 'Essential' images, no rollover.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #57 on: October 13, 2015, 11:22 »
+14
But it's OK, because Adobe pays only 33%, but iStock pays up to 7%.

Oh, wait...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #58 on: October 13, 2015, 11:27 »
+8
But it's OK, because Adobe pays only 33%, but iStock pays up to 7%.

Oh, wait...
Oh wait ...  on a former exclusive file, iStock charges exclusive prices (presumably illegally) and pays them 3%.

« Reply #59 on: October 13, 2015, 11:32 »
+2
"To make things worse, every single buyer of a Shutterstock image loads that image into an Adobe program at some point. Adobe basically has their straw straight down into Shutterstocks customer list." Do they? Is this not equally true or otherwise for every other site out there?

« Reply #60 on: October 13, 2015, 11:50 »
+13
But it's OK, because Adobe pays only 33%, but iStock pays up to 7%.

Oh, wait...

I'll be kind. He's right about Adobe paying too much for mostly the same pictures that any buyer can find anywhere. Except the people who quit FT.

He's right about the marketing power that Adobe could push. But it would only squeeze out the bottom of the barrel that's already on life support.

He's right about mediocre image standards but forgets that IS has lower standards now.

His point that 33% is low is well made, but IS is 15% which is half the money and twice as bad for artists.

I think he makes many good points about what Adobe could do, the review of how he evaluated agencies before joining them, is interesting, we can learn from that. If he was on 50 agencies before going contract on Getty, I don't believe he followed his own evaluations for cost and investment vs returns. It blows holes in his whole science of finance claim, used to discredit Adobe Stock.

How does that translate into polite opinion? He is tainted and not at all credible because he contradicts his own words, history and claims, with his own real actions. His review is biased and only picks or chooses what fits. He neglects IS speed, search, pay, and information, while only including SS and Adobestock.

You of all people Mr. Wackerhausen should strive for honesty and accuracy. That's what got you to the top. Clear science and business foresight into the stock industry. If you want credibility and respect beyond your marketing and photography reputation, you need to have the same standards for your own reporting. 

This latest blogpost has missed the mark of anything close to fair, unbiased or scientific. Not like I would expect from you.

He is the top, that's not a personal claim, it's the truth, based on 2011 best selling microstock photographer in the world. I don't know about today.

« Reply #61 on: October 13, 2015, 11:55 »
0
But it's OK, because Adobe pays only 33%, but iStock pays up to 7%.

Oh, wait...

I'll be kind. He's right about Adobe paying too much for mostly the same pictures that any buyer can find anywhere. Except the people who quit FT.

He's right about the marketing power that Adobe could push. But it would only squeeze out the bottom of the barrel that's already on life support.

He's right about mediocre image standards but forgets that IS has lower standards now.

His point that 33% is low is well made, but IS is 15% which is half the money and twice as bad for artists.

I think he makes many good points about what Adobe could do, the review of how he evaluated agencies before joining them, is interesting, we can learn from that. If he was on 50 agencies before going contract on Getty, I don't believe he followed his own evaluations for cost and investment vs returns. It blows holes in his whole science of finance claim, used to discredit Adobe Stock.

How does that translate into polite opinion? He is tainted and not at all credible because he contradicts his own words, history and claims, with his own real actions. His review is biased and only picks or chooses what fits. He neglects IS speed, search, pay, and information, while only including SS and Adobestock.

You of all people Mr. Wackerhausen should strive for honesty and accuracy. That's what got you to the top. Clear science and business foresight into the stock industry. If you want credibility and respect beyond your marketing and photography reputation, you need to have the same standards for your own reporting. 

This latest blogpost has missed the mark of anything close to fair, unbiased or scientific. Not like I would expect from you.

He is the top, that's not a personal claim, it's the truth, based on 2011 best selling microstock photographer in the world. I don't know about today.
Very well said!

« Reply #62 on: October 13, 2015, 18:32 »
0
He breaks more than a year of blog silence to do a "review" on Adobe for no particular reason?  I'm guessing the Getty/IS marketing guys poked him to do it.

is adobe looking for more ppl to poke??? i can do it for ahem what clint eastwood did with his gun (for a few dollars). as they say $$$ talks and B$h*t walks  8) 8) 8)

but seriously, with ss this shamefully could give an eff with contributors of old days,
i would definitely like to see a new hopeful that can be something like the old IS and old SS.
i would drop ss in a second and move there .

... but i won't hold my breath . would anyone ???

« Reply #63 on: October 13, 2015, 18:49 »
+1
He is talking a lot about his own agency. Maybe he is indeed preparing to focus more on his own company after being frustrated with his Gettyimages adventure.

I am sure if he was satisfied with his results there, he would let the world know. It would be good advertising for Getty if Yuri could write an article how his income has doubled or tripled since going exclusive with them.

That was my take, promoting his own site. He mentions positives for his own site with several comments that search results on peopleimages return too few images.

I would not be shocked to see him open up his site to key contributors.

« Reply #64 on: October 13, 2015, 20:10 »
0
Well, last year he said he was personally supervising business development at istock to make the site more attractive and increase sales.

If he can improve the site and grow the business, everyone will appreciate it.

But I don't know what it was that he did or if his ideas were implemented.

On his own agency he has full control and can do whatever he wants.

« Reply #65 on: October 13, 2015, 22:32 »
+17
Yuri who?

;)

His "review" reads like either sour grapes or fear of a legitimate new competitor emerging. My guess is it's a little of both.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 22:34 by EmberMike »

« Reply #66 on: October 14, 2015, 02:05 »
0
Well, last year he said he was personally supervising business development at istock to make the site more attractive and increase sales.

If he can improve the site and grow the business, everyone will appreciate it.

But I don't know what it was that he did or if his ideas were implemented.

On his own agency he has full control and can do whatever he wants.

Unless he signed some type of non compete in regard to adding additional contributors when he made his deal with IS.

« Reply #67 on: October 14, 2015, 02:50 »
0
Why would he need more contributors? He has 100 employees, doesn't he?

He produces a lot of high quality stock and presumably all rights are with his company.

Looks like a perfect plan to me.

If anyone wants to work for him, they can just apply.

Or are you hoping he becomes a new Agency you can join?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2015, 03:22 by cobalt »

« Reply #68 on: October 14, 2015, 05:50 »
+5
Dear Ladies and Gents.
While we are all entitled to our own opinion, please lets tone down the swearing and name calling. I would love to continue this discussion in a positive manner in the comments section of the post on my site. Don't just sit around with your complaint buddies and shoulder pat each other on this forum. If you mean the things you say, put it in a good argument, and I will happily respond.

http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/
He can't of read this thread and then he patronises us and asks us to visit his website.  I don't think so.  No need to read the thoughts of someone who I have lost all respect for.

« Reply #69 on: October 14, 2015, 05:55 »
+8
I do respect what he achieved but it just doesn't seem relevant any more......times change fast in the web world

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #70 on: October 14, 2015, 07:00 »
+7
Ineresting Lagereek mentioning not to be bothered about msg.
a. Yuri must have some sort of alert set to ping him when he gets a namecheck here.
b. LR himself must be lurking here, else he has learned punctuation and is posting under another alias.

Secondly, Yuri did pick some really odd words for his search comparison. Not only 'retrenched', which I've never heard of, ever, until that thread; 'cute' which is a pretty useless keyword (here we'd talk about a cute baby or kitten, we can also mean it to mean 'cheeky' especially as in finding a way round a rule or regulation; elsewhere it seems to mean 'sexy' - in any meaning it's totally subjective)

Then he had the passive verb 'being entertained' (which is not in iStock's CV), and objected to a granny using a laptop. Surely she might be 'being entertained'. Some parents put their children in front of TVs or computers to keep them entertained while they get on with stuff. What did he mean by his search? Did he really mean 'entertaining', which again could mean anything from a juggler to a dinner party. Too vague to be a useful search term.

« Last Edit: October 14, 2015, 09:50 by ShadySue »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #71 on: October 14, 2015, 08:45 »
+8
If I'm going to consider a site to upload to, I look at time invested vs. earnings. That's the most important issue for me, and I missed it in his critique. Some sites have time-consuming uploaded processes and don't sell much, so I'm better off spending that time creating new images for the better-selling sites. I really don't care about something like the speed of the search process, unless it's slow enough to deter buyers and have a negative impact on sales. But even then I don't break it down and blame the slow search; I just look at whether the money I make is worth the time I spend to upload. That's why I stopped uploading to Veer, for example, and why I'm very slow to upload to FT.

The monthly survey here tells me a lot more than this blog post.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #72 on: October 14, 2015, 08:50 »
+7
Wouldnt you like to have this third option on istock? Or a maximum of 60% for full artist exclusivity?

Yep, and I think image exclusivity is going be necessary if iStock want professional exclusive RF images - it's getting financially unsustainable to produce content for them that costs money now.

Unfortunately its becoming financially unsustainable to produce content that has any kind of budget attached to it, on any of the micros now.

« Reply #73 on: October 14, 2015, 09:57 »
+5
That's true. It is a sustainability problem. Most of my exclusive friends andt acquitances at istock, some of them really amazing photographers, are stopping uploads because lack of budget to produce.

« Reply #74 on: October 14, 2015, 10:01 »
+4
That's true. It is a sustainability problem. Most of my exclusive friends andt acquitances at istock, some of them really amazing photographers, are stopping uploads because lack of budget to produce.
Take hammer, hit nail on head.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
9571 Views
Last post October 03, 2008, 07:20
by Secretariat
36 Replies
30453 Views
Last post December 12, 2008, 12:09
by download
0 Replies
3200 Views
Last post April 13, 2012, 10:41
by williamju
5 Replies
3000 Views
Last post March 29, 2022, 19:19
by OM
6 Replies
1719 Views
Last post November 11, 2022, 17:17
by Cider Apple

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors