MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => General - Top Sites => Topic started by: fotorob on October 12, 2015, 06:27
-
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/ (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?
-
Yeah, that's definitely an unbiased review... :o
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
He gives examples of two search terms. How many buyers actually use the word "cute" or "retrenched" to purchase an image?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
'Today I’m exclusive with Getty'
Cough bullcrap cough
-
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
-
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.
-
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 don’t know what stock photography is and haven’t 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.
-
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.
-
Hmmmm
Yuri still has 11 files on Fotolia, unless someone else has reappropriated his user name:
https://en.fotolia.com/p/49744 (https://en.fotolia.com/p/49744)
as well as his 35 on DT: http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info (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:
https://vimeo.com/2533528 (https://vimeo.com/2533528)
That's just business; but he can't be taken seriously as an objective commentator with any relevance to the rest of us.
-
LOL, that is to funny ;D
-
Please give me the ten minutes back I wasted reading that
-
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.
-
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
-
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 don’t know what stock photography is and haven’t 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.
-
Well 10/10 for lack of self awareness and sheer ridiculousness
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
Dear Ladies and Gents.
While we are all entitled to our own opinion, please let’s 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/ (http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/)
-
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.
-
Dear Ladies and Gents.
While we are all entitled to our own opinion, please let’s 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.
[url]http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/[/url] ([url]http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/[/url])
Sits back and reaches for Popcorn.......
-
I just went back through the whole thread and couldn't find a single swear word, I'm even more confused now !?!
-
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.
-
Dear Ladies and Gents.
While we are all entitled to our own opinion, please let’s 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.
[url]http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/[/url] ([url]http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/[/url])
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?
-
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 doesn´t 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 don´t 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 (http://app.e.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=2768&e=1545367&elq=3f8c08765c17453db4c9b3ac3b313883&elqaid=23015&elqat=1&elqTrackId=e26a337a7bfa45e49c2e376e748508e1)
-
I see about as much 'name calling and swearing' in this thread as I see accuracy in your review of Adobe Stock.
-
Does anybody still care about what he has to say or what he is commenting about? ::)
-
please let’s 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.
-
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 doesn´t 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 don´t 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.
[url]http://app.e.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=2768&e=1545367&elq=3f8c08765c17453db4c9b3ac3b313883&elqaid=23015&elqat=1&elqTrackId=e26a337a7bfa45e49c2e376e748508e1[/url] ([url]http://app.e.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=2768&e=1545367&elq=3f8c08765c17453db4c9b3ac3b313883&elqaid=23015&elqat=1&elqTrackId=e26a337a7bfa45e49c2e376e748508e1[/url])
-
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 wasn´t 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.
Wouldn´t 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 isn´t 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 won´t change.
Only reliable money makes us happy.
-
Wouldn´t 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.
-
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?
-
My RPD at istock, including subs it's about 4.7 dollars/image.
Seems this is an averaged value rather than the lowest value...
-
Dear Ladies and Gents.
While we are all entitled to our own opinion, please let’s 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.
[url]http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/[/url] ([url]http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/[/url])
Now any five people can make a post a "Great Post". I think many people miss that "-" vote here...
-
please let’s 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.
-
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/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 (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.
-
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.
-
repeated
-
- Only reliable money makes us happy.
Says it all for me.
Comparisons, explanations and promises do nothing unless they actually produce the above.
-
rpd doesn´t help if you don´t 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 don´t 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.
-
Meh. Guy comes in and lodges a false complaint to try to get more traffic to his website. It backfires.
-
I see about as much 'name calling and swearing' in this thread as I see accuracy in your review of Adobe Stock.
facking classic !
-
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
-
..., and for those of you who don’t know me, I’m the world’s top selling stock photographer....
Really? I thought I'm the world’s top selling stock photographer... ;)
Probably both of us are day dreaming... ;D
-
Take no notice Yuri! Don’t 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...
-
Your posts are just proving his point.
-
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".
-
I don't want to generate traffic on his moribund site :-X
-
Yuri (on his webpage):
"I don’t like the price point Adobe is selling at and I don’t 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.
-
But it's OK, because Adobe pays only 33%, but iStock pays up to 7%.
Oh, wait...
-
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%.
-
"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 Shutterstock’s customer list." Do they? Is this not equally true or otherwise for every other site out there?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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 ???
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Dear Ladies and Gents.
While we are all entitled to our own opinion, please let’s 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.
[url]http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/[/url] ([url]http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/[/url])
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.
-
I do respect what he achieved but it just doesn't seem relevant any more......times change fast in the web world
-
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.
-
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.
-
Wouldn´t 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
Yuri is competitive and he fully understands that one reason buyers would choose to buy at FT, SS, DT over his site is that they have a much larger selection of content.
He is also proactive and solution oriented, "if" he chose that option I would expect him to collaborate with large contributors with content that would benefit his long term business plan.
-
I don't understand this. 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 Shutterstock’s customer list.
Does he hint that Adobe is watching every image that we edit in cloud software? Or watching the source of every image that we open in any Adobe software? Isn't that illegal?
What does it mean?
-
i would maybe agree with yuri if I could have the same deal of exclusivity he has with getty, the same percentage or comission (above any other exclusive), the possibility to sell my pictures in other places beside GI owned, content privileges etc
-
What Yuri is actually saying, is he never should have shot so much really good stock and let it go for such a pittance for so many years, with little or no control over how all those images are used.
-
I don't understand this. 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 Shutterstock’s customer list.
Does he hint that Adobe is watching every image that we edit in cloud software? Or watching the source of every image that we open in any Adobe software? Isn't that illegal?
What does it mean?
Glorious irony. He says that msg is "dominated by trolls and unrefined criticism towards basically all establishments". , whereas he has made a pretty serious implication about Adobe's actions, with no proof offered.
-
- To be honest he has some fair points.
- I don't know why is he evaluating an agency he can't join as an IS exclusive.
- We don't know how well his plan works with Getty, we have no insider info but I am sure he got a very special deal to make it profitable.
- He switched to exclusive just before things turned to bad everywhere so I think he knows where to go.
- I am sure he earns a lot of money with peopleimages. It is far the best stock site I ever saw - in content, technology and ergonomy. If I were a buyer I would choose them. Since I am a stock photographer I hate them for grabbing the buyers. :)
-
I don't understand this. 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 Shutterstock’s customer list.
Does he hint that Adobe is watching every image that we edit in cloud software? Or watching the source of every image that we open in any Adobe software? Isn't that illegal?
What does it mean?
Glorious irony. He says that msg is "dominated by trolls and unrefined criticism towards basically all establishments". , whereas he has made a pretty serious implication about Adobe's actions, with no proof offered.
What I don't get is, why single out Shutterstock here? Many (certainly not all) people who purchase an image from anywhere are likely inserting it into an Adobe program, including images from Yuri's own site. And why would Adobe need to steal customer information from anyone? If they're using Adobe products, Adobe already knows who they are.
It reminds me of someone else's posts here...someone who focuses almost exclusively on slamming Shutterstock. ;)
-
Yuri is upset with shutter because they didn't want to dance to his tunes
-
After being quiet for quite a while, Yuri breaks his silence evaluating Adobe Stock:
[url]http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/[/url] ([url]http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/[/url])
My favorite part is in the conclusion where he complains about the "mediocre" quality of images at Fotolia and Shutterstock. :-)
What are your thoughts?
I don't dislike Yuri. He's a bellwether for our industry. I found the comments (and his responses) in his article on his site more insightful than his article. The only thing I don't like is that he feels bitter toward the MSG forum. I think there are a lot of folk that hide behind their keyboards writing nasty things that they would NEVER say to the person's face. 8)
-
We are talking about the same guy that predicted couple of years ago that today every photographer (including his photographers) were going to be using nokia smartphones in their photoshoots instead of DSLRs
-
I don't dislike Yuri. He's a bellwether for our industry. I found the comments (and his responses) in his article on his site more insightful than his article. The only thing I don't like is that he feels bitter toward the MSG forum. I think there are a lot of folk that hide behind their keyboards writing nasty things that they would NEVER say to the person's face. 8)
that's true too... i agree. then again, if i were Yuri Arcurs , or as big as he is in microstock,
i would say everything i feel ... against everyone on msg,etc
and not give a r@ts ar$e what they think ...
why???
simply because i am Yuri Arcurs. and that's exactly why you have to admire him , like or hate him,
he wiped us all with his sales in microstock...
and many hate him for that.
as for me, i don't like or hate him, i just like the idea that someone actually could make that much money in microstock... and it wasn't me :D
8)
-
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.
This is happening for indies too. Less and less people are bothering to do HCV shoots. Not worth it for decreasing earnings.
-
I don't dislike Yuri. He's a bellwether for our industry. I found the comments (and his responses) in his article on his site more insightful than his article. The only thing I don't like is that he feels bitter toward the MSG forum. I think there are a lot of folk that hide behind their keyboards writing nasty things that they would NEVER say to the person's face. 8)
that's true too... i agree. then again, if i were Yuri Arcurs , or as big as he is in microstock,
i would say everything i feel ... against everyone on msg,etc
and not give a r@ts ar$e what they think ...
why???
simply because i am Yuri Arcurs. and that's exactly why you have to admire him , like or hate him,
he wiped us all with his sales in microstock...
and many hate him for that.
as for me, i don't like or hate him, i just like the idea that someone actually could make that much money in microstock... and it wasn't me :D
8)
Indeed. Slander is the penalty of leadership. He's got a very bright future. But so do we, as individuals, if we focus our energy on improving our skills and avoid other distractions.
-
Indeed. Slander is the penalty of leadership. He's got a very bright future. But so do we, as individuals, if we focus our energy on improving our skills and avoid other distractions.
yes for sure, the internet encourage slander becuase it's difficult to charge anyone. in fact, some civilized countries don't do anything about slander either. i think only USA is where you can charge someone for slander.
back to your penalty for leadership. i remember someone once said, when you have ppl slandering you or angry at you, you are doing something very right; no one is ever envious of a loser.
the more successful you are, the more ppl hate you because there are more losers than winners.
-
There are many successful people who have a huge following because they know how to inspire and lead online. You also don't see them complaining about haters if the net community doesn't agree with them.
Respect goes both ways and you usually get what you give.
But in this case i really don't see the hate. Last year he made a very public announcement about his departure from the micros and his disdain for SS. He also announced that he will personally manage important projects on istock, to get the company back to growth and to compete against SS.
Then he goes silent for a year. And whatever project he managed at istock, we never again hear about it and sales continue to fall, more exclusive artists leave.
Now he is back with a mix of good analysis and fear how Adobe can reach into SS customer list whenever you add a SS image to Photoshop. I suppose he means to imply that Adobe is monitoring competitors customer behaviour by analysing metadata or image numbers.
And people will discuss what he writes.. If he really thinks msg is a pit of haters and little people, then I wonder why admins from SS and Fotolia feel so comfortable interacting here?
Maybe their success is based on taking the contributor community and their concerns seriously and not driving them away and intimidating them like istock and Getty have done.
Also having company admins reach out on public forums is a natural thing to do for internet companies in 2015, not some super human challenge or impossible task.
Companies that succeed don't need to hide on their own boards where they can censor everything.
I still admire that he is successful with his own company and is ready to employ and feed so many people.
But his business model is not one I will emulate because I have no intention of running a large studio. My needs and requirements are very different to his and whatever deals he can work out because of the size of his business have no effect on the majority of contributors.
His problems and his solutions are very different from our needs.
-
Slander is the penalty of leadership.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean; his online-published innuendo about Adobe could be 'trade libel', not slander.
-
I do not see any name calling anywhere here, neither hate. Some people maybe think that not agreeing with the leader is equal to slander, name calling etc.
Yuri accurs not long time ago, HERE, in these forums made predictions that never happened, and today he write more analisys and predictions that maybe are true for him but not for the rest of us. During years he was the champion of being independent and suddenly he joined getty/istock exclusivity betraying his own principals. Why now he should be listened seriously? How he dare to came here to cry about name callings inviting critics to go to his own web site where he can easily control better and maybe censor what we say about his predictions and statements?
I will not be surprised if in the future he join adobe as exclusive star if conditions are better for HIS own interest there and came back with new statements and predictions.
Yuri should be respected, yes, but he first has to respect himself and the others.
-
I'm not sure in what way we are calling Yuri a leader. He definitely was and maybe still is the sales leader in microstock contributors. Let's don't confuse that with being a leader in the contributor community.
Yuri always market himself well and look out for his own interests. Thats fine. No name calling from me. But that isn't the same as being a leader for contributors. I would say there are others who taken a stand speaking for contributors like Sean and JoAnn, and they were punished for it by agencies. That was bravery and real leadership. When these two speak I listen because I know they are looking at the whole industry, not just their own interests.
-
I'm not sure in what way we are calling Yuri a leader. He definitely was and maybe still is the sales leader in microstock contributors. Let's don't confuse that with being a leader in the contributor community.
Yuri always market himself well and look out for his own interests. Thats fine. No name calling from me. But that isn't the same as being a leader for contributors. I would say there are others who taken a stand speaking for contributors like Sean and JoAnn, and they were punished for it by agencies. That was bravery and real leadership. When these two speak I listen because I know they are looking at the whole industry, not just their own interests.
Good post
-
I'm not sure in what way we are calling Yuri a leader. He definitely was and maybe still is the sales leader in microstock contributors. Let's don't confuse that with being a leader in the contributor community.
Yuri always market himself well and look out for his own interests. Thats fine. No name calling from me. But that isn't the same as being a leader for contributors. I would say there are others who taken a stand speaking for contributors like Sean and JoAnn, and they were punished for it by agencies. That was bravery and real leadership. When these two speak I listen because I know they are looking at the whole industry, not just their own interests.
Good post
Yep.
-
I can't help thinking that at one time Yuri could of opened a site for everyone and it would probably be bigger than SS and istcok by now. It would of been a huge gamble but I think it would of worked. Maybe that's one reason why he isn't popular here? There was something he could of done to help most of us and I don't blame him for going exclusive but can't help but think we could all be much better off if he had taken full advantage when he was at his peak of popularity with contributors and buyers.
Going exclusive wiped out that popularity with a lot of non-exclusives who see Getty/istock as a greedy site that has to keep its investors happy at their expense.
-
I can't help thinking that at one time Yuri could of opened a site for everyone and it would probably be bigger than SS and istcok by now. It would of been a huge gamble but I think it would of worked. Maybe that's one reason why he isn't popular here? There was something he could of done to help most of us and I don't blame him for going exclusive but can't help but think we could all be much better off if he had taken full advantage when he was at his peak of popularity with contributors and buyers.
Going exclusive wiped out that popularity with a lot of non-exclusives who see Getty/istock as a greedy site that has to keep its investors happy at their expense.
Think he's probably too much of a control freak took the much riskier step of employing people giving more control. What makes the Business model great for SS is that the suppliers bear nearly all the risk.
-
I'm still not sure why people think Yuri's own site is doing that well. Sure, it's a great looking site and has features some buyers will love, but if it was doing well, why would he be in bed with Getty at all? Even if he were earning slightly less by only being on his own site, he'd have the great satisfaction of having 'gone it alone' and won.
NB, I have only an academic interest in this, as I don't shoot models.
-
Can help thinking if it was doing well we would have heard more........
-
Can help thinking if it was doing well we would have heard more........
He did say "I will most likely have the best year ever either this year or next year."
-
Can help thinking if it was doing well we would have heard more........
He did say "I will most likely have the best year ever either this year or next year."
I am responding to the quote, not Ticktock. That's probably because he has exclusivity with IS/Getty, still runs his own site that competes with IS/Getty, is on other micros which also competes with IS/Getty. What mainstream contributor would ever get that deal? Yuri's success has little correlation to those bound by agency exclusivity rules.
-
Can help thinking if it was doing well we would have heard more........
He did say "I will most likely have the best year ever either this year or next year."
I am responding to the quote, not Ticktock. That's probably because he has exclusivity with IS/Getty, still runs his own site that competes with IS/Getty, is on other micros which also competes with IS/Getty. What mainstream contributor would ever get that deal? Yuri's success has little correlation to those bound by agency exclusivity rules.
Ok, just responding to the question of whether or not he was doing well.
-
He might have his best hear but the million invested in that Mobile phone site probably didn't give him the return he wanted. If it did we would have heard about it
-
Can help thinking if it was doing well we would have heard more........
He did say "I will most likely have the best year ever either this year or next year."
"Depends on Nov and Dec sales this year."
I am very curious to know how he's shielding his income from subs, especially the recent one month subs offering.
-
Can help thinking if it was doing well we would have heard more........
He did say "I will most likely have the best year ever either this year or next year."
"Depends on Nov and Dec sales this year."
I am very curious to know how he's shielding his income from subs, especially the recent one month subs offering.
With all the vitriol on this site (just look at how much hatin' there is in this thread) I think it's safe to say he won't be coming here to answer anyone's questions.
-
Can help thinking if it was doing well we would have heard more........
He did say "I will most likely have the best year ever either this year or next year."
"Depends on Nov and Dec sales this year."
I am very curious to know how he's shielding his income from subs, especially the recent one month subs offering.
With all the vitriol on this site (just look at how much hatin' there is in this thread) I think it's safe to say he won't be coming here to answer anyone's questions.
I don't see much, if any, hate.
Just a lot of questioning of his analysis and 'selection' of data to bump his suggestions.
-
Can help thinking if it was doing well we would have heard more........
He did say "I will most likely have the best year ever either this year or next year."
"Depends on Nov and Dec sales this year."
I am very curious to know how he's shielding his income from subs, especially the recent one month subs offering.
With all the vitriol on this site (just look at how much hatin' there is in this thread) I think it's safe to say he won't be coming here to answer anyone's questions.
I don't see much, if any, hate.
Just a lot of questioning of his analysis and 'selection' of data to bump his suggestions.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hating (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hating)
"When one puts down the success or fortune of others due to jealousy. "
-
With all the vitriol on this site (just look at how much hatin' there is in this thread) I think it's safe to say he won't be coming here to answer anyone's questions.
I don't see much, if any, hate.
Just a lot of questioning of his analysis and 'selection' of data to bump his suggestions.
[url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hating[/url] ([url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hating[/url])
"When one puts down the success or fortune of others due to jealousy. "
Where do you and Lagereek get the idea that questioning Yuri's analysis of Adobestock comes from jealousy, rather than simply questioning his article's rigour?
-
Can help thinking if it was doing well we would have heard more........
He did say "I will most likely have the best year ever either this year or next year."
"Depends on Nov and Dec sales this year."
I am very curious to know how he's shielding his income from subs, especially the recent one month subs offering.
With all the vitriol on this site (just look at how much hatin' there is in this thread) I think it's safe to say he won't be coming here to answer anyone's questions.
I don't see much, if any, hate.
Just a lot of questioning of his analysis and 'selection' of data to bump his suggestions.
[url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hating[/url] ([url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hating[/url])
"When one puts down the success or fortune of others due to jealousy. "
Could you please link to some of these hateful and vitriolic posts? I read the whole thread and don't remember anything like that.
-
With all the vitriol on this site (just look at how much hatin' there is in this thread) I think it's safe to say he won't be coming here to answer anyone's questions.
I don't see much, if any, hate.
Just a lot of questioning of his analysis and 'selection' of data to bump his suggestions.
[url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hating[/url] ([url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hating[/url])
"When one puts down the success or fortune of others due to jealousy. "
Where do you and Lagereek get the idea that questioning Yuri's analysis of Adobestock comes from jealousy, rather than simply questioning his article's rigour?
Most comments including your own are about Yuri himself not his analysis of Adobe. It looks like a lot of jealousy and sour grapes to me but that's what this place is about so it shouldn't be surprising.
-
I'm not sure in what way we are calling Yuri a leader. He definitely was and maybe still is the sales leader in microstock contributors. Let's don't confuse that with being a leader in the contributor community.
Yuri always market himself well and look out for his own interests. Thats fine. No name calling from me. But that isn't the same as being a leader for contributors. I would say there are others who taken a stand speaking for contributors like Sean and JoAnn, and they were punished for it by agencies. That was bravery and real leadership. When these two speak I listen because I know they are looking at the whole industry, not just their own interests.
punished by the agencies for speaking out...
yes, and others like lisafx (remember her???) also got punished for speaking out
like yuri is doing .
we must remember that this here like anyway else is a forum. a forum if i remember is a place you can speak out without being stabbed by your friends and fiends pretending to be your friend.
but ah yes, the first forum , we had stabbing too and today here in this forum and elsewhere we
have even more great grand children of Brutus ;D
if you and i are allow to speak out, so should yuri and lisafx etc
so long as it is not directly at you or me or yuri personally. yuri is speaking out at msg not everyone but certain ppl who knows who they are. i don't think this is not acceptable, since
it is a fact he did come in here and got hammered.
as i said, i don't like yuri for certain obvious reasons, but that does not mean he is not allowed to
open his mouth, like you and me
-
With all the vitriol on this site (just look at how much hatin' there is in this thread) I think it's safe to say he won't be coming here to answer anyone's questions.
I don't see much, if any, hate.
Just a lot of questioning of his analysis and 'selection' of data to bump his suggestions.
[url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hating[/url] ([url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hating[/url])
"When one puts down the success or fortune of others due to jealousy. "
Where do you and Lagereek get the idea that questioning Yuri's analysis of Adobestock comes from jealousy, rather than simply questioning his article's rigour?
Most comments including your own are about Yuri himself not his analysis of Adobe. It looks like a lot of jealousy and sour grapes to me but that's what this place is about so it shouldn't be surprising.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
He's been 'near to bankruptcy' twice and I haven't; what would I have to be jealous of?
I do have the right to question what he says, whether it's how much better iStock was going to be when he was project managing, or his half-baked analysis of Adobe, and his unverified attack on their actions. (I'm not saying it's untrue, I'm saying he has made a huge accusation without any evidence. Like a lot he says.)
But as you're making it personal, I'll observe that it's not surprising that you're defending the indefensible.
-
I'll observe that it's not surprising that you're defending the indefensible.
What exactly am I defending here?
-
Sue was faster.
I really don´t see why people here would be jealous of him. Many of us have had businesses with employees and left the rat race happily to do stock.
Sean or the other single artist superstars are more interesting, because their success shows me what can be achieved as a single artists without the headache of a huge team.
And those of us who are indie, or have left exclusivity have no reason to be sad. We escaped just in time and can now benefit from new opportunities at Adobe and simply relax while the agencies fight it out.
But I would be interested in what kind of projects Yuri managed at istock and if he was successful with that. I still have 4000 files at istock and if istock/getty improve, so will my income. It is one of the marketplace I work with, like SS, adobe or dreamstime.
And if Adobe continues to grow...people of course will be curious, when Yuri jumps into the next exclusive relationship. And why not, if he gets a good offer.
Adobe will take over a very large part of the market and istock/getty will suffer first, because they have been falling behind with just SS as a competitor and haven´t shown any signs of innovation unfortunately. So he is right about the power of adobe and I guess it is just a matter of time until he follows his own analysis.
-
I'll observe that it's not surprising that you're defending the indefensible.
What exactly am I defending here?
You're defending Yuri's unverified statements indirectly by claiming that those who would question them are haters or jealous, rather than engaging with the issues objectively.
-
I'll observe that it's not surprising that you're defending the indefensible.
What exactly am I defending here?
Your are defending Yuri's unverified statements indirectly by claiming that those who would question them are haters or jealous, rather than engaging with the issues objectively.
That's nutty, I haven't said anything about the few comments that question his blog post I'm talking about the vast majority of comments aimed at Yuri like you calling him "delusional". If you want to talk about issues talk about them but almost everything you've said is about Yuri not his blog post. I really couldn't care less about his analysis of Adobe, it's his analysis for him, it's not how I would judge a site.
What issues have you even brought up? How he's delusional, how he nearly filed for bankruptcy, he got a special deal, made a video for fotolia, glass houses, he brags, his site isn't doing well etc.. none of that has anything to do with issues about his analysis it's petty and personal.
-
That's nutty, I haven't said anything about the few comments that question his blog post I'm talking about the vast majority of comments aimed at Yuri like you calling him "delusional".
Yuri said, "please let’s tone down the swearing and name calling" when there had been no instances of either. I made it quite clear that that was the specific reason I called him delusional.
The other tangential comments I've made about Yuri are the reasons I can't take his pronouncements seriously.
It seems to me as though he must be as worried as iStock are about Adobestock to have bothered, as they did, to make a specific post about it.
-
I'm not sure in what way we are calling Yuri a leader. He definitely was and maybe still is the sales leader in microstock contributors. Let's don't confuse that with being a leader in the contributor community.
Yuri always market himself well and look out for his own interests. Thats fine. No name calling from me. But that isn't the same as being a leader for contributors. I would say there are others who taken a stand speaking for contributors like Sean and JoAnn, and they were punished for it by agencies. That was bravery and real leadership. When these two speak I listen because I know they are looking at the whole industry, not just their own interests.
punished by the agencies for speaking out...
yes, and others like lisafx (remember her???) also got punished for speaking out
like yuri is doing .
we must remember that this here like anyway else is a forum. a forum if i remember is a place you can speak out without being stabbed by your friends and fiends pretending to be your friend.
but ah yes, the first forum , we had stabbing too and today here in this forum and elsewhere we
have even more great grand children of Brutus ;D
if you and i are allow to speak out, so should yuri and lisafx etc
so long as it is not directly at you or me or yuri personally. yuri is speaking out at msg not everyone but certain ppl who knows who they are. i don't think this is not acceptable, since
it is a fact he did come in here and got hammered.
as i said, i don't like yuri for certain obvious reasons, but that does not mean he is not allowed to
open his mouth, like you and me
;) It is all butterfly's and puppy dog kisses as long as you go along with the group crowdspeak
-
;) It is all butterfly's and puppy dog kisses as long as you go along with the group crowdspeak
+10 . yuri is not the only one who speak his mind. everyone does here.
only problem is if your name is yuri arcurs, you will offend certain ppl...
but if yuri arcurs came in here under a pseudonym and say the same thing
it will get a lot of +'s 8)
-
;) It is all butterfly's and puppy dog kisses as long as you go along with the group crowdspeak
+10 . yuri is not the only one who speak his mind. everyone does here.
only problem is if your name is yuri arcurs, you will offend certain ppl...
but if yuri arcurs came in here under a pseudonym and say the same thing
it will get a lot of +'s 8)
Why?
No matter who said it, it's a lot of poor statistics and an unexplained accusation.
-
No matter who said it, it's a lot of poor statistics and an unexplained accusation.
You're looking for some crazy conspiracy. He's basically saying most Shutterstock users use Adobe. Shutterstock and Adobe have mostly the same images. Adobe can market to people with Shutterstock subscriptions and take them away with cheaper prices.
-
No matter who said it, it's a lot of poor statistics and an unexplained accusation.
You're looking for some crazy conspiracy. He's basically saying most Shutterstock users use Adobe. Shutterstock and Adobe have mostly the same images. Adobe can market to people with Shutterstock subscriptions and take them away with cheaper prices.
This is exactly what he said:
"Another problem Shutterstock is facing is that unlike Getty, Peopleimages, and iStock they don’t have a distinctive look nor do they have exclusive images as a selling point. 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 Shutterstock’s customer list. So if Adobe decides to, they can entice their users to sign up with Adobe Stock and make it very attractive to discard any Shutterstock subscription. What do you think will happen when the avid Photoshop user starts experiencing small in-program suggestions to join Adobe Stock with offerings that are cheaper than Shutterstock for the same images? Let’s face it, Shutterstock is replaceable but there is no other viable alternative to Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, etc."
"Adobe basically has their straw straight down into Shutterstock’s customer list." is a very odd phrasing, which I took as meaning they could somehow spy on users. If it's as simple as they can market to SS's customers, why not iS's, DT's or any other agency's on the same principle?
BTW, Adobe do what they should, and after several AdobeStock marketing emails in a short period of time, I unsubscribed from all Adobe emails (didn't seem to be a way of ending the stock ones and keeping the rest) and I haven't had any since. That's a positive.
He really thinks iStock "has a distinctive 'look'" even over the past year or so? That's pretty unjustifiable.
He says, "While analysing Adobe’s entry into stock it’s worth mentioning that Shutterstock offers the exact same images as Adobe Stock (and I mean identical)." That's untrue, as lots of people left Ft for various reasons over the years, but didn't leave Shutterstock. JoAnn is just one case in point. Presumably there are plenty of pics on Ft that aren't on SS because of different acceptance policies. And an unknown proportion of exclusive images there.
At the same time, he said, "By purchasing fotolia.com Adobe got themselves one of the biggest collections of mediocre images the world has ever seen" Which is odd, if they're identical to SS's collection. Again, has he seen what iS's been accepting over the past year or so?
He says, "My own customers on peopleimages.com are often complaining that shutterstock.com and fotolia.com looks outdated and refer to the images as looking “old”, “bad”, “too similar” and too heavily populated by cartoons and vectors." Do they really not know how to remove cartoons and vectors from their searches?
He hasn't explained why his 'own customers on peopleimages' don't use iStock, which also has plenty of cartoons and vectors, which can also be excluded from the search if not wanted, except for the largeish number of raster graphics which haven't been relabelled illustrations yet.
"Shutterstock is finding themselves face to face with Adobe like no other stock agency out there. They even acquire customers the same way, using millions on Adwords and SEO" And the other stock agencies don't do that? (I don't know about the first as I use AdBlock, but SEO is pretty standard practice.)
Really, I can't be bothered to go over every other superficial point he's made. It's like a fluffy, insubstantial freezine or tabloid piece.
Why did he crawl out of the woodwork after a year to produce this tat? He hasn't attacked any of the other new starts in the intervening months, so he must have a good reason to come out and attack this one.
-
"Adobe basically has their straw straight down into Shutterstock’s customer list." is a very odd phrasing, which I took as meaning they could somehow spy on users. If it's as simple as they can market to SS's customers, why not iS's, DT's or any other agency's on the same principle?
There is no reason to spy on customers. Shutterstock and Adobe have overlapping customer lists, nearly every SS subscriber is also an Adobe user so they have that customer list already. iStock has exclusive content so you can't show the exact same image at a cheaper price like you could with Shutterstock. I assume he didn't compare DT because they aren't very relevant to anything. To me that statement doesn't seem very controversial at all and why continue to throw personal insults at him if your goal is really to have an objective discussion?
-
"I assume he didn't compare DT because they aren't very relevant to anything."
I'm not sure why after a year of silence he decided to compare anything to anything. Even on Twitter, there wasn't any action for more than a year, until a tweet about the post. I mean, he's not known as a reviewer of stock photo sites.
-
"I assume he didn't compare DT because they aren't very relevant to anything."
I'm not sure why after a year of silence he decided to compare anything to anything. Even on Twitter, there wasn't any action for more than a year, until a tweet about the post. I mean, he's not known as a reviewer of stock photo sites.
I'd guess your best chance to get an answer would be to send him a message directly or post on his blog. He's the only one that can give you the answer.
-
I don't really care. I just think that's why everyone is so suspect of motives.
-
"Adobe basically has their straw straight down into Shutterstock’s customer list." is a very odd phrasing, which I took as meaning they could somehow spy on users. If it's as simple as they can market to SS's customers, why not iS's, DT's or any other agency's on the same principle?
There is no reason to spy on customers. Shutterstock and Adobe have overlapping customer lists, nearly every SS subscriber is also an Adobe user so they have that customer list already. iStock has exclusive content so you can't show the exact same image at a cheaper price like you could with Shutterstock. I assume he didn't compare DT because they aren't very relevant to anything. To me that statement doesn't seem very controversial at all and why continue to throw personal insults at him if your goal is really to have an objective discussion?
Show me the personal insult.
Disclaimer: I'm waiting for an explanation about what happened after he started project managing at iStock/Getty, and I won't get off his case until he tells us what went wrong.
Added: I see our own jjneff twice asked calm, sensible questions on Yuri's blog and wasn't answered (as of now). So much for that 'promise'.
-
I don't get it. In the blog Yuri says he gets 40% from istock but is hoping to get 45% royalty in the future and yet he sells through his own website peopleimages.com
-
There are different rules for Yuri, he was allowed to be exclusive with istock while still having big portfolios on other sites. I don't think there are any other contributors that were allowed to do that?
-
There are many studios that distribute via Getty and also anywhere else, like Blendimages etc...
Yuri is not a single artist, he is a production house.
-
"Professional works with professionals"
-
Who? Yuri? The name rings a bell, think he was some guy who used to be relevant in microstock...
;)
-
Who? Yuri? The name rings a bell, think he was some guy who used to be relevant in microstock...
;)
;D
-
I don't really care. I just think that's why everyone is so suspect of motives.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yuri is news history.
Who? Yuri? The name rings a bell, think he was some guy who used to be relevant in microstock...
;)
-
Who? Yuri? The name rings a bell, think he was some guy who used to be relevant in microstock...
;)
Yuri is a guy who predicted 2 years ago that today all of us would be shooting with nokia smart phones.
Pd: Nokia used to be a finish brand name for smart phones,
-
This has got to be the most entertaining thread I have seen in a while.
I would just like to add a couple of thoughts, I did not read the blog nor will i visit the site. the more hits and the more comments the site gets, the higher it will get ranked, the ego need not be enlarged further. :-)
seems there was a comment on things looking plastic on SS by YA…. if I remember correctly, wasnt it he that perfected the plastic people look and that was where he made all his money?
I too saw no swearing or name calling just a nice friendly conversation and critique of a blog post. Isnt that what forums are all about?
To go to his site where he has COMPLETE control over what the public gets to see is not an open forum or discussion. Again visits and post there just help HIS ratings in search engines.
Mush better to post here :-)
At this point where almost all sites are taking both good and bad stuff and everyone and their sister think they can be photographers, I am sure even his work (of which I have seen nothing recent) is getting buried with everyone else's.
Yes, I was impressed at how much he made, but never really cared too much for the style of images and obviously wasnt impressed enough by his earnings to try to copy him.
Microstock is a crap shoot, which is why I shoot what I want the way I want, upload to all the decent sites and just let them fly.
At this point is YA a has been? If the sales are not what they used to be, well…. we will let someone else decide that!
Stick with the sites you feel treat you right and enjoy . out of making pictures because that is truly what it is all about! the money comes when you do what you love!
-
There are many studios that distribute via Getty and also anywhere else, like Blendimages etc...
Yuri is not a single artist, he is a production house.
So if I become a production house I can upload anywhere and still be exclusive.