MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs comments on Adobe Stock  (Read 32617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2015, 01:38 »
+1
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
ROFL ;D


Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2015, 02:44 »
+14
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/

« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2015, 02:53 »
+37
I missed the swearing and name calling. You should definitely contact leaf and let him know what posts had swearing and name calling in them, I am sure if they are offensive he will remove them from the site.

This is a forum for unbiased discussion, moving the debate to your site would seem counter-productive given that it largely debates the biases of your article. I am sure people would be happier to do it if you guarantee not editing or deleting posts critical of Getty or IStock.

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 the that though IStock offers tiered contributor rates they are overall the lowest rates for an independent, and RC targets unobtainable?

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

If this is moved to your site will all these be addressed? Maybe you could just edit the article to take on these points which would obviously have come up in any similar unbiased article that pits agencies against each other.

« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2015, 02:54 »
+9
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/


Sits back and reaches for Popcorn.......

« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2015, 02:55 »
+10
I just went back through the whole thread and couldn't find a single swear word, I'm even more confused now !?!

« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2015, 02:59 »
+3
I just went back through the whole thread and couldn't find a single swear word, I'm even more confused now !?!
Plenty already there to respond to.

« Reply #31 on: October 13, 2015, 03:33 »
+8
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/
you are telling Josh Resnick on your website to compare apples with apples yet you compare your IS exclusive royalties with Adobes indy royalties. and you are not even exclusive with Getty how is anyone suppose to take that blog serious?

« Reply #32 on: October 13, 2015, 04:43 »
+22
I agree, Yuri simply ISN`T exclusive with Getty.

He has his own company peopleimages and scoopshot and can happily rely on that income if Getty goes Titanic. He absolutely does not share the risk of the single, fully exclusive istock artist who is feeding his family from his fulltime istock stock income.

Adobe/Fotolia offers fully exclusive artist up to 60%, for partial exclusivity (exclusive images) up to 46%, for non exclusive content also up to 46%. Much better deal.

You can give them exclusive images and still work with anyone else.

500pix offers 70%, stocksy 50% for normal sales, 75% for extended licenses plus a share of future profits.

Why would anyone consider istock today, especially if you know how to create sellable content?

The contract Yuri has is unique, has nothing to do with what istock offers the rest of the industry. It is good for him, but it is a one time special deal, not comparable to anyone else.

Their normal offer is simply not competitive, not even if you keep in mind that they are overburdenended with debt, their last CEO came across as very condescending in his communications and that Getty never made me feel that they take me seriously as an independent business owner and entrepreneur. "Getty doesnt get it" is the reputation they have built themselves and which is why Shutterstock and Fotolia are so successful.

Adobe definitely knows how to work with small time business owners, they are their best customers after all. If anyone understands that we are customers, and producers/suppliers running a business, it is them.

We dont get excited over "grant money" we can apply for or happily jump up and down if a Getty admin "notices" us. We want a reliable marketplace, reliable royalty structure, a bug free site, admins that take us seriously not look down on us.

SS and Adobe can give us a reliable work environment with a clear royalty structure without backdoor deals. And then there are many niche and specialised agencies to choose from (stockfood,stocksy,blendimages,spacesimages,twenty20,eyeem,dissolve,500pix...) to balance your overall income even more.

So yes, Adobe still has a lot of work to do, but they have the most important in this industry: the right attitude in working with people.

I was hoping the new CEO could maybe breathe some life into istock/Getty, but if her first newsletter is an indication of the direction she wants to go, we will just get more of what Jonathan Klein did. Which unfortunately means: Shutterstock and Adobe have nothing to fear.

I am surprised the Carlyle group is allowing them to do the same old, same old.

http://app.e.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=2768&e=1545367&elq=3f8c08765c17453db4c9b3ac3b313883&elqaid=23015&elqat=1&elqTrackId=e26a337a7bfa45e49c2e376e748508e1
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 06:26 by cobalt »

« Reply #33 on: October 13, 2015, 04:51 »
+20
I see about as much 'name calling and swearing' in this thread as I see accuracy in your review of Adobe Stock.

« Reply #34 on: October 13, 2015, 05:04 »
+12
Does anybody still care about what he has to say or what he is commenting about?  ::)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #35 on: October 13, 2015, 05:18 »
+4
please lets tone down the swearing and name calling.

I just went back through the whole thread and couldn't find a single swear word, I'm even more confused now !?!
Proof that he's delusional.
He will say that comment proves his point, though the fact is that the cap fits.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 05:20 by ShadySue »

« Reply #36 on: October 13, 2015, 05:21 »
+7
Great analysis, though I think your optimistic faith in Adobe might end in disappointment given most agency's attitude to their artists.

Didn't Stocksy use to give 100% of EL fees to the artist, or have I misremembered that fact?

I think we give Yuri too much of hard time, given he does actually engage here occasionally and nothing he does is detrimental to us, even if special rules for some are annoying.




I agree, Yuri simply ISN`T exclusive with Getty.

He has his own company peopleimages and scoopshot and can happily rely on that income if Getty goes Titanic. He absolutely does not share the risk of the single, fully exclusive istock artist who is feeding his family from his fulltime istock stock income.

Adobe/Fotolia offers fully exclusive artist up to 60%, for partial exclusivity (exclusive images) up to 46%, for non exclusive content also up to 46%. Much better deal.

You can give them exclusive images and still work with anyone else.

500pix offers 70%, stocksy 50% for normal sales, 75% for extended licenses plus a share of future profits.

Why would anyone consider istock today, especially if you know how to create sellable content?

The contract Yuri has is unique, has nothing to do with what istock offers the rest of the industry. It is good for him, but it is a one time special deal, not comparable to anyone else.

Their normal offer is simply not competitive, not even if you keep in mind that they are overburdenended with debt, their last CEO came across as very condescending in his communications and that Getty never made me feel that they take me seriously as an independent business owner and entrepreneur. "Getty doesnt get it" is the reputation they have built themselves and which is why Shutterstock and Fotolia are so successful.

Adobe definitely knows how to work with small time business owners, they are their best customers after all. If anyone understands that we are customers, and producers/suppliers running a business, it is them.

We dont get excited over "grant money" we can apply for or happily jump up and down if a Getty admin "notices" us. We want a reliable marketplace, reliable royalty structure, a bug free site, admins that take us seriously not look down on us.

SS and Adobe can give us a reliable work environment with a clear royalty structure without backdoor deals. And then there are many niche and specialised agencies to choose from to balance your overall income even more.

So yes, Adobe still has a lot of work to do, but they have the most important in this industry: the right attitude in working with people.

I was hoping the new CEO could maybe breathe some life into istock/Getty, but if her first newsletter is an indication of the direction she wants to go, we will just get more of what Jonathan Klein did. Which unfortunately means: Shutterstock and Adobe have nothing to fear.

I am surprised the Carlyle group is allowing them to do the same old, same old.

http://app.e.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=2768&e=1545367&elq=3f8c08765c17453db4c9b3ac3b313883&elqaid=23015&elqat=1&elqTrackId=e26a337a7bfa45e49c2e376e748508e1

« Reply #37 on: October 13, 2015, 05:35 »
+5
stocksy absorbs all discounts if they have a promotion, they always pay us 50%. So when they were giving us 100% for extended licenses stocksy was operating at a loss for these sales, because extended licenses usually need more telephone calls and negotiations than normal sales. So we all decided to go 75% to cover operational costs and give some leeway if they run a discount promo. It was our decision, it wasnt imposed on us.

Stocksy shares 90% of profits with the artists (if there is a surplus after running costs), so it is all our money anyway. We are still a growing business, so paying attention to operational costs is important.

And we are all coowners, so the situation is very different to a normal agency.

I am not naive about Adobe, they run a business just like me. But they do have a much,much better offer with the third path of exclusive images.

Wouldnt you like to have this third option on istock? Or a maximum of 60% for full artist exclusivity?


I would love to see istock revived as a reliable marketplace, 3 large companies is better than one or two. But there isnt any indication that things are improving and the basic attitude towards their partners is crucial to understanding the business. As long as Getty thinks we are just happy little artists looking for the occasional sale or grant money, things wont change.

Only reliable money makes us happy.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 05:41 by cobalt »

« Reply #38 on: October 13, 2015, 05:43 »
+2
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.

« Reply #39 on: October 13, 2015, 05:49 »
0


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?

« Reply #40 on: October 13, 2015, 05:56 »
0
My RPD at istock, including subs it's about 4.7 dollars/image.

Seems this is an averaged value rather than the lowest value...

« Reply #41 on: October 13, 2015, 05:58 »
+8
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/


Now any five people can make a post a "Great Post". I think many people miss that "-" vote here...

« Reply #42 on: October 13, 2015, 06:13 »
+11
please lets tone down the swearing and name calling.

I just went back through the whole thread and couldn't find a single swear word, I'm even more confused now !?!
Proof that he's delusional.
He will say that comment proves his point, though the fact is that the cap fits.

"Back in 2005 I put all my production into microstock, at a time when people where literally yelling and screaming about it being complete madness to be part of. That paid of big time. Now people are yelling and screaming online that going exclusive with iStock is not a good idea financially. My idea has always been to be 2-3 years ahead of the popular belief, and I am pretty sure I am right this second time around again"

A good time to be exclusive would have been 2005.  He's 10 years past the reality.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #43 on: October 13, 2015, 06:31 »
+13
I think we give Yuri too much of hard time, given he does actually engage here occasionally and nothing he does is detrimental to us, even if special rules for some are annoying.

Actually he doesn't engage here.
He posts when he wants to brag, or when he wants help.
He refuses to answer direct questions here, either in this thread or about what he sees as having improved for the rest of us since he started project managing at Getty.
When he comes in asking for help, he doesn't feed back the result, e.g.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/didn't-get-paid-for-istock's-google-drive-deal-el!!!-now-what/msg291554/#msg291554

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/lawsuit-against-us-fair-unfair-need-your-advice/msg278734/#msg278734

I'm not going to give him my email details just so that I can say on his site what I've said here - he doesn't even have a privacy policy visible from that page.

I used to think Yuri was unfairly maligned on msg, but now I've been here longer.

« Reply #44 on: October 13, 2015, 06:33 »
0
My RPD at istock, including subs it's about 4.7 dollars/image.

Seems this is an averaged value rather than the lowest value...

Of course. RPD is always an averaged value, not the lowest or the highest. That's it's very nature. Lowest is 0.75, highest, if you count Els, 160.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 06:37 by loop »

« Reply #45 on: October 13, 2015, 06:34 »
0
repeated

« Reply #46 on: October 13, 2015, 06:40 »
+4
- Only reliable money makes us happy.


Says it all for me.
Comparisons, explanations and promises do nothing unless they actually produce the above.
 

« Reply #47 on: October 13, 2015, 06:42 »
+3
rpd doesnt help if you dont have sales.

My overall rpd over everything (including videos) is around 2 dollars, but my average for video is 18, for macro/stocksy is around 10-12, but the high volume of sub sales, including the 0.28 sub sales on istock, bring the average rpd down. Everything royalty free of course. Lowest is 28 cents, highest around 150 so far.

But I dont have the risk of the fully exclusive artist and I am completely free how to balance my income. More videos and more macro/stocksy will mean a higher rpd, but I will still supply the micros to have a good basic income.

It all adds up and although I am happy to supply exclusive images, i will never again go artist exclusive. It worked well at the time, but istock is no longer the dominant agency in the market.

At their peak istock had a revenue of around 330 million, how much are they now -100 million? 150?  Does anyone know? SS is going for 400 million or so this year, fotolia was 150 before adobe took over. So istock is really a much smaller player in the overall market. Getty itself might be bigger, but it is the sales on istock that really count if you are exclusive.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 06:52 by cobalt »

Shelma1

« Reply #48 on: October 13, 2015, 07:01 »
+19
Meh. Guy comes in and lodges a false complaint to try to get more traffic to his website. It backfires.

« Reply #49 on: October 13, 2015, 07:45 »
+4
I see about as much 'name calling and swearing' in this thread as I see accuracy in your review of Adobe Stock.
facking classic !


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
8355 Views
Last post October 03, 2008, 07:20
by Secretariat
36 Replies
24232 Views
Last post December 12, 2008, 12:09
by download
297 Replies
56280 Views
Last post June 14, 2012, 05:48
by leaf
569 Replies
114709 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
18795 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