MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs comments on Adobe Stock  (Read 32606 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fotorob

  • I am a professional stock photographer

« on: October 12, 2015, 06:27 »
+8
After being quiet for quite a while, Yuri breaks his silence evaluating Adobe Stock:
http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/

My favorite part is in the conclusion where he complains about the "mediocre" quality of images at Fotolia and Shutterstock. :-)

What are your thoughts?


« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2015, 06:43 »
+7
Yeah, that's definitely an unbiased review...   :o

« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2015, 06:47 »
+41
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.

« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2015, 06:58 »
+15
I think it is a good analysis in many aspects, it is obvious that adobestock needs to be refined. He is also pointing out that adobe is the biggest change the industry has had and they have so much money they can potentially become the largest marketplace if they want to.

However, he forgets  that fotolia has a large number of exclusive images and especially a much better choice in localized european content.

They also allow anyone to add exclusive images, a third way instead of being fully exclusive like on istock.

There is a reason that fotolia is the biggest agency in Europe.

Fotolia also has a very active macrostock section, that hasn't yet been included in adobestock.

The only thing really missing is editorial, and again Adobe has enough money to build the best editorial agency if they want to.

I agree that the returns for searches are much more accurate for istock and Getty. That is one of the real advantages they have.

But SS has the fastest site and for me as a contributor still offers the best upload experience.

They are a very innovative company and the new competition is going to make them think very hard.

So although adobe has the money, I don't think SS is in immediate danger. it is the weakest agency that will suffer first, which means unfortunately istock will continue to lose customers to adobe and SS.

Their site is very buggy and they don't have the same budget for advertising. And they are no longer attracting many full time exclusive artists.

They could easily increase their exclusive content with exclusive Images, like getty has, but ...it would be the logical thing to do...I mean, exclusive content is their only real advantage left.

But who will go fully artist exclusive now, if Adobe gives you all the options? Place exclusive images of your favorite niche with them and spread the generic content everywhere.

If they then include a sensible upgrade path to place a certain percentage of your exclusive content into macrostock, they'll have a real killer of an offer for contributors. Together with better sales, this can become very successful, very quickly.

So the discussion of fotolia exclusive content, their successful smartphonestock section and macrostock are missing.

But in the end, all we need is more sales. If you are indie it does not matter so much which agency it comes from as long as people keep buying your files.

If you have decent portfolios everywhere, you can sit back and relax, while the agencies fight it out.


« Last Edit: October 12, 2015, 07:24 by cobalt »

Shelma1

« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2015, 07:05 »
+35
Meh. The opinion of a guy who supposedly performed a detailed analysis before uploading yet somehow found 100 sites worth uploading to, and after careful analysis hitched his wagon to a falling star...

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2015, 07:18 »
+11
Fair analysis, Adobe are smart enough and big enough to fix many of the teething issues. He's right about one thing though, if agencies keep competing on price they'll have an endless supply of mediocre images which clients are tiring of.

cuppacoffee

« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2015, 07:21 »
+11
He gives examples of two search terms. How many buyers actually use the word "cute" or "retrenched" to purchase an image?

« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2015, 08:04 »
+11
Isn't Yuri just planting the seeds of improvement for Adobe, HIS COMPETITOR? I am not sure why Istock would want him to do this because now Adobe can take his "consultancy" and integrate any changes they think will close some of those "gaps".  Moreover, isn't Stock's collection an open floodgate for mediocre images? And finally, we had a thread one time about the awful images on Getty. Is this an open mouth insert foot comment?  I still respect Yuri's rag to riches story (maybe no riches any longer though) but he has become the spokes person, consultant for everything GI/IS and it's been a complete disaster.

« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2015, 08:37 »
+11
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.

Maybe he prepares to jump from the sinking Titanic to a promising Cruise Ship?

« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2015, 09:00 »
+7
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.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2015, 09:07 »
+11
What are your thoughts?

If Yuri Arcurs had any credibility as a stock photographer, he's lost it since his cooperation with Getty/IS.

A completely biased review from a (now) non-independent photographer isn't worth the read.

« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2015, 09:09 »
+8
'Today Im exclusive with Getty'

Cough bullcrap cough

« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2015, 09:25 »
+2
I am not sure but the purpose of the blog seems to be lashing out to shutterstock and he's also got a good few 'facts' wrong. he's hasnt lost his bragging skills though

« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2015, 09:25 »
+25
What a load of rubbish.  For him to conclude that he would not have contributed to Adobe "back then" is nonsense - he used to contribute to every agency out there, including losers like Crestock that had much lower commission rates and far clunkier sites.

Complaining about a 33% commission rate while also touting iStock (and not bothering to mention that theirs is 15-20% for independents) is disingenuous.

While he had some valid points, the piece was mainly propaganda to push his own site. 

So far this month I'm making about 35% more on FT compared to iS and that is the most important number.

« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2015, 09:42 »
+12
A laughable review, but not surprising.

Yuri knows he has placed all his chips on a losing bet with Getty.  He sees the roulette wheel slowing down to land on Adobe Stock and wants to blow some hot air to change the outcome.

Adobe Stock is going to be the microstock leader within a year or two.  The writing is on the wall.

Just to nitpick with one of Yuri's big criticisms, from near the end of his biased rambling... "There are no decent photographers in the world that dont know what stock photography is and havent tested the waters already."  Sure, this is probably true today, but Adobe has its eyes on the future.  Does Yuri think the photographers/illustrators/videographers working 10 years from now will be the same people working today?  No, the top talent of the future isn't aware of microstock today because they're in grade school.  Adobe will influence the quality of future contributors because they will start out as students being trained in Adobe software.  Adobe Stock is the first place -- maybe for some the only place -- they will submit. 

With Yuri's biased review, and his allegiance to Getty, it's clear he's living in the past and trying to pretend the future will never happen.

« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2015, 11:47 »
+5
I am not sure how he can rant on the 33% commission for artist. I have been exclusive with iStock since 2006 and I am at 35% and even less at Getty with I think 25%. Same company and they don't even give the same percentage across the board! While their prices are higher for images with the new credit packs as subscriptions it is even worse. If Adobe can sell to scale then they will have a good portion of the market. I have to agree on his search and content assessment. SS is just to picky and now their stock looks to much like plastic. I am more interested in the video side of things so will be watching Adobe with interest! Plan on staying exclusive for now and hoping for good things from the new CEO. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2015, 12:19 »
+9
Hmmmm
Yuri still has 11 files on Fotolia, unless someone else has reappropriated his user name:
https://en.fotolia.com/p/49744
as well as his 35 on DT: http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info

But by now everyone knows Yuri just goes where he can get the best special deal. There was a time he was making tutorial videos for Fotolia:

That's just business; but he can't be taken seriously as an objective commentator with any relevance to the rest of us.

« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2015, 12:22 »
0
LOL, that is to funny  ;D

« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2015, 12:30 »
+3
Please give me the ten minutes back I wasted reading that

« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2015, 13:12 »
+2
reads like a paid article.

But I also read in another article from another author and contributor who "like" Fotolia that the DPC is not a problem... 

The agencies make marketing so they grab the big contributors and there blogs with sweets.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2015, 13:15 by r2d2 »

« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2015, 13:33 »
+2
I think it is a good analysis in many aspects, it is obvious that adobestock needs to be refined. He is also pointing out that adobe is the biggest change the industry has had and they have so much money they can potentially become the largest marketplace if they want to.
............


But in the end, all we need is more sales. If you are indie it does not matter so much which agency it comes from as long as people keep buying your files.


If you have decent portfolios everywhere, you can sit back and relax, while the agencies fight it out.

+100

« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2015, 13:45 »
0
Just to nitpick with one of Yuri's big criticisms, from near the end of his biased rambling... "There are no decent photographers in the world that dont know what stock photography is and havent tested the waters already."  Sure, this is probably true today, but Adobe has its eyes on the future.  Does Yuri think the photographers/illustrators/videographers working 10 years from now will be the same people working today?  No, the top talent of the future isn't aware of microstock today because they're in grade school.  Adobe will influence the quality of future contributors because they will start out as students being trained in Adobe software.  Adobe Stock is the first place -- maybe for some the only place -- they will submit. 

So true!  But to clarify, you cannot contribute to AdobeStock directly can you?  Only through FT?  Perhaps future direct submissions to AS will be "exclusive" to make them stand apart from FT with their own exclusive content.

« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2015, 17:32 »
+10
Well 10/10 for lack of self awareness and sheer ridiculousness

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2015, 18:15 »
+9
VERY telling that his server speed comparison only gave three scores, SS, PI and Adobe, not iStock, which if you are on the new view is embarrassingly poor.

I wonder how many searches for 'retrenched' are made in a year.

"Literally nobody in the industry works with a flat rate royalty structure anymore"
Hmmm, has he never looked at iStock's subs. Sure, there are three fixed prices for exclusives, but not dependent on who you are (unless he has a special deal for subs too), just on how you defined your images before we knew we were going to be forced into subs (and previously 0 sellers.)

Wonder what Usability and Search Functions score he'd give iStock? The search refinements often just don't work.

"I believe Adobe think they have an idea about how to fix the image quality problem"  It's a pity iStock don't.

Conclusion: Glass houses and stones.








« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2015, 21:55 »
+14
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.

If he could manage to write that convincingly he should give up photography and get a job writing fiction


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
8351 Views
Last post October 03, 2008, 07:20
by Secretariat
36 Replies
24223 Views
Last post December 12, 2008, 12:09
by download
297 Replies
56267 Views
Last post June 14, 2012, 05:48
by leaf
569 Replies
114673 Views
Last post July 03, 2013, 11:40
by leaf
Yuri Arcurs beginning

Started by calcaneus10 « 1 2 3 4  All » General Stock Discussion

84 Replies
18792 Views
Last post July 22, 2013, 06:44
by grsphoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle