MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Jonathan Ross on January 13, 2011, 15:40
-
Hi All,
Just finished reading todays post by Jim Pickerell. It is a strong well made statement on the future of Microstock. The story really focuses on how there is still room to be big in Micro and uses Daniel Laflor as an example. Great read to finally here that stock can still make you a strong living if you know what you are doing. Well done Dan my hat is off. I cannot post the letter as it is a payed site but maybe Jim will catch this and share the letter with all of us here. Great read Jim thank you.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Jim Pickerell made it a guest post on the Microstock Group blog.. you can read it here
http://blog.microstockgroup.com/earning-a-living-in-stock-photography/ (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/earning-a-living-in-stock-photography/)
I agree Jonathan, very well done by Daniel - impressive to say the least.
-
Excellent info on what it really takes to make a lot of money -- still -- in this business. In fact it is a good guideline to being successful in any line of work.
It reminded me of selling photography successfully at art shows. It's amazing to see new photographers struggle with art show sales then give up because their work "just isn't selling". They all had neglected the main requirements that Daniel had learned: product quality, selection, quantity, and price points suitable for his market segment.
Daniel's apprenticeship speaks well on his ability to see its value and then apply that knowledge creatively. There is no reason that others can't profit in this business, as Daniel did or with a variation of his methods. But there are thousands of excuses why they can't. Following posts will illustrate many of those.
-
Nice article. This Daniel is a real person, right? Not just Yuri with a goatee disguise. ;D Kidding aside, it's nice to see someone can still rise up quickly.
-
Thanks to Jim for making it a guest post - and to Leaf for making that happen.
It says a couple of key things about how Daniel has achieved his sales volume, and talks about the exclusivity decision. Without the higher upload limits of an exclusive, Laflor could not have increased his portfolio as he did in 2010. I think an independent diamond gets 38 slots a week, and even at 100% approval rate that would net you slightly more than 1900 images in a year.
Certainly a partnership or some sort of sharing deal with another photographer to help keep expenses under control would be a big assist in making this profitable (versus just excellent revenue). Given iStock's exclusivity rules, it would seem that Yuri and Daniel's arrangement is just about the ideal - Daniel pushes the shutter button and he's the legal copyright holder. His images look very much like Yuri's, but as long as Yuri's OK with that, iStock has no say in having many "similars" out there on other stock sites.
Certainly all food for thought.
-
Nice article. This Daniel is a real person, right? Not just Yuri with a goatee disguise.
lol ;D
you can even recognize the use of Yuri's Studio in his portfolio ;D
okay after reading the blog-entry I'm not the only on who is recognizing Yuri's Studio ::)
-
Hi Leaf,
Thanks for getting this out. Jim is a good resource and generous to share. Good article and Daniel offers good food for thought about the entire industry. From mentorship to producing this model follows a similar practice of many successful photographers I have met over time. Good luck Daniel, great to hear positive results in this industry gives me a sense of security that stock photography is still very strong and if done right can still make a smart photographer move quickly to the top.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Thanks to Jim for making it a guest post - and to Leaf for making that happen.
It says a couple of key things about how Daniel has achieved his sales volume, and talks about the exclusivity decision. Without the higher upload limits of an exclusive, Laflor could not have increased his portfolio as he did in 2010. I think an independent diamond gets 38 slots a week, and even at 100% approval rate that would net you slightly more than 1900 images in a year.
Certainly a partnership or some sort of sharing deal with another photographer to help keep expenses under control would be a big assist in making this profitable (versus just excellent revenue). Given iStock's exclusivity rules, it would seem that Yuri and Daniel's arrangement is just about the ideal - Daniel pushes the shutter button and he's the legal copyright holder. His images look very much like Yuri's, but as long as Yuri's OK with that, iStock has no say in having many "similars" out there on other stock sites.
Certainly all food for thought.
I was going to say about the same thing (ok not that well written) but you have pointed a few topics that I agree totally
-
Very interesting read. I was looking at "Daniel Laflor"'s portfolio a while ago myself and was wondering if it's just a part of Yuri's portfolio under a different name:). With very restrictive upload limits for non-exclusives it's very hard to grow your presence on Istock. So, to avoid those restriction one could register under a different name (or hire a real person to do that) and shoot some stuff exclusively for Istock... (not that I would see anything wrong with that). The images definitely have identical "look and feel", and yes there are models that appear in both Laflor's and Arcurs' portfolios.
It's either that, or Yuri trained a very capable competitor to himself;-)
-
Very interesting read. I was looking at "Daniel Laflor"'s portfolio a while ago myself and was wondering if it's just a part of Yuri's portfolio under a different name:). With very restrictive upload limits for non-exclusives it's very hard to grow your presence on Istock. So, to avoid those restriction one could register under a different name (or hire a real person to do that) and shoot some stuff exclusively for Istock... (not that I would see anything wrong with that). The images definitely have identical "look and feel", and yes there are models that appear in both Laflor's and Arcurs' portfolios.
It's either that, or Yuri trained a very capable competitor to himself;-)
Hmmm. I always thought it a bit strange that Yuri appeared so relaxed and comfortable about his 'apprentice' producing near identical images to his own and I was always staggered how well the lad had learned at the knee of his master too. But of course if you were going to have an 'exclusive arm', as it were, then it would be in your interest to reproduce your own best-sellers to sell at the higher rate. Of course it's probably just co-incidence. The two world-wide top selling microstock photographers both bursting on to the scene from a small town in Denmark could easily happen by pure chance. Or is Yuri really so sickeningly talented that he can be not just the 'world's best microstock photographer' but also the second-best too?
Reminds me of one-line comic Stewart Francis;
"My father was a schizophrenic ... but he was good people. I remember that summer we spent together. I was 5 ... and he was Mussolini"
-
Very interesting read. I was looking at "Daniel Laflor"'s portfolio a while ago myself and was wondering if it's just a part of Yuri's portfolio under a different name:). With very restrictive upload limits for non-exclusives it's very hard to grow your presence on Istock. So, to avoid those restriction one could register under a different name (or hire a real person to do that) and shoot some stuff exclusively for Istock... (not that I would see anything wrong with that). The images definitely have identical "look and feel", and yes there are models that appear in both Laflor's and Arcurs' portfolios.
It's either that, or Yuri trained a very capable competitor to himself;-)
Lets see, he was tutored by Yuri. He works out of Yuri's studio with the same equipment and models and possibly staff. Let me introduce a hypothetical, that he pays Yuri for all of this and is a real individual, not a pseudonym to make exclusive images. It would make sense that under those conditions, he would have a giant advantage in leaping into the ranks of the high production, high sales shooters. Darn good work if you can get it.
So since this whole premise some are touting is that anyone can do this, I'd like to move to Denmark and have Yuri coach me, while I use his facilities and I'll bring my own camera. Is that the idea of how anyone can do this? Or is there a tad bit of reality that what he has done is an amazing feat in itself and then the conditions and location are also pretty exclusive. Anyone can't just will their way into success, it takes an amazing set of circumstances, location, talent and help! Another poster boy story of microstock fortunes?
I liked this part: "It is unclear how Daniel was able to get so many images accepted by the iStock editors," aside from a sweetheart deal, which is the only way, I'd say talent and great shots would help a bit too. :D He's got it all.
Do exclusives really get $4.50 a download? That's the figure in the blog for the $400.000 Gross income before expenses. And by the way, shared expenses? Smart move, that means cost reduction and making the most of available resources, everything from models to the person who does the uploads. Great plan and wonderful way for Yuri and Daniel to both gain and succeed.
Anyone have a studio with staff, models, lighting, computers and everything else that I can share? ::)
Please don't hold up one person in 50,000 who made it, without looking at the next 2000 who worked darn hard to get what they have and the other 48,000 who make nothing!
-
Thanks to Jim for making it a guest post - and to Leaf for making that happen.
It says a couple of key things about how Daniel has achieved his sales volume, and talks about the exclusivity decision. Without the higher upload limits of an exclusive, Laflor could not have increased his portfolio as he did in 2010. I think an independent diamond gets 38 slots a week, and even at 100% approval rate that would net you slightly more than 1900 images in a year.
Certainly a partnership or some sort of sharing deal with another photographer to help keep expenses under control would be a big assist in making this profitable (versus just excellent revenue). Given iStock's exclusivity rules, it would seem that Yuri and Daniel's arrangement is just about the ideal - Daniel pushes the shutter button and he's the legal copyright holder. His images look very much like Yuri's, but as long as Yuri's OK with that, iStock has no say in having many "similars" out there on other stock sites.
Certainly all food for thought.
agree with what you've stated JoAnn. production quality is very clearly a factor if photogs have ambitions to make a living in microstock...I wondered if Daniel or Yuri agreed to be 'featured'?
-
Something about this whole thing just doesn't sound and feel right. Much like someone is having one's cake and eating it too.
It would be quite a clever way for two photographers to "split" the images like this in a way to circumvent iStockphoto's exclusivity policies. It just feels wrong, but if acceptable we all could potentially do that and reap the obvious benefits. We can just hand over copyright of whichever images we like to the wife, friend, mother whoever. Nah, it all smells well fishy too me.
-
I wondered if Daniel or Yuri agreed to be 'featured'?
As I was reading this I was thinking "it doesn't even seem like Daniel was involved". Seems kind of sneaky/awkward to showcase someone without even a quote or acknowledgment from them. John Lund has a lot more engaged approach.
Another thought on this is I can't see how he could have added 5,500 images without employees or outsourcing which would have taken a big chunk out of that six figure revenue.
And the $4 per download seems a bit high. I thought I remember seeing stats averaging closer to $2 or $3 at most.
-
agree with what you've stated JoAnn. production quality is very clearly a factor if photogs have ambitions to make a living in microstock...I wondered if Daniel or Yuri agreed to be 'featured'?
Clearly not, when you read all the speculation in the article. I guess you don't need to agree to be featured in an 'editorial' article. He obviously wan't interviewed. At least it's 'admitted' speculation unlike most of the speculation-presented as fact stuff we usually read:
"From his blog we know..."
"It is unclear when he went exclusive"
"probably occurred as soon as he reached the 250"
"It is unclear how Daniel was able to get so many images accepted"
"Based on what other iStock exclusive photographers tell us ... he should have averaged at least $4.50 per download"
"We have no information as to what his expenses might have been"
"We also suspect that he employs significant staff in order"
"It is also unclear how much experience he had as a photographer before he started assisting Yuri."
"there are a number of things we don’t know about Daniel’s experience"
"it certainly appears that many might have been shot..."
To be honest, it looks as though JP is 'outing' Daniel, not using him as an inspiration for aspiring microstockers. For the latter purpose, we'd need to know a lot of the things he speculates about. I'd want to know exactly the income/expenditure ratio, and how that works for tax etc to know what the bottom line was. Of course, it's highly unlikely any top flier would reveal that. But, hey, we need to know the profit and the profitability (is there still no-one who can explain to me why the latter is more important?) and how sustainable the model is?
Clearly his model is not one for more than a micro-percentage of aspirees - those who can be apprenticed to Yuri (or similar) and have the great good fortune that their mentor will let them use their set ups and models to further their own career. I'd imagine (If JP can speculate, so can I!) he has to pay Yuri a pretty penny for that privilege, eating further into profit/profitablitiy. Which of course helps Yuri's bottom line.
And if the intention was to 'out' Daniel, iStock clearly know about it and don't care. They have subsequently headhunted at least one contributer on an 'exclusive-lite' deal whereby they can sell their 'exclusive' images elsewhere, whereas the rest of us drones can't even send our rejected images RM without crawling for permission.
I've read about two other 'togs who shoot together, one exclusive to iStock, one independent - and wrote about it on iStock's forums.
-
To be honest, it looks as though JP is 'outing' Daniel, not using him as an inspiration for aspiring microstockers.
Good description for it. Seems kind of counterproductive to use this approach on the people you're trying to get to pay for your service.
-
To be honest, it looks as though JP is 'outing' Daniel, not using him as an inspiration for aspiring microstockers.
Good description for it. Seems kind of counterproductive to use this approach on the people you're trying to get to pay for your service.
I took the blog post to read as an impressive story about how it is still possible to build up and earn a serious income from microstock - even for those 'late in the game'. Regardless of how much cooperation or direction Danial has had from Yuri, he has still achieved very impressive levels with his portfolio and I am inspired by his work. I certainly wouldn't have posted the article if I felt it was 'outing' Daniel, that is not what the blog is about ... to that end, I sent the article to Daniel before it was posted on the MicrostockGroup blog to get the OK from him.
-
To be honest, it looks as though JP is 'outing' Daniel, not using him as an inspiration for aspiring microstockers.
Good description for it. Seems kind of counterproductive to use this approach on the people you're trying to get to pay for your service.
I took the blog post to read as an impressive story about how it is still possible to build up and earn a serious income from microstock - even for those 'late in the game'. Regardless of how much cooperation or direction Danial has had from Yuri, he has still achieved very impressive levels with his portfolio and I am inspired by his work. I certainly wouldn't have posted the article if I felt it was 'outing' Daniel, that is not what the blog is about ... to that end, I sent the article to Daniel before it was posted on the MicrostockGroup blog to get the OK from him.
I don't think anyone was questioning you posting the article and it doesn't surprise me that you got approval. You're that kind of person and have good credibility.
Still can't say I like the approach of the original article. Seems I'm not alone.
Regardless, I'd agree that what Daniel has accomplished and his work is pretty impressive.
-
When something doesn't sound or feel right it usually isn't. I hope I'm wrong.
By the sound of things it all goes against the "spirit" of exclusivity at iStockphoto as they share locations, models, props, equipment, assistants and other staff. It would all be so easy to have the cake and eat it too i.e. "we put these images exclusively with istock under your name, and these images everywhere under my name".... Yuri might be a very generous person, but also business-savvy, hence I'm sceptical that someone would want a DIRECT competitor under the same roof, maybe not even a competitor, close to copy-cat - same style, same locations, same models, same props, same equipment used etc. I does raise a lot of questions. Also if trained by Yuri and having access to all of Yuri's research which made him take the decision of being independent, why then go exclusive? It would be very tempting to let the 2nd photographer remain on the payroll...use his name for copyright reasons and therefore be able to go exlusive and still let the royalties earned go to me - thus having said cake and eating it too... But of course this is just hypothetical, my own suspicions and hopefully I am COMPLETELY wrong...
Haven't spent any time thoroughly checking their portfolios against eachother, but what about sistering and similars?
-
I think people are jumping to a lot of conclusions here.
I have done group shoots with other microstock photographers, where we shared models and locations. I hardly see a problem with this and it makes perfect business sense.
In regards to exclusivity, Yuri has recommended exclusivity for quite a while now. I remember back in early 2009 at UGCX in San Jose, when asked if starting microstock now, would Yuri go exclusive or non exclusive - he answer he would go exclusive.
-
The rules of exclusivity just seem a bit "bendier" for some than others in my opinion. My wife shoots too, we share locations, models, props, equipment, ideas, style, all the income goes to the same pot and we share expenses. To not put all eggs in the same basket should we let one of us be exclusive and the other one independent? Nah, it just wouldn't be right and if I'm not completely wrong against the "spirit" of exclusivity at iStock.
In the same way me and my wife are too closely connected for one of us to be exclusive and the other one independent, the same way I perceive Yuri's and Daniel's relationship. Not saying that they are married, but too close for comfort. Am I really the only one thinking that this is, sound and feels wrong? Is the road really wide open to interpret iStock's rules like this, is this something we all should and could do? It all comes across as a way of circumventing the rules of exclusivity, whether this technically would be allowed (is it?) and just doesn't sit right with me.
If I remember correctly there has also been incidents where the same method has been used at iStock to have multiple accounts, thereby getting more upload slots.
-
No, it is wrong, and against what exclusivity is supposed to mean. It's supposed to create a unique selling point to draw buyers to IS (or the Getty family). If the two shooters are at the same shoot, using the same models, etc., regardless of the silly "I've been to group shoot and all the shots are different!" notion, then essentially, they are spreading the same work around, one reaping exclusive benefits, and one the benefit of multiple agencies. Especially here, where laflor is pretty much a carbon copy of yuri. If I was running an Agency, we'd have none of this nonsense. People destroying my USP would be out on the sidewalk.
Not that they aren't both nice guys, at least in their postings. And the article is just observational guess work (admittedly), with neither being interviewed. ( Oh, thanks for the mention :P ) However, none of it is a surprise. Anyone can see that you could mix the two ports together and you wouldn't be able to pick any shot from any other, because of the same models and everything.
Other issue is Jim trying to come up with material for his paying audience, trying to convince even more competition to step into the ring. Thanks for that too.
-
No, it is wrong, and against what exclusivity is supposed to mean. It's supposed to create a unique selling point to draw buyers to IS (or the Getty family). If the two shooters are at the same shoot, using the same models, etc., regardless of the silly "I've been to group shoot and all the shots are different!" notion, then essentially, they are spreading the same work around, one reaping exclusive benefits, and one the benefit of multiple agencies. Especially here, where laflor is pretty much a carbon copy of yuri. If I was running an Agency, we'd have none of this nonsense. People destroying my USP would be out on the sidewalk.
Not that they aren't both nice guys, at least in their postings. And the article is just observational guess work (admittedly), with neither being interviewed. ( Oh, thanks for the mention :P ) However, none of it is a surprise. Anyone can see that you could mix the two ports together and you wouldn't be able to pick any shot from any other, because of the same models and everything.
Other issue is Jim trying to come up with material for his paying audience, trying to convince even more competition to step into the ring. Thanks for that too.
Thanks Sean! Finally, I'm not the only one feeling that this is just plain wrong and smell fishy! Would be interesting what the powers at iStock think of this. If they are fine with it, then we all know what is available to us, if not then take appropriate measures. At the moment the playing field ain't level.
-
My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I believe Yuri's girlfriend was cut from IS a few years ago for doing the same thing.
Kudos to you for staying above the fray.
-
I'm pretty sure Yuri said in his blog at one point that you shouldn't sign up for an agency that was paying less than 40%. You should contact them directly and lay down your terms.
Of course if I did this, they would laugh all the way to the email delete button, but if Yuri does it, they'd need to sit up and take notice.
So they could either cut Yuri a private deal, that none of us would ever know about. But it couldn't include unlimited uploading, or we'd notice.
So, hey, a nice compromise. And although it may be against the 'spirit' of exclusivity, it's not against the letter.
And how much of the 'spirit' of iStock is left? So only the letter can guide us - but their letters, as I've often said before, are ambiguous and obfuscatory - probably deliberately so, to leave themeselves, if not us, some 'wiggle room'.
And yes, the above is all pure speculation, just like JP's article.
This post comes to you from someone previously so neurotic about breaching exclusivity 'spirit' that I made my poor husband take a non-stocky image that I wanted to put onto a particular Flickr stream as it was a very unusual natural history photo relevant to that stream, but I wasn't sure that exclusives could post on Flickr (seems we can, under restrictions). So he, the non-photographer, has a Flickr account with one photo. And no, I didn't 'set up' the photo other than giving him my camera and lens and asking him to take it.
-
If I was running an Agency, we'd have none of this nonsense. People destroying my USP would be out on the sidewalk.
Sean is starting an agency?
-
If my speculations/suspicions are correct, regardless if it is against the "letter" of iStock's exclusivity agreement or not, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. A clarification from the powers of iStock wouldn't go amiss, at least then we know if this and/or similar examples are allowed. As I read it (the agreement and other relevant webpages at iStock), it isn't. Sure, could be a special agreement, which would severly anger me. Exclusivity is both rewarding, but requires sacrifice, if there is a possibility to in essence be both independent and exclusive, then the very least we should know about it.
Yuri has done well for himself, as well as becoming a poster boy for "microstock", a lot of people active/interested in this industry admire him and it would be a shame if this has been achieved with what I would call under-hand shady dealings. Isn't there any morals around anywhere anymore.
The spirit of iStock has certainly taken a dent in the last year or two, so now even more important to protect it. The spirit was created by us contributors and will only vanish if we let it.
-
... if I'm not completely wrong against the "spirit" of exclusivity at iStock.
... Is the road really wide open to interpret iStock's rules like this, is this something we all should and could do?
Haven't Istock, in their greed for ever higher profitability, permanently destroyed any "spirit" they might once have had? Istock write their own rules (and unilaterally change them at will) so any latitude or 'interpretion' within those rules is by their own design. Istock seem happy enough to break promises and move goalposts if they think it will make them more money. Where's the "spirit" in that? Do you think it's 'unfair' because Istock will only be getting 60% of the sale price of Laflor's port? If Laflor owns the copyright to his images then surely he is entitled to sell them as he sees fit.
-
Haven't spent any time thoroughly checking their portfolios against eachother, but what about sistering and similars?
There's nothing about sister or similar files in the exclusivity agreement.
-
If my speculations/suspicions are correct, regardless if it is against the "letter" of iStock's exclusivity agreement or not, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. A clarification from the powers of iStock wouldn't go amiss, at least then we know if this and/or similar examples are allowed. As I read it (the agreement and other relevant webpages at iStock), it isn't. Sure, could be a special agreement, which would severly anger me. Exclusivity is both rewarding, but requires sacrifice, if there is a possibility to in essence be both independent and exclusive, then the very least we should know about it.
Yuri has done well for himself, as well as becoming a poster boy for "microstock", a lot of people active/interested in this industry admire him and it would be a shame if this has been achieved with what I would call under-hand shady dealings. Isn't there any morals around anywhere anymore.
The spirit of iStock has certainly taken a dent in the last year or two, so now even more important to protect it. The spirit was created by us contributors and will only vanish if we let it.
What exotic substances are you on?
What about Istock introducing the 'Agency' images a few months ago? Not only are those images available elsewhere (as indeed are the artists who created them) but exclusivity was granted without the normal qualifying sales, etc. Where are 'the rules' when it comes to that?
What about Istock encouraging contributors to become exclusive by promising to grandfather their canister levels __ only to pull the rug from beneath them a few months later? Where's the "spirit" in that?
-
The spirit of iStock has certainly taken a dent in the last year or two, so now even more important to protect it. The spirit was created by us contributors and will only vanish if we let it.
Nope, they have eroded the spirit and they will find it extremely difficult to get it back, at least from most of the existing contributors (the ones they lied to about 'grandfathering'). Oh, that was the letter they lied misled us about. We still get the cannisters, which was the 'spirit'. Big deal.
-
... if I'm not completely wrong against the "spirit" of exclusivity at iStock.
... Is the road really wide open to interpret iStock's rules like this, is this something we all should and could do?
Haven't Istock, in their greed for ever higher profitability, permanently destroyed any "spirit" they might once have had? Istock write their own rules (and unilaterally change them at will) so any latitude or 'interpretion' within those rules is by their own design. Istock seem happy enough to break promises and move goalposts if they think it will make them more money. Where's the "spirit" in that? Do you think it's 'unfair' because Istock will only be getting 60% of the sale price of Laflor's port? If Laflor owns the copyright to his images then surely he is entitled to sell them as he sees fit.
If someone were using this as a loophole, the 2nd (assistant) photographer wouldn't keep the royalties, but most likely be on a wage (be an employee). His/her name would be used as the copyright name in a way to circumvent the rules of exclusivity, but the royalties would still go to the main photographer (the employer).
Anyway, I KNOW NOTHING about this, but when reading the recent article (blog post) which led me to do a bit of digging it all just looks wrong to me. Usually when something looks wrong, it is, but I could be the one being in the wrong. In that case I apologize.
As I said before, my wife (who is my employee) shoots as well, we share models, equipment, style, office, expenses and the money go to the same pot, but would I ever think of using her name or details to circumvent the exclusivity at iStock? No. Neither would I train someone to essentially be a replica of myself, let them set up a business for themselves under my roof, sharing equipment, staff, expenses and continue shooting in a style or subject matter that was in direct competition with myself - that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time), and we all know Yuri is about business.
-
that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time)
Well sure, that's the point. Being both at the same time.
-
Other issue is Jim trying to come up with material for his paying audience, trying to convince even more competition to step into the ring. Thanks for that too.
I thought that too. I thought it particularly interesting in the light of this recent post from Jim on another forum __ it does appear somewhat contradictory, especially the final conclusion;
"John, thanks for sharing. Your situation is not unique. Many of the RM
photographers I talk to are experiencing similar declines â€" or worse. It is a
natural human tendency to want to continue doing what has worked well in the
past. But, times change, new business models are developed and old businesses
that used to be lucrative fade away.
In many businesses it is easy to spot when a new technology or technique begins
to take over. Unfortunately, for stock photographers, given the typical long
lead time between production and sale it often takes a long time to recognize
that dramatic changes have occurred.
Microstock is taking over. The quality has improved dramatically. The volume is
growing at an unbelievable pace. The number of image suppliers is growing
astronomically, resulting in greatly reduced odds that the images of any seller
will be chosen for use. Search on microstock sites is more efficient than on
traditional sites. More customers are able to find more of what they need, more
quickly at much lower prices.
The decline is sales has very little to do with the problems in the economy.
Sales are unlikely to improve significantly when the economy improves.
Let me share a little of my personal experience in producing and selling stock.
Back in the early 90s I was approaching age 60, and had built a significant
collection of RM stock images that at their peak were generating $170,000 a year
in royalties. I expected my stock images to provide revenue for me in my
retirement. I plowed every extra dollar I had into producing more and better
images to build that collection.
Then Royalty Free was invented. I didn’t like it. I didn’t participate in
that market, but some of the early RF adopters have done very well over the
years. After a few years of competing with RF I did have the sense to recognize
that the long range value of my image collection was declining, and that I
needed to invest my time and extra dollars in a totally different line of
business. Today, at age 74, when I could use a little extra money for
retirement, my RM stock photo collection is essentially worthless. Some will say
that if I had worked harder at what had brought me success initially I could
have triumphed despite the odds. I don’t think so.
The changes are also coming more rapidly. It took traditional RF almost a
decade-and-a-half to take over 50% of the market that had existed for RM images
at the beginning of the 90s. In less than 5 years microstock has come from
virtually nothing to having a market share that today is probably greater than
either the RM or traditional RF share of the market. And microstock’s share
continues to grow while the share the others are able to command continues to
decline. But before you decide that microstock is the answer, recognize that the
gross revenue generated by microstock is being divided among a much larger group
of suppliers than ever participated in licensing images at RM or traditional RF
price levels.
If stock photography is more than a hobby, it may be time for a totally new line
of business.
Jim Pickerell"
-
If my speculations/suspicions are correct, regardless if it is against the "letter" of iStock's exclusivity agreement or not, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. A clarification from the powers of iStock wouldn't go amiss, at least then we know if this and/or similar examples are allowed. As I read it (the agreement and other relevant webpages at iStock), it isn't. Sure, could be a special agreement, which would severly anger me. Exclusivity is both rewarding, but requires sacrifice, if there is a possibility to in essence be both independent and exclusive, then the very least we should know about it.
Yuri has done well for himself, as well as becoming a poster boy for "microstock", a lot of people active/interested in this industry admire him and it would be a shame if this has been achieved with what I would call under-hand shady dealings. Isn't there any morals around anywhere anymore.
The spirit of iStock has certainly taken a dent in the last year or two, so now even more important to protect it. The spirit was created by us contributors and will only vanish if we let it.
What exotic substances are you on?
What about Istock introducing the 'Agency' images a few months ago? Not only are those images available elsewhere (as indeed are the artists who created them) but exclusivity was granted without the normal qualifying sales, etc. Where are 'the rules' when it comes to that?
What about Istock encouraging contributors to become exclusive by promising to grandfather their canister levels __ only to pull the rug from beneath them a few months later? Where's the "spirit" in that?
Ok, free for all! Anarchy! *. Perhaps we are bit behind the times here in the darkness of Sweden, most of us stick to the rules regardless if others do or don't. We also sleep very well at night.
-
As I said before, my wife (who is my employee) shoots as well, we share models, equipment, style, office, expenses and the money go to the same pot, but would I ever think of using her name or details to circumvent the exclusivity at iStock? No. Neither would I train someone to essentially be a replica of myself, let them set up a business for themselves under my roof, sharing equipment, staff, expenses and continue shooting in a style or subject matter that was in direct competition with myself - that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time), and we all know Yuri is about business.
That is, of course, your choice.
-
As I said before, my wife (who is my employee) shoots as well, we share models, equipment, style, office, expenses and the money go to the same pot, but would I ever think of using her name or details to circumvent the exclusivity at iStock? No. Neither would I train someone to essentially be a replica of myself, let them set up a business for themselves under my roof, sharing equipment, staff, expenses and continue shooting in a style or subject matter that was in direct competition with myself - that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time), and we all know Yuri is about business.
That is, of course, your choice.
I didn't know I had a choice in this matter if I were to be sticking to the rules. I'm completely taken aback that the notion of this set-up or similar would be ok by fellow contributors.
-
that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time)
Well sure, that's the point. Being both at the same time.
That is the POINT! Which I thought wouldn't be ok/allowed and frowned upon by fellow contributors.
-
... but would I ever think of using her name or details to circumvent the exclusivity at iStock? No. Neither would I train someone to essentially be a replica of myself, let them set up a business for themselves under my roof, sharing equipment, staff, expenses and continue shooting in a style or subject matter that was in direct competition with myself - that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time), and we all know Yuri is about business.
But Istock/Getty WOULD do all of that and more, or at least the equivalent, to YOU at the drop of a hat __ if they thought it might make themselves more short-term profit.
What about undermining IS exclusives by introducing TS subs ... promising it was for a different set of customers ... then advertising TS on IS ... then having their sales reps phone big IS customers ... then introducing 'Image Packs' (PPD) on TS ... now heavily promoting Photos.com ... etc, etc, etc.
You need to wake up. You need to realise that your painful loyalty and "spirit" to Getty is strictly one-way. It will not be returned in any way, shape or form. They will already be plotting how to pay you even less and keep more of the pie for themselves.
-
... but would I ever think of using her name or details to circumvent the exclusivity at iStock? No. Neither would I train someone to essentially be a replica of myself, let them set up a business for themselves under my roof, sharing equipment, staff, expenses and continue shooting in a style or subject matter that was in direct competition with myself - that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time), and we all know Yuri is about business.
But Istock/Getty WOULD do all of that and more, or at least the equivalent, to YOU at the drop of a hat __ if they thought it might make themselves more short-term profit.
What about undermining IS exclusives by introducing TS subs ... promising it was for a different set of customers ... then advertising TS on IS ... then having their sales reps phone big IS customers ... then introducing 'Image Packs' (PPD) on TS ... now heavily promoting Photos.com ... etc, etc, etc.
You need to wake up. You need to realise that your painful loyalty and "spirit" to Getty is strictly one-way. It will not be returned in any way, shape or form. They will already be plotting how to pay you even less and keep more of the pie for themselves.
I play by the rules, and I despise those who don't (except Michael Schumacher). If everyone was doing what was best for their short-term gain, both in business and in life, it would be awful. I treat people and business in the same way I WANT to be treated, honest and with respect. Sure, iStock's dealings in recent times can be debated, but it doesn't give me a free card to do whatever I please, there is such things as self-respect, as well as contracts, rules and spirit. That's how I I am at least.
And I'm not asking for anything in return from iStock besides selling as many of my images as possible, paying me my royalties earned, and not see through the fingers if someone is breaking the exclusivity agreement. I will always have the choice of staying or going, you choose who you do business with.
I don't have a problem with special arrangements either, just wish it didn't have to be done under-handedly. Could be as easy as say "In rare exceptions we will offer/negotiate special terms with certain contributors". But by the looks of it this is not such a case - IT DOES LOOK like someone has written their own rules and that I think is utter crap.
-
I play by the rules, and I despise those who don't (except Michael Schumacher). If everyone was doing what was best for their short-term gain, both in business and in life, it would be awful. I treat people and business in the same way I WANT to be treated, honest and with respect. Sure, iStock's dealings in recent times can be debated, but it doesn't give me a free card to do whatever I please, there is such things as self-respect, as well as contracts, rules and spirit. That's how I I am at least.
I totally agree with you. I'm exactly the same (apart from the Michael Schumacher bit... nothing against him, but I'm not into... err racing is it?)
I don't want to make any judgements until/unless I hear Daniel/Yuri's side of the story though.
-
As I said before, my wife (who is my employee) shoots as well, we share models, equipment, style, office, expenses and the money go to the same pot, but would I ever think of using her name or details to circumvent the exclusivity at iStock? No. Neither would I train someone to essentially be a replica of myself, let them set up a business for themselves under my roof, sharing equipment, staff, expenses and continue shooting in a style or subject matter that was in direct competition with myself - that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time), and we all know Yuri is about business.
That is, of course, your choice.
I didn't know I had a choice in this matter if I were to be sticking to the rules. I'm completely taken aback that the notion of this set-up or similar would be ok by fellow contributors.
Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. I'd like to be able to make non-stockworthy but still very usable photos available for teachers for free (I used them for many years when teaching, and I'd like to pay back). I don't care what anyone else would think, but it's clearly not allowed under exclusivity rules.
There is nothing against the Yuri/Daniel arrangement in the rules, so what you or I think doesn't matter.
I really, really don't like they way they headhunted rubberball and waived the rules for them. But 'they' own the ball, 'they' can do what they want. IMO, that's totally unfair, as it's totally against the letter and spirit of exclusivity
Compared to that, I find the Yuri/Daniel thing 'less wrong'; but that's just my opinion, which no-one but me GAD about.
-
As I said before, my wife (who is my employee) shoots as well, we share models, equipment, style, office, expenses and the money go to the same pot, but would I ever think of using her name or details to circumvent the exclusivity at iStock? No. Neither would I train someone to essentially be a replica of myself, let them set up a business for themselves under my roof, sharing equipment, staff, expenses and continue shooting in a style or subject matter that was in direct competition with myself - that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time), and we all know Yuri is about business.
That is, of course, your choice.
I didn't know I had a choice in this matter if I were to be sticking to the rules. I'm completely taken aback that the notion of this set-up or similar would be ok by fellow contributors.
Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. I'd like to be able to make non-stockworthy but still very usable photos available for teachers for free (I used them for many years when teaching, and I'd like to pay back). I don't care what anyone else would think, but it's clearly not allowed under exclusivity rules.
There is nothing against the Yuri/Daniel arrangement in the rules, so what you or I think doesn't matter.
I really, really don't like they way they headhunted rubberball and waived the rules for them. But 'they' own the ball, 'they' can do what they want. IMO, that's totally unfair, as it's totally against the letter and spirit of exclusivity
Compared to that, I find the Yuri/Daniel thing 'less wrong'; but that's just my opinion, which no-one but me GAD about.
If there is nothing against it in the rules, or the spirits of them, I am curious as to why Yuri's girlfriend was booted out?
Do tell about Rubberball. I've seen the huge influx of images, and what basically looks like unlimited uploads, but not any story surrounding it, more than the general Getty stuff being sent over in big numbers. Unfortunately, I'm starting to think that "safest" place to be today is either set-up completely on your own (Photoshelter type thing) or at the core of Getty (i.e. Getty Images, not iStock or any other subsidiaries).
Yes, my opinion doesn't matter, which I'm fine with. I'm surprised that people seem fine with it, don't care much about it or basically saying that is ok to do. To me it still feels/sounds completely wrong. I was under the impression that the Yuri/Daniel example or similar variations there of was prohibited, or at the very least frowned upon. Looks like it is not. How is Shutterstock and Dreamstime nowadays, my dog has some pixs he wants to upload....
-
A mutually profitable arrangement made by two powerful parties in which both get what they've always wanted.
Rules are for the power-deficient.........."It's a big club and you and I ain't in it" (Paraphrased George Carlin).
-
Other issue is Jim trying to come up with material for his paying audience, trying to convince even more competition to step into the ring. Thanks for that too.
Och well, this particular article won't convince anyone. "You can be successful on the coat-tails of someone who is already extremely successful.W
And I'm pretty sure you've said you don't take on apprentices (or any other staff).
But, hey, we could broker a deal whereby you assign copyright on your out-takes to me, I'd upload them all over the place in my own name as an independent and we could split the proceeds 40-60 in my favour. After all, after you set up the shoot, you're covering your expenses already on iStock. I'm taking the time to upload and keyword them. You're making money from your less successful shots of a series and I'm sweetly helping you.
Where "I" and "me" = 'Anyone not iStock exclusive', and "you" = any exclusive high flier
-
Other issue is Jim trying to come up with material for his paying audience, trying to convince even more competition to step into the ring. Thanks for that too.
Och well, this particular article won't convince anyone. "You can be successful on the coat-tails of someone who is already successful.
And I'm pretty sure you've said you don't take on apprentices (or any other staff).
But, hey, we could broker a deal whereby you assign copyright on your out-takes to me, I'd upload them all over the place in my own name as an independent and we could split the proceeds 40-60 in my favour. After all, after you set up the shoot, you're covering your expenses already on iStock. I'm taking the time to upload and keyword them. You're making money from your less successful shots of a series and I'm sweetly helping you.
Where "I" and "me" = 'Anyone not iStock exclusive, (so not "I" or "me" ATM'), but "you" = you.
That could be a new business idea - take on out-takes for all iStock Exclusives and sell them under a new name as independent. Is your fee negotiable?
-
I play by the rules, and I despise those who don't (except Michael Schumacher). If everyone was doing what was best for their short-term gain, both in business and in life, it would be awful. I treat people and business in the same way I WANT to be treated, honest and with respect. Sure, iStock's dealings in recent times can be debated, but it doesn't give me a free card to do whatever I please, there is such things as self-respect, as well as contracts, rules and spirit. That's how I I am at least.
I find it somewhat ironic that you describe yourself as some paradigm of virtue or 'ethical man' when here you are virtually convicting people you don't know of falsities and crimes (which you don't even know have been committed), without any evidence other than circumstantial, without actually communicating with any of the parties involved and without hearing their side of the issue. Is that how you would like to be treated?
-
I play by the rules, and I despise those who don't (except Michael Schumacher). If everyone was doing what was best for their short-term gain, both in business and in life, it would be awful. I treat people and business in the same way I WANT to be treated, honest and with respect. Sure, iStock's dealings in recent times can be debated, but it doesn't give me a free card to do whatever I please, there is such things as self-respect, as well as contracts, rules and spirit. That's how I I am at least.
I find it somewhat ironic that you describe yourself as some paradigm of virtue or 'ethical man' when here you are virtually convicting people you don't know of falsities and crimes (which you don't even know have been committed), without any evidence other than circumstantial, without actually communicating with any of the parties involved and without hearing their side of the issue. Is that how you would like to be treated?
I'm pretty sure the whole situation was thrashed out on an iStock forum a while back, and the bottom line was that as iStock was OK with it, why should anyone else care? Of course, as the forums are so unsearchable, I can't find it.
-
I play by the rules, and I despise those who don't (except Michael Schumacher). If everyone was doing what was best for their short-term gain, both in business and in life, it would be awful. I treat people and business in the same way I WANT to be treated, honest and with respect. Sure, iStock's dealings in recent times can be debated, but it doesn't give me a free card to do whatever I please, there is such things as self-respect, as well as contracts, rules and spirit. That's how I I am at least.
I find it somewhat ironic that you describe yourself as some paradigm of virtue or 'ethical man' when here you are virtually convicting people you don't know of falsities and crimes (which you don't even know have been committed), without any evidence other than circumstantial, without actually communicating with any of the parties involved and without hearing their side of the issue. Is that how you would like to be treated?
The question/query/issue/problem I had was raised after having read the blog post (the heading of this thread). I didn't think such set-up and similars were allowed, therefore queried/discussed it here whether it was or not. It seems it is, or at least that people seem to think that it is and perhaps even that iStock turns a blind eye to it. What do I know? To me this is all a surprise, a sad one to be honest. I have no powers to convict anyone and you seem to have an issue with me asking if an example raised due to recent public info is allowed or not under the terms of iStock's exclusivity agreement. So not only can't I disagree with the notion of the set-up, I'm not even allowed to discuss it?
I don't really care what someone else's side of the story is, I'm more interested (even though I wouldn't do it myself) whether it was freely available to all of us, something that could be individually negotiable, something that is impossible to police or something that quietly was ok with iStock.
-
I play by the rules, and I despise those who don't (except Michael Schumacher). If everyone was doing what was best for their short-term gain, both in business and in life, it would be awful. I treat people and business in the same way I WANT to be treated, honest and with respect. Sure, iStock's dealings in recent times can be debated, but it doesn't give me a free card to do whatever I please, there is such things as self-respect, as well as contracts, rules and spirit. That's how I I am at least.
I find it somewhat ironic that you describe yourself as some paradigm of virtue or 'ethical man' when here you are virtually convicting people you don't know of falsities and crimes (which you don't even know have been committed), without any evidence other than circumstantial, without actually communicating with any of the parties involved and without hearing their side of the issue. Is that how you would like to be treated?
I'm pretty sure the whole situation was thrashed out on an iStock forum a while back, and the bottom line was that as iStock was OK with it, why should anyone else care? Of course, as the forums are so unsearchable, I can't find it.
There we go, I learnt something new and got my knickers in twist over nothing. Whether it is ok or not by iStock, it isn't for me - my (financial) loss I guess.
-
Wow! This thread got long. Out of all the things happening in micro now, whether or not some guy may or may not be bending "the spirit" of the exclusive rules is pretty far from my mind.
-
A mutually profitable arrangement made by two powerful parties in which both get what they've always wanted.
Rules are for the power-deficient.........."It's a big club and you and I ain't in it" (Paraphrased George Carlin).
+1
Well put. Oh how I miss Mr. Carlin.
-
Wow! This thread got long. Out of all the things happening in micro now, whether or not some guy may or may not be bending "the spirit" of the exclusive rules is pretty far from my mind.
Exactly. Istock and Getty just bend their own rules whenever it suits them, always have done and always will. Even the thought that a contributor or two might be doing the same to them I find quite refreshing. I just wish it wasn't ultimately in Istock's favour anyway.
-
Screwing people over seem to be acceptable now-a-days. If I felt screwed or was starting to get the feeling that I want to screw someone over I would just leave. I might have been a bit naive regarding this issue, but I do think that was has transpired is all quite sad.
-
I play by the rules, and I despise those who don't (except Michael Schumacher). If everyone was doing what was best for their short-term gain, both in business and in life, it would be awful. I treat people and business in the same way I WANT to be treated, honest and with respect. Sure, iStock's dealings in recent times can be debated, but it doesn't give me a free card to do whatever I please, there is such things as self-respect, as well as contracts, rules and spirit. That's how I I am at least.
I find it somewhat ironic that you describe yourself as some paradigm of virtue or 'ethical man' when here you are virtually convicting people you don't know of falsities and crimes (which you don't even know have been committed), without any evidence other than circumstantial, without actually communicating with any of the parties involved and without hearing their side of the issue. Is that how you would like to be treated?
I'm in agreement with gostwyck and some of the others that Getty is doing the exact same thing to us. they're reaping the benefits of allowing flexible exclusivity to some contributors...however, we're bound by strict exclusivity and it seems that in this scenario Daniel and Yuri have an ideal sales scenario. seems being the operative term. but since Jim used them as an example and got their approval in advance...we're free to discuss them. my sales have been great lately, but despite that, I feel owned...rather than feeling like I belong. that's a pretty major shift.
I understand where Carlsson is coming from. It's easy to razz those of us who are more by the book, and who are afraid of losing our iStock income. and yes, that has made me somewhat nervous about expressing discontent at times. I'm not a wimp by any means, but realistically they reserve the right to terminate my account arbitrarily. so, yes, that scares me. it also makes me angry that they hold so much of the power and that lately exclusivity is flexible depending on who you are, but I've given them that power by remaining exclusive and I understand that. so Carlsson, I agree with what you're saying, and I think it's being taken out of context. + 1 on the sentiment behind your comments.
-
And the $4 per download seems a bit high. I thought I remember seeing stats averaging closer to $2 or $3 at most.
I averaged about $2.80 per DL as a Silver. I would have to think that a Diamond producing images with a higher than normal rate of EL sales would push $4. Having not been on that level, it's just a guess.
-
No, it is wrong, and against what exclusivity is supposed to mean. I
I say go for it. Certainly iS and others find ways to construe and change their agreements to their advantage any way they can.
-
And the $4 per download seems a bit high. I thought I remember seeing stats averaging closer to $2 or $3 at most.
I averaged about $2.80 per DL as a Silver. I would have to think that a Diamond producing images with a higher than normal rate of EL sales would push $4. Having not been on that level, it's just a guess.
Same here. 2.80 at 25%
-
No, it is wrong, and against what exclusivity is supposed to mean. I
I say go for it. Certainly iS and others find ways to construe and change their agreements to their advantage any way they can.
I say if you can't agree with exclusivity go independent.
-
And the $4 per download seems a bit high. I thought I remember seeing stats averaging closer to $2 or $3 at most.
I averaged about $2.80 per DL as a Silver. I would have to think that a Diamond producing images with a higher than normal rate of EL sales would push $4. Having not been on that level, it's just a guess.
If anything, I think it's a bit low given how many Vetta (and Agency) files laflor has. As a gold for all but one month of the year I averaged $4 per download.
And as far as the general thrust of the comments about violating the spirit of exclusivity, the RubberBall story really removes any sympathy I might otherwise have had for IS in this situation. Where this situation is someone adhering to the letter of the contract, but not the legal wording. I would also point out that IS has the ability to change the contract at any time for any or no reason. They also have the ability to close an account at any time for any or no reason. Given that it's obvious to a blind person what's going on with Yuri and Daniel and they've done nothing, I can only assume they're OK with it.
And the RubberBall story is that they are selling the images they have in the Agency Collection from their own web site under an RF license. They are labeled as an IS exclusive and if any other exclusive did what they did we'd have our account closed. All the Agency images were brought in with no regard to upload limits that the rest of the exclusives have to live with. In the beginning, they were just bringing in everything even though IS had said they were going through the same inspection process the rest of us went through. The toilet door, pharmacy shelves full of logos, toys with brand names on them, etc. showed that just wasn't what was happening.
I agree that one person behaving badly doesn't justify the rest of us doing it, but it does mean that I wouldn't shed any tears if IS got a taste of their own medicine. In this case, given that I think this is all about power, I think that it may be that Yuri's portfolio is sufficiently important to IS that they won't fuss about Daniel getting exclusive benefits. They're also making a tidy pile from the arrangement too.
It's an oligarchy; it's not necessarily fair or ethical, but the rest of us shouldn't think we can act like the elite, because there are two sets of rules.
-
^ the tidy pile they're making is indeed their impetus for looking the other way. but I guarantee you if anyone else did it and was caught...we'd be banned. I certainly wouldn't try it, though ethically I see no reason not to. I just wouldn't, again, because of being at such a disadvantage in terms of the power structure. but it has devalued exclusivity a great deal in my mind. I feel like the rules only go one way. very much against the spirit of messages given to us by admins imploring us to be understanding and respectful. respect is a two-way street.
-
No, it is wrong, and against what exclusivity is supposed to mean. I
I say go for it. Certainly iS and others find ways to construe and change their agreements to their advantage any way they can.
I say if you can't agree with exclusivity go independent.
I say good for all the morally upstanding people out there.
-
Personally I take anything Jim Pickerall says with a pinch of salt. I only read the first paragraph of this related blog and it was enough for me to form the opinion that yet again he is using the shock and awe approach based on nothing but his own speculation, there are many great blogs on the subject of stock photography done by people who really know what they're talking about and I don't count his as one of them.
As for Yuri and Laflor being one in the same or other speculations, there were some blatantly obvious similarities when he first came on the scene which some of us discussed then, surprised so many people are making such a thing of it now but I guess they've got Pickerall to thank for that. This guerrilla marketing thing can bite you on the backside sometimes, some never seem to learn.
-
Hi everyone,
I hope this meet everyone well and in a happy mood.
Frankly, I am offended by the idea that I am Yuri Arcurs in disguise or that he is using me to sell his images. Working my butt of like a mad man, I have produced every single one of my images by my own hand and that has nothing to do with Yuri. I have worked hard, and I mean really, really hard. I have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment and production, I have spent countless hours researching, planning, hiring people, scouting for locations. What to speak of the months on end in Capture One and Photoshop. Just because I happened to have the wits to approach the world's number one micro stock photographer in order to learn the business, that does not make me less of a photographer or contributor than anyone else in the business. Please see things in the right perspective.
Yuri and I sometimes help each other out, and that gives both me and him an edge. The profit margin is of great concern to any good business man. Who wouldn't want to cut one's expenses? I will encourage anyone serious about this business to apply that same principle. For your information we have never shared models. Over time we have independently, on different shoots, hired a few of the same models, because we have used the same model agencies, but we have never shared a model. I can point so several other photographers on iStock that have used many of "my" models, because they are producing in the same city as I am. Just like this guy: www.istockphoto.com/4774344sean (http://www.istockphoto.com/4774344sean) on iStock. He has used many of the same models as me, and I don't even know who he is.
And for the record, if you go to Getty you will find tons of the same models used by different photographers. That is the way the pro version of the business works. If you shoot in your garage with a few of your friends, then you won't run into this problem, but if you travel to top stock production locations then this is the situation. Sometimes I get slightly discouraged when I see a batch of fresh images by some other photog with a model I have just shot. But hey, that's the game. I wipe my eyes an run back into the game!
I could make a long list of people who shoot images with similar style like Yuri. And why is that? Because IT SELLS. I produce images that sell. Why not credit me for that. For all you know I may have taught Yuri a thing or two about lighting.
I have chosen a simple life with least possible headaches in terms of upload and management. That is why I am exclusive to iStock.
I understand that when going forward as fast as I have, there will be a lot of jealousy and a lot of curiosity. I will ask you to please respect my privacy and please be professional in your approach. I am in this to produce great images and I don't claim my method will apply for all. For your information I have invested more than $500.000 in microstock and I expect to break even within 3 years of startup. My sales and income reflect that. I studied practically all aspects of the industry before investing in it. That would be VERY essential for anyone erase wanting to do the same. Otherwise one may loose a lot of money and waste a lot of time.
If you care to know, even before starting to shoot stock I was a successful photographer.
Kind regards,
Daniel
-
Other issue is Jim trying to come up with material for his paying audience, trying to convince even more competition to step into the ring. Thanks for that too.
Och well, this particular article won't convince anyone. "You can be successful on the coat-tails of someone who is already successful.
And I'm pretty sure you've said you don't take on apprentices (or any other staff).
But, hey, we could broker a deal whereby you assign copyright on your out-takes to me, I'd upload them all over the place in my own name as an independent and we could split the proceeds 40-60 in my favour. After all, after you set up the shoot, you're covering your expenses already on iStock. I'm taking the time to upload and keyword them. You're making money from your less successful shots of a series and I'm sweetly helping you.
Where "I" and "me" = 'Anyone not iStock exclusive, (so not "I" or "me" ATM'), but "you" = you.
That could be a new business idea - take on out-takes for all iStock Exclusives and sell them under a new name as independent. Is your fee negotiable?
I'm sure you could find a conversation with my computer-phobic husband mutually advantageous. ;D
-
Without quoting the whole thing, the subject is supported by Dan's response.
Daniel Laflor shines
A very informative and straight shooting response. BRAVO
-
Congratulations Daniel. You are an inspiration to anyone who wants to make a significant life difference in the span of a year.
Regarding iStock potentially allowing an increased uploading capacity to certain members, exclusive or independent. I honestly have no problem with it. It's their business, and I don't think anyone is owed an explanation. They want great content, and they shouldn't have to wait a few years for that content to be slowly uploaded to their benefit. Different rules for different people? Yeah, that's the real world. My differences with iStock revolve around their new commission structure.
-
Without quoting the whole thing, the subject is supported by Dan's response.
Daniel Laflor shines
A very informative and straight shooting response. BRAVO
Can you post a URI to the response, please?
Or are you saying his lack of response is the significant factor?
-
Without quoting the whole thing, the subject is supported by Dan's response.
Daniel Laflor shines
A very informative and straight shooting response. BRAVO
Can you post a URI to the response, please?
See Above. :D
-
Without quoting the whole thing, the subject is supported by Dan's response.
Daniel Laflor shines
A very informative and straight shooting response. BRAVO
Can you post a URI to the response, please?
See Above. :D
Oh, right, weird. Your post arrived with me before Daniel's response did.
-
I must admit that when reading this thread, it strikes me as quite absurd. What strikes me the most is that there are so many double agendas at play here. The most aggressive arguments are interestingly enough argued from the same group of shooters that are directly competitive to Daniel. Fact is, that Daniel is doing great, and by doing so good as he is, this will provoke. Especially when doing better than people that have started much earlier than him. What you don't know about Daniel is that he was an extremely successful shooter even before he entered microstock with some of the most prestigious companies in Denmark on his client list. Turning stock, was just a change of direction. He had the bankroll, the skills, the gear, the contacts and a good friend (me) that advised him to go exclusive to minimize cost's for distribution. Only 15% of my total income comes from Istock, so being able to share expenses on some shoots was a welcome opportunity, that would not jeopardize my overall income by means of competition. There is nothing new to this, many other exclusive and non-exclusive photographers are already sharing shoots, even models and sets which we have never done.
Shooting with Daniel is inspirational, and I wish to be able to do it more. In 2010 I only had the chance to shoot with him once and he was shooting a couple and I was shooting a teen-age group for Macrostock.
Personally, Daniels is one of the kindest and most humble people i know. He has a presence about him and is almost always smiling. I talked to him today about this post, and he was actually quite sad about what people where saying. Give him some respect for what he has achieved and be better than serving him the very same melody of jealous nonsense talk that I also had to endure when I became a success.
One thing that is completely forgotten in this thread is that he invested a ton of money in this and completely stopped his other commercial work to focus 100% on becoming an exclusive top contributor. He took the jump. No ties, no turning back. Did you do that? Did you actually do that? Perhaps he deserves where he is now.
-
Credit to both - but it has unintentionally outed that Istock loophole.
My great Aunt Bertha hasn't even got a camera, but she's got ID and a paypal account. That's all you need for a second exclusive account at IS.
I thought of it years ago - never acted on it. Nor did I invest any more money in micro. Took a regular job and stayed above board.
Couldn't give a rats ass about the spirit of exclusivity - it's the only way the level the playing field and makes great business sense.
Again - interesting to see it outed here!
Enjoy the topic - Oldhand
-
Credit to both - but it has unintentionally outed that Istock loophole.
My great Aunt Bertha hasn't even got a camera, but she's got ID and a paypal account. That's all you need for a second exclusive account at IS.
I thought of it years ago - never acted on it. Nor did I invest any more money in micro. Took a regular job and stayed above board.
Couldn't give a rats ass about the spirit of exclusivity - it's the only way the level the playing field and makes great business sense.
Again - interesting to see it outed here!
Enjoy the topic - Oldhand
Oldhand. You are way off if you think you could outsmart Istock that easy. They would find and shout down your Aunt "Bertha" in a day. No no my friend. Istock knows what they are doing and are way better at finding fraud attemps than that. Exclusivity is not a joke and if you tried something like that, you would probably lose your own account too (as well as Bertha's). :)
-
Wow and wow... and again wow.
I know Daniel from conversations over the internet and what I can say is that he is one of the kindest persons I ever met. And a "rara avis" in this forum - I don't think you ever saw him attacking someone, or attaching rude comments to replies in a debate.
Good for him and congratulations for such a success!
Think of it - there are also a lot of people who started when microstock appeared on the scene. Why are not most of them at the same level as Yuri? Because they lack some ingredients from the recipe, obviously.
-
overall apart from this topic.. where is the limit of "copying" other photog pictures? (talking LEGALLY, I guess pride etc doesn´t matter on stock, maybe never will)
this is a question not some attack, I have no problem with others success
-
At the beginning the whole story sounded a bit "fishy" to me, although I didn't say anything since there was not evidence. I think Laflor deserves an apology from some people here.
And another note: for "spirits" I go visit my local voodoo doctor, or better yet, go to my local bar. No spirits in IS. It's just a business, nothing more, nothing less.
-
My respect to Daniel and Yuri to clarify and apologies if any offence was taken. Yuri is certainly a bigger person than me by having a direct competitor in-house, most be a great friendship - all the best to you both.
I'm still surprised and sad to learn that many seemed to be ok with hypothetically screwing their exclusivity agreement if financially beneficial to them.
-
Istock knows what they are doing and are way better at finding fraud attemps than that.
iStock wouldn't be able to spot a fraud attempt if it slapped them in the face whilst wearing a t-shirt with the words "I'm a fraud" written across the chest. The only thing I think iStock are good at doing is marketing, everything else it would appear is a complete disaster.
-
Istock knows what they are doing and are way better at finding fraud attemps than that.
iStock wouldn't be able to spot a fraud attempt if it slapped them in the face whilst wearing a t-shirt with the words "I'm a fraud" written across the chest. The only thing I think iStock are good at doing is marketing, everything else it would appear is a complete disaster.
Yeah, but IS contributors would spot fraud and out you - even if you didn't do anything wrong apparently.
I think if you did totally different material as contract work for someone else to upload to IS and never tried to use similars and rejects elsewhere you'd probably be fine legally and it would be hard to catch you.
IS has certainly shown that they will manipulate and twist things for their own benefit and I suspect they will more in the future. They have no honor. What anyone else chooses to do is up to them. IS can always just dump you for no reason if they choose, and you can dump them, it just might take a few years to get all your material free from them.
-
Thanks for dropping in to tell your side of the story Daniel. That's a hell of a financial commitment you made to microstock and it must be a relief that it's paying off.
Congratulations on your hard work and success.
I am a bit concerned that the article in question suggests that others can do as you have done. Clearly it has taken vast experience and ability and enormous capital at the outset to achieve it, and the article doesn't contain first-hand information of that nature.
-
'Personally I take anything Jim Pickerall says with a pinch of salt. I only read the first paragraph of this related blog and it was enough for me to form the opinion that yet again he is using the shock and awe approach based on nothing but his own speculation, there are many great blogs on the subject of stock photography done by people who really know what they're talking about and I don't count his as one of them.'
Lol...
-
Actually, if I were in Daniel's shoes, I'd ask Jim Pickerell to edit the piece, to limit the chance of misinterpretations spreading further around the Internet.
-
'Personally I take anything Jim Pickerall says with a pinch of salt. I only read the first paragraph of this related blog and it was enough for me to form the opinion that yet again he is using the shock and awe approach based on nothing but his own speculation, there are many great blogs on the subject of stock photography done by people who really know what they're talking about and I don't count his as one of them.'
Lol...
Sorry Sean __ don't quite understand the point you're making there. Are you laughing at Jim Pickerall himself or RT's opinion of his blogs?
I have to say I don't necessarily agree with all of Jim's conclusions but I do think he's quite generous in the way he talks about his own experience and his sharing of the numbers. Knowledge of the 'history' of stock and the financials can only help in our attempts to project what might happen in the future. It's only through guys like Jim that we're going to get that information too.
-
Agreeing wth the shock and awe observation :).
-
Hi Jim and Daniel,
Thank you Jim for sharing your work for free to this group and to Dan for directly addressing something that was built purely on speculation. Jim, I appreciate your writings everyday even if we don't always agree your information is always enlightening and great food for thought. Much more than I can say for this post. Excuse me for being the catalyst, I never expected this to be the outcome.
This post has been edited.
Best,
Jonathan
-
'and to Dan for not bothering to address any of this, that goes for you as well Jim'
Sorry, what?
-
My respect to Daniel and Yuri to clarify and apologies if any offence was taken. Yuri is certainly a bigger person than me by having a direct competitor in-house, most be a great friendship - all the best to you both.
I'm still surprised and sad to learn that many seemed to be ok with hypothetically screwing their exclusivity agreement if financially beneficial to them.
If you spent as much time shooting as you do trying to get someone at Istock to shut down Daniel Laflor, you might have a different point of view. You seem to have some sort of reverence about the sanctity of Istocks' various agreements and the "spirit" inherent in them. I believe that a photographer can and should use every means available to sell their images. I can also tell you with over 30 years in this business that my assistants were and are always encouraged to use my studio, my props and my equipment. Believe it or not, I get more out of their enthusiasm and energy than they ever get out of using my studio. I can give you a whole list of photographers that I helped start out, and it does make for a lasting friendship. As for Istock, they have proven over and over that they could care less about you, so it may be time to rethink that "spirit" you're so full of...
-
I'm disappointed some posters alluded to Daniel being a second account for Yuri, one exclusive and the other indie. Why anyone would throw that out there without a shred of proof is beyond me, and is a testament to many of us typing before we think when on these forums.
They both deserve apologies in my opinion.
-
Hi jbarber873,
"I can also tell you with over 30 years in this business that my assistants were and are always encouraged to use my studio, my props and my equipment. Believe it or not, I get more out of their enthusiasm and energy than they ever get out of using my studio. I can give you a whole list of photographers that I helped start out, and it does make for a lasting friendship."
Well done, I couldn't agree more.
Jonathan
-
Hi Sean,
Your message is a bit cryptic and I am not clear what you are asking. I don't think the word sorry was every used. Not quite clear.
Jonathan
-
Actually, if I were in Daniel's shoes, I'd ask Jim Pickerell to edit the piece, to limit the chance of misinterpretations spreading further around the Internet.
Well, we do already have this angry mob assembled, so we might as well go after him next. ;D
-
My respect to Daniel and Yuri to clarify and apologies if any offence was taken. Yuri is certainly a bigger person than me by having a direct competitor in-house, most be a great friendship - all the best to you both.
I'm still surprised and sad to learn that many seemed to be ok with hypothetically screwing their exclusivity agreement if financially beneficial to them.
conversely, and I think someone else will say it...many contributors feel 'screwed' by the exclusivity arrangement. I wouldn't articulate my feelings as such, but I feel disappointed, frustrated, and angry that other contributors seem to have special exclusive powers. it's very tough to market your work when you adhere strictly to the exclusivity agreement--which I do. it's also a reality check that many contributors do seem to circumvent the system successfully and get away with it, including copying others' work.
I think it was nice of Yuri and Daniel to chime in. I appreciated their input for sure. I didn't like the tone of the blog from the get go...I thought it might invite unflattering scrutiny. I too think it's big of Yuri to be cool with a friend producing such similar-styled work. The person who introduced me to iStock is one of my best friends...and I'd never dream of intentionally adopting his style. though we often shoot together and similarities are inevitable...we're both extremely careful about not copying the other's ideas or style.
in any case, it was gracious of them both to comment. but I think the discussion is still valid, without their specific examples.
-
Hi Sean,
Your message is a bit cryptic and I am not clear what you are asking. I don't think the word sorry was every used. Not quite clear.
Jonathan
No, your message was intelligible, and I said "Sorry, what?", because it made no sense.
-
I believe that a photographer can and should use every means available to sell their images. I can also tell you with over 30 years in this business that my assistants were and are always encouraged to use my studio, my props and my equipment. Believe it or not, I get more out of their enthusiasm and energy than they ever get out of using my studio. I can give you a whole list of photographers that I helped start out, and it does make for a lasting friendship...
Just curious, if your friend photographers "use every means available to sell their images" and put you out of business, would they would help pay your mortgage at that point?
-
Actually, if I were in Daniel's shoes, I'd ask Jim Pickerell to edit the piece, to limit the chance of misinterpretations spreading further around the Internet.
Well, we do already have this angry mob assembled, so we might as well go after him next. ;D
LOL!!! You crack me up :-) this is funny stuff:-)
-
Okey Sean. My fault I did not see Laflors post, I missed it. My bad. I have reedited my mistake, thank you for pointing it out.
Jonathan
-
Okey Sean. My fault I did not see Laflors post, I missed it. My bad.
Jonathan
You mean, Yuri's post?.... (JUST KIDDING!!!:))
-
Elenathewise,
That one as well ;)
Best,
Jonathan
-
Don't get the point of the blog article. Or, in other words, don't think it has that much substance, at least not for well informed, active microstockers:
People who start out now can acheive great success and make a good living from microstock, as long as the circumstances (talent, investment, luck) are absolutely exceptional - we knew that before. Daniel Laflor is a very successful IS exclusive who started out much later than the top few at IS did - we knew that before. He learnt "a great deal" from Yuri - we could all see that before. Daniel Laflor decided to accept the exclusivity deal, Yuri didn't - we knew that before. The only thing that was new to me are the numbers that are quoted, especially those that are used to compare him with other topselling contributors, and I don't consider the numbers of the top contributors to be any of my business, even though there seem to be people who watch the top few more closely than I find tasteful. But then again, taste might not be a category in the top level of success in any business.
The first sentence of the article suggests that it is aimed towards macrostock photographers in the process of deciding "whether to retire from the stock photo business or get into microstock". All of us round here are already active in microstock, so what's the fuss about? It's about (a) a suspected case of rule-bending which is pure speculation and thus doesn't really belong here and (b) the old discussion of educating others to become one's own (and other's), then better equipt, competitors.
All of the top contributors have their destinctive, recognizable style; Looking at Daniel Laflor's port, I wonder about one "lesson" that Yuri has alway emphasised: Build up a brand for yourself. I for myself can't see his. That's a much more interesting point to me than whether they share sets and models...
-
I believe that a photographer can and should use every means available to sell their images. I can also tell you with over 30 years in this business that my assistants were and are always encouraged to use my studio, my props and my equipment. Believe it or not, I get more out of their enthusiasm and energy than they ever get out of using my studio. I can give you a whole list of photographers that I helped start out, and it does make for a lasting friendship...
Just curious, if your friend photographers "use every means available to sell their images" and put you out of business, would they would help pay your mortgage at that point?
agreed. I wouldn't expect a friend to take what they learn from me and use it to compete with me directly. nor would I treat a friend like a mentor, and then turn around and directly compete. in general we're all competitors of course. but if you are passing on your style to your assistants, and they're going out into the world of microstock and reproducing your style...I don't get why that's a positive?
-
My respect to Daniel and Yuri to clarify and apologies if any offence was taken. Yuri is certainly a bigger person than me by having a direct competitor in-house, most be a great friendship - all the best to you both.
I'm still surprised and sad to learn that many seemed to be ok with hypothetically screwing their exclusivity agreement if financially beneficial to them.
If you spent as much time shooting as you do trying to get someone at Istock to shut down Daniel Laflor, you might have a different point of view. You seem to have some sort of reverence about the sanctity of Istocks' various agreements and the "spirit" inherent in them. I believe that a photographer can and should use every means available to sell their images. I can also tell you with over 30 years in this business that my assistants were and are always encouraged to use my studio, my props and my equipment. Believe it or not, I get more out of their enthusiasm and energy than they ever get out of using my studio. I can give you a whole list of photographers that I helped start out, and it does make for a lasting friendship. As for Istock, they have proven over and over that they could care less about you, so it may be time to rethink that "spirit" you're so full of...
Spent no time trying to shut down anyone. The article that this discussions stems from sparked a discussion, which was kept here and only here as far as I know. I've already apologized to Yuri and Daniel if they were offended. The article did elude to a striking and unusual amount of similarities, even down to the website design. Only one thing separating the two of them, that one was independent and the other one exclusive. That in my curious mind raised a lot of questions - how close is too close to be in breach of the exclusivity agreement.
Helping out and teaching might be one thing. Having trained, and later house a direct competitor in so many aspects (locations, models, props, high-end equipment, subject matter and style) is as I said making Yuri a much bigger person than me - that I wouldn't. At least they have publically stated the official reasons/circumstances to what many could only speculate about.
Regarding iStock and rethinking the spirit I'm so full of....as I said. I respect an agreement whether I feel the other party have stopped doing so or no, if I felt completely screwed over I most likely cut the ties and walk away, either that or punch them straight in the face. I'm not the kind of person that would screw someone over for any short- or long-term gain if for a moment thinking I could get away with it, that is just plain sad and speaks volumes of a person who would engage in such behavior.
-
My respect to Daniel and Yuri to clarify and apologies if any offence was taken. Yuri is certainly a bigger person than me by having a direct competitor in-house, most be a great friendship - all the best to you both.
I'm still surprised and sad to learn that many seemed to be ok with hypothetically screwing their exclusivity agreement if financially beneficial to them.
If you spent as much time shooting as you do trying to get someone at Istock to shut down Daniel Laflor, you might have a different point of view. You seem to have some sort of reverence about the sanctity of Istocks' various agreements and the "spirit" inherent in them. I believe that a photographer can and should use every means available to sell their images. I can also tell you with over 30 years in this business that my assistants were and are always encouraged to use my studio, my props and my equipment. Believe it or not, I get more out of their enthusiasm and energy than they ever get out of using my studio. I can give you a whole list of photographers that I helped start out, and it does make for a lasting friendship. As for Istock, they have proven over and over that they could care less about you, so it may be time to rethink that "spirit" you're so full of...
I completely agree. (The istock talk i don't know much of, but the rest is 100% spot on). I exercise the same spirit in my approach.
-
My respect to Daniel and Yuri to clarify and apologies if any offence was taken. Yuri is certainly a bigger person than me by having a direct competitor in-house, most be a great friendship - all the best to you both.
I'm still surprised and sad to learn that many seemed to be ok with hypothetically screwing their exclusivity agreement if financially beneficial to them.
If you spent as much time shooting as you do trying to get someone at Istock to shut down Daniel Laflor, you might have a different point of view. You seem to have some sort of reverence about the sanctity of Istocks' various agreements and the "spirit" inherent in them. I believe that a photographer can and should use every means available to sell their images. I can also tell you with over 30 years in this business that my assistants were and are always encouraged to use my studio, my props and my equipment. Believe it or not, I get more out of their enthusiasm and energy than they ever get out of using my studio. I can give you a whole list of photographers that I helped start out, and it does make for a lasting friendship. As for Istock, they have proven over and over that they could care less about you, so it may be time to rethink that "spirit" you're so full of...
I completely agree. (The istock talk i don't know much of, but the rest is 100% spot on). I exercise the same spirit in my approach.
Yuri, I am in awe regarding your approach as mentor/friend/businesspartner. I just can't see myself training/teaching someone all the inner works of and branding of Business A, just for them to set up Business A under different name just down the street - that would severely make me feel screwed over, but perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way about. Anyway, if you guys are fine with it I wish you well. Hopefully neither you or Daniel took any great offense, and can accept my apology.
-
Actually, if I were in Daniel's shoes, I'd ask Jim Pickerell to edit the piece, to limit the chance of misinterpretations spreading further around the Internet.
Well, we do already have this angry mob assembled, so we might as well go after him next. ;D
That wasn't my intention at all. As I said early in this speculative thread - it's important to hear the real story from the people concerned. Equally, now that I've read their side of the story, I feel that this issue is between Daniel and JP. I would feel that way if I had concerns regarding an article written about me. Daniel may feel differently, but it is for him to decide how important or otherwise it is to address the issue. It's none of my business how he deals with it, that's just how I would deal with it.
So... my intention was about as far from lighting a fuse as I can get in my own mind. I imagined such a conversation to be a mature, professional and friendly one, seeking to clarify things at source. No hostility at all. I'm sorry if it's been interpreted differently.
-
I believe that a photographer can and should use every means available to sell their images. I can also tell you with over 30 years in this business that my assistants were and are always encouraged to use my studio, my props and my equipment. Believe it or not, I get more out of their enthusiasm and energy than they ever get out of using my studio. I can give you a whole list of photographers that I helped start out, and it does make for a lasting friendship...
Just curious, if your friend photographers "use every means available to sell their images" and put you out of business, would they would help pay your mortgage at that point?
I think that if my assistants "put me out of business", it says more about me than it does about them. Competition is a natural part of business, and longevity justifies nothing. There are plenty of people who would like to put me out of business, but I have advantages that they need years to overcome. If in that time I sit still and do nothing, then it's my fault, not theirs. It is an odd thing about microstock that the old timers who got in first have a sense of entitlement about their status and sales, whether or not their images can stand up to the competition coming from new photographers. When I came to NY years ago to be an advertising photographer's assistant, we would all get together after work and compare notes, exchange ideas and techniques, and talk about where the oppourtunities were. It was our style of "forums" such as this. We competed with each other, but we did not resent each other. When I started my studio, one of the photographers I worked for would lend me equipment, and even film, when I had a job, even though I was competing directly with him. I took accounts away from him, but we remained friends, because that is the way business is. Your attitude of "pull up the gangplank now that I'm in" , is wrong.
-
I think that if my assistants "put me out of business", it says more about me than it does about them.
Oh heck, not that old chestnut. You'd think people want to live on the street when the "nothing wrong with someone beating me at my own game" thing pops up. Well, I guess one has to deal with what they create. I'll just stick to what I am doing, and keep away from training people.
-
I'll just stick to what I am doing, and keep away from training people.
Och, Sean, just when I was getting all psyched up to be your long-distance apprentice. :'(
-
Och, Sean, just when I was getting all psyched up to be your long-distance apprentice. :'(
You haven't seen his infommercial late at night for how to make money in micros? ;D
-
I'll just stick to what I am doing, and keep away from training people.
Och, Sean, just when I was getting all psyched up to be your long-distance apprentice. :'(
:D :D :D
-
You haven't seen his infommercial late at night for how to make money in micros? ;D
...and again! :D :D :D
-
You haven't seen his infommercial late at night for how to make money in micros? ;D
Call now, and I'll throw in a George Foreman Grill and a circular polarizer!
-
I’d like to give all of you some information about how this article came about. At the beginning of the year there was a thread on Microstock Group that asked how 2010 had been. While many reported so-so years, Daniel Laflor reported that he had added 5,500 images to his iStock exclusive collection and that he had a 1461% increase in income. These two numbers seemed fantastic. I thought it would be interesting to know a little more about the photographer who could post such numbers. It would be particularly interesting to my macro readers who keep saying you can’t make a money in microstock.
The first thing I did was go to iStock and look up Laflor. If he had started the year with a couple hundred images a 1461% increase would have been interesting, but not all that surprising. But he has had over 96,000 total downloads. Doing the math that means he had over 89,000 downloads in 2010. That is impressive. Only a handful of iStock photographers exceeded that number. Going to his blog, I discovered that he didn’t start shooting microstock until the beginning of 2009.
At that point I emailed a series of questions to Daniel to try to get a better understanding of his business. I also expressed an interest in doing a story on him for Selling Stock. He responded cordially, acknowledged that he was good friends with Yuri, that Yuri had helped him get started in microstock and that they sometimes shoot together. He also said, “I would appreciate that you do not tell 'my story'.” (Just so we are clear this story or this post was not authorized by Daniel or Yuri.)
I felt this story was important. I had enough information from publicly available sources, even if I had no quotes, to supply some important information to the photo community and particularly the macro community. I felt Daniel had left the impression with his earlier post on Microstock Group that it is easy to be successful (generate significant income) shooting microstock. I thought a little balance was needed. I told Daniel that I could not honor his request not to do a story, but I did send him a draft of the story I had written asking for comments and corrections and told him that if I didn’t hear from him I would publish the story later in the week.
I have the greatest respect for what Daniel and Yuri have been able to accomplish, separately and independently. The comments made by both Daniel and Yuri on this thread are a very important addition to what I had to say and I only wish I had been able to integrate them into my story. I urge everyone to flip back, find those comments and read them carefully.
One of the things we learned from the comments is that while Daniel has certainly earned a lot of money his business is not yet profitable and he expects it to take another year to break even. We also learned that Daniel was a very experienced photographer before he got into microstock and that he has studied the business very carefully before jumping in.
One issue that has been touched on here, but not explored in any great depth is how it is possible to upload so many images in one year. Are there certain exceptions that allow some exclusive photographers to post more images than others? Or have the rules been changed? Does iStock need to change its exclusive requirements given what it is doing with the Agency collection? Is there any logical reason why a photographer should not be allowed to have “other images” (not those on iStock) in other royalty free collections?
Isn’t “image exclusive” better than “photographer exclusive” for all involved.
Another thing which a few who have made comments here seem to have missed is how significant the income per download increase is for exclusive photographers compared to non-exclusive photographers. The higher prices for Exclusive, Exclusive+, Vetta and Agency make a big difference. People with images in these categories may make somewhat fewer sales, but the revenue increase per download seems to more than make up for the lost sales. I have information from one exclusive photographers who averaged $4.95 per download in 2010 and another who averaged $8.60. That is a big difference from $2.40 to $2.80.
-
I believe that a photographer can and should use every means available to sell their images. I can also tell you with over 30 years in this business that my assistants were and are always encouraged to use my studio, my props and my equipment. Believe it or not, I get more out of their enthusiasm and energy than they ever get out of using my studio. I can give you a whole list of photographers that I helped start out, and it does make for a lasting friendship...
Just curious, if your friend photographers "use every means available to sell their images" and put you out of business, would they would help pay your mortgage at that point?
I think that if my assistants "put me out of business", it says more about me than it does about them. Competition is a natural part of business, and longevity justifies nothing. There are plenty of people who would like to put me out of business, but I have advantages that they need years to overcome. If in that time I sit still and do nothing, then it's my fault, not theirs. It is an odd thing about microstock that the old timers who got in first have a sense of entitlement about their status and sales, whether or not their images can stand up to the competition coming from new photographers. When I came to NY years ago to be an advertising photographer's assistant, we would all get together after work and compare notes, exchange ideas and techniques, and talk about where the oppourtunities were. It was our style of "forums" such as this. We competed with each other, but we did not resent each other. When I started my studio, one of the photographers I worked for would lend me equipment, and even film, when I had a job, even though I was competing directly with him. I took accounts away from him, but we remained friends, because that is the way business is. Your attitude of "pull up the gangplank now that I'm in" , is wrong.
actually, I agree with this and wish things were like this now. but they're not...and my idealism about microstock has really done nothing but put me on the end of a good, regular, forum beating. microstock is more competitive...perhaps because there is less to be had...perhaps it's because the agencies pit us against one another. but it's not the same as the traditional photography, or the editorial groups I work with. in those groups the spirit is indeed far more giving, far less irreverent.
despite that, I have experienced generosity from individual peers within microstock too...I just wouldn't call it the spirit of microstock, nor would I call it the spirit of iStock anymore.
@Sean: I was struck by your comment that you wouldn't train people. I would have said that you spend an inordinate amount of time in forums doing precisely that. ;-)
-
You haven't seen his infommercial late at night for how to make money in micros? ;D
Call now, and I'll throw in a George Foreman Grill and a circular polarizer!
I knew it. You're the Slap Chop dude. :o
-
Microstock is more competitive...perhaps because there is less to be had...perhaps it's because the agencies pit us against one another.
That's certainly the truth now at iStock. With their bellchart determining earnings, even someone in a totally different niche is now your direct rival for earnings. A very, very dated model, totally lacking in Spirit. Surely it's better to work together to achieve greater things?
-
I knew it. You're the Slap Chop dude. :o
HA. HA. I was actually thinking more Tom Vu.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlPU-meGQtE&feature=related[/youtube]
-
You haven't seen his infommercial late at night for how to make money in micros? ;D
Call now, and I'll throw in a George Foreman Grill and a circular polarizer!
I knew it. You're the Slap Chop dude. :o
roflmao...ShamWow Guy in Jail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMMxIAn_76g#noexternalembed-ws)
-
@Sean: I was struck by your comment that you wouldn't train people. I would have said that you spend an inordinate amount of time in forums doing precisely that. ;-)
That's just one component of my evil plan. Mwa-ha--ha-ha...
-
He also said, “I would appreciate that you do not tell 'my story'.” (Just so we are clear this story or this post was not authorized by Daniel or Yuri.)
....
I told Daniel that I could not honor his request not to do a story, but I did send him a draft of the story I had written asking for comments and corrections and told him that if I didn’t hear from him I would publish the story later in the week.
....
Oops!... :-) Someone is just too successful for their own good:)
-
He also said, “I would appreciate that you do not tell 'my story'.” (Just so we are clear this story or this post was not authorized by Daniel or Yuri.)
Weird. So, against his wishes, you wrote this anyways.
I felt this story was important. I had enough information from publicly available sources, even if I had no quotes, to supply some important information to the photo community and particularly the macro community.
Ah, the paying audience. That's why.
One issue that has been touched on here, but not explored in any great depth is how it is possible to upload so many images in one year. Are there certain exceptions that allow some exclusive photographers to post more images than others?
Yes. The higher cannister you have, the more downloads you get. At 200 a week, I could upload 10000 a year.
Does iStock need to change its exclusive requirements given what it is doing with the Agency collection? Is there any logical reason why a photographer should not be allowed to have “other images” (not those on iStock) in other royalty free collections? Isn’t “image exclusive” better than “photographer exclusive” for all involved.
Because that's not how IS exclusivity works. If we were "image exclusive", theoretically, I could load up series on other sites, and IS would lose the USP of having just my images (if my images count for anything in the grand scheme of things). So, for all involved (IS specifically), it is not better.
-
@Sean: I was struck by your comment that you wouldn't train people. I would have said that you spend an inordinate amount of time in forums doing precisely that. ;-)
That's just one component of my evil plan. Mwa-ha--ha-ha...
lol...I knew it! and + 1 on your post above...
-
He also said, “I would appreciate that you do not tell 'my story'.” (Just so we are clear this story or this post was not authorized by Daniel or Yuri.)
Well in one respect he got his wish, you didn't tell 'his' story you told your version of it.
I felt this story was important. I had enough information from publicly available sources, even if I had no quotes, to supply some important information to the photo community and particularly the macro community.
Of course it's important, it means you get to write another blog for your paying audience, beats trying to make a living in the industry you speculate about eh!
Personally I like to read the ( free) blogs of people like John Lund and Tom Grill, I get the feeling they know what they're talking about because they're out there doing it successfully.
-
...One issue that has been touched on here, but not explored in any great depth is how it is possible to upload so many images in one year. Are there certain exceptions that allow some exclusive photographers to post more images than others? Or have the rules been changed?...
The upload limits change, but I think for much of the year they were 120 per week for gold and 150 per week for diamond exclusives. That's 6240 and 7800 per year. I think Daniel went from gold to diamond some time in 2010. Given the quality of his images, I don't think he'd need any special rules to have ended up with 5,500 approved images during 2010.
-
I felt this story was important. I had enough information from publicly available sources, even if I had no quotes, to supply some important information to the photo community and particularly the macro community.
So you wrote a long piece, which you hoped people would pay for, which only said, "If you work with Yuri, you can do well in micro."
Nice work if you can persuade people to pay for it.
-
...One issue that has been touched on here, but not explored in any great depth is how it is possible to upload so many images in one year. Are there certain exceptions that allow some exclusive photographers to post more images than others? Or have the rules been changed?...
The upload limits change, but I think for much of the year they were 120 per week for gold and 150 per week for diamond exclusives. That's 6240 and 7800 per year. I think Daniel went from gold to diamond some time in 2010. Given the quality of his images, I don't think he'd need any special rules to have ended up with 5,500 approved images during 2010.
Thanks for explaining that.
-
Hi All,
Just to offer some information that some might not be aware of. Jim started producing stock photography years before RF was even a gleam in someones eye. His modest price for subscription offers up news stories by the day about the stock industry. He travels the globe to be at every event that is of importance to our industry and then reports back the information he has gathered with a non-biased approach. Think of him as the only reporter that is out to tell the stock story from a clear view point, if he didn't he wouldn't have followers.
Don't get me wrong, Tom Grill and John Lund are good friends and a great asset to us all but they do not blog or post a newsletter every day, they are busy with other parts of their business, I consider us incredibly lucky to have people like John and Tom offering up great advice for free.
I wish we had more people in this business willing to report back what is taking place in the industry on a daily basis. That's just me talking because I love receiving and sharing info. Macro/Micro it doesn't matter anymore we are all the worker bees and the more we stay together and educate ourselves the stronger we will be as a group. Power to the shooters. Just my two cents.
Best,
Jonathan
-
There's a difference between reporting events and putting your own spin on things, personally I don't like Pickerell's way of reporting it's too self speculative for me, there are dozens of blogs and web based infomagazines (I might have made that term up) that report pretty much everything about this industry as is so I can then form my own opinion, but it's a free world and everyone can make their own choice.
By the way check out Tom's daily stock project blog if you haven't already, I don't think he's claiming they're the worlds greatest stock photos but for me I just enjoy seeing how he can find a stock photo every day and everywhere.
-
I think that if my assistants "put me out of business", it says more about me than it does about them.
Oh heck, not that old chestnut. You'd think people want to live on the street when the "nothing wrong with someone beating me at my own game" thing pops up. Well, I guess one has to deal with what they create. I'll just stick to what I am doing, and keep away from training people.
The funny thing is, I was a macrostock photographer long before there was anything like microstock, and you microstock guys did "put me out of business". However, I've never missed a mortgage payment, because I'm always trying to look for the next new thing. I was shooting digitally in 1995, when a leaf camera back was over $36,000. I moved into business to business photography just as every art department in the country figured out that a copy of quark made them a ( bad) designer. There are always new opportunities. Microstock is one of those new opportunities. There are others. As for "training people", I stand by my earlier statements. If you see it as a chestnut, that's too bad. And as others have said, you're all over the forums, so I think maybe you're training more than you think.
-
Hi All,
Just to offer some information that some might not be aware of. Jim started producing stock photography years before RF was even a gleam in someones eye. His modest price for subscription offers up news stories by the day about the stock industry. He travels the globe to be at every event that is of importance to our industry and then reports back the information he has gathered with a non-biased approach. Think of him as the only reporter that is out to tell the stock story from a clear view point, if he didn't he wouldn't have followers.
Don't get me wrong, Tom Grill and John Lund are good friends and a great asset to us all but they do not blog or post a newsletter every day, they are busy with other parts of their business, I consider us incredibly lucky to have people like John and Tom offering up great advice for free.
I wish we had more people in this business willing to report back what is taking place in the industry on a daily basis. That's just me talking because I love receiving and sharing info. Macro/Micro it doesn't matter anymore we are all the worker bees and the more we stay together and educate ourselves the stronger we will be as a group. Power to the shooters. Just my two cents.
Best,
Jonathan
I just thought I'd echo this.
I appreciate Jim's writing and the time he spends producing articles. I don't agree with everything he writes (particularly microstock related topics :) )but he is great at analyzing the market, watching trends, gathering information, giving his thoughts and packaging it for us who don't have time (or desire) to collect it ourselves. He speaks from vast experience and a long career in traditional stock - His knowledge fills in the void in stock knowledge most of us (at least me) know too little about. It is certainly substance to think about, and as was the case with this article, definitely got me thinking about my shooting and how I could be making it better.
Jim was nice enough to post the article on the blog here as a guest post (I contacted Jim, no the other way around). I thought the article was a great inspirational piece. Yes I know how profitable microstock can be, but Daniel's story still surprised and impressed me. I wasn't originally aware that Daniel wasn't keen on having the article written, but when I asked him about having it on the MSG blog he said he was OK with it.
So thanks again Jim ...
And thanks Daniel for giving the OK to have the post on the MSG blog... I am sorry for the negative sidetracks this thread has taken....
-
Tyler - it's curious that you're so present and apologetic in this thread. has a thread ever NOT gone negative and then full circle on MSG? why is this one any different. I think the negativity has actually just been some fair questions and comments. frankly if you wanted to step in regarding negativity...there are other threads that could have used some moderation.
If Jim is writing blogs daily with his opinion on things....I think his skin is probably fairly thick.
-
He also said, “I would appreciate that you do not tell 'my story'.” (Just so we are clear this story or this post was not authorized by Daniel or Yuri.)
I made a comment earlier that Daniel didn't seem to be involved which I said seemed sneaky.
If I'm understanding correctly, in fact Daniel was involved. Daniel asked that this story not be published and Jim ignored/denied the request. If that's accurate that's beyond sneaky. Seems like a pretty scummy move in my opinion. Integrity means more to me than analytics and experience. Maybe this was an isolated case but I kind of doubt it.
-
Tyler - it's curious that you're so present and apologetic in this thread. has a thread ever NOT gone negative and then full circle on MSG? why is this one any different. I think the negativity has actually just been some fair questions and comments. frankly if you wanted to step in regarding negativity...there are other threads that could have used some moderation.
It's called a discussion Sweetie. Discussions happen when people have differing points of view. If we all agreed with each other it would be called a concensus and that would become very boring, very quickly.
If you want a heavily moderated forum then stick with Istock. Or do you come here because it is far more interesting when people are having discussions? As opposed to a place where half the people with anything to say have been banned, half the others simply don't bother because if they do then they'll be banned too and threads get locked or deleted if it pleases TPTB. What's the point of that?
Leaf is to be congratulated on the lightness of his hand on the tiller here, not told by you that he should moderate more heavily. It already works very well indeed. I can tell you that he does occasionally step in where necessary __ but not so you'd notice.
-
Tyler - it's curious that you're so present and apologetic in this thread. has a thread ever NOT gone negative and then full circle on MSG? why is this one any different. I think the negativity has actually just been some fair questions and comments. frankly if you wanted to step in regarding negativity...there are other threads that could have used some moderation.
It's called a discussion Sweetie. Discussions happen when people have differing points of view. If we all agreed with each other it would be called a concensus and that would become very boring, very quickly.
If you want a heavily moderated forum then stick with Istock. Or do you come here because it is far more interesting when people are having discussions? As opposed to a place where half the people with anything to say have been banned, half the others simply don't bother because if they do then they'll be banned too and threads get locked or deleted if it pleases TPTB. What's the point of that?
Leaf is to be congratulated on the lightness of his hand on the tiller here, not told by you that he should moderate more heavily. It already works very well indeed. I can tell you that he does occasionally step in where necessary __ but not so you'd notice.
+1, and it's obvious to most, he's more active in this thread because he linked to the blog article in the second post of this thread.... not surprised that flew over your head
-
If I'm understanding correctly, in fact Daniel was involved. Daniel asked that this story not be published and Jim ignored/denied the request. If that's accurate that's beyond sneaky. Seems like a pretty scummy move in my opinion. Integrity means more to me than analytics and experience. Maybe this was an isolated case but I kind of doubt it.
Jim's not being 'sneaky'. He contacted Daniel, asked for his cooperation, told him about the article, sent him a copy and gave him a week before publication to advise of any inaccuracies or objections. Jim describes himself as a 'reporter' and that's what reporters and journalists do isn't it? Well, usually not as nice and up-front as that. If nobody wrote any articles about someone else because they might object to it then your newspapers, magazines and books would be pretty thin stuff. As Jim points out most or all of what he wrote was already in the public domain, much of the detail being gleaned from Daniel's own blog and his post here where he wrote about his incredible 1400+% increase in sales. It was almost certainly that post that grabbed Jim's attention and from which he thought there was a story to be told and industry lessons to be learnt. Daniel has simply reaped what he sowed hasn't he?
-
If I'm understanding correctly, in fact Daniel was involved. Daniel asked that this story not be published and Jim ignored/denied the request. If that's accurate that's beyond sneaky. Seems like a pretty scummy move in my opinion. Integrity means more to me than analytics and experience. Maybe this was an isolated case but I kind of doubt it.
Jim's not being 'sneaky'. He contacted Daniel, asked for his cooperation, told him about the article, sent him a copy and gave him a week before publication to advise of any inaccuracies or objections. Jim describes himself as a 'reporter' and that's what reporters and journalists do isn't it? Well, usually not as nice and up-front as that. If nobody wrote any articles about someone else because they might object to it then your newspapers, magazines and books would be pretty thin stuff. As Jim points out most or all of what he wrote was already in the public domain, much of the detail being gleaned from Daniel's own blog and his post here where he wrote about his incredible 1400+% increase in sales. It was almost certainly that post that grabbed Jim's attention and from which he thought there was a story to be told and industry lessons to be learnt. Daniel has simply reaped what he sowed hasn't he?
I didn't realize he considers himself a "reporter". I thought he did an industry newsletter and blogs. Makes more sense now.
Regarding the information being publicly available, you have a point. I guess when you stick your head up and talk you shouldn't be surprised when someone decides to kick you in head. Even after you ask not to be kicked in the head.
Maybe my view is a bit different from most here but things like this really irk me.
-
Tyler - it's curious that you're so present and apologetic in this thread. has a thread ever NOT gone negative and then full circle on MSG? why is this one any different. I think the negativity has actually just been some fair questions and comments. frankly if you wanted to step in regarding negativity...there are other threads that could have used some moderation.
It's called a discussion Sweetie. Discussions happen when people have differing points of view. If we all agreed with each other it would be called a concensus and that would become very boring, very quickly.
If you want a heavily moderated forum then stick with Istock. Or do you come here because it is far more interesting when people are having discussions? As opposed to a place where half the people with anything to say have been banned, half the others simply don't bother because if they do then they'll be banned too and threads get locked or deleted if it pleases TPTB. What's the point of that?
Leaf is to be congratulated on the lightness of his hand on the tiller here, not told by you that he should moderate more heavily. It already works very well indeed. I can tell you that he does occasionally step in where necessary __ but not so you'd notice.
gostwyck - if you weren't so quick to jump at everything I say, you might have noticed that I made the same point you just made. I was actually mildly criticizing Tyler for moderating in this thread--and commented sarcastically that I was surprised he moderated this one but left other threads untouched--it wasn't a request for more moderation. why don't you stop being so hard on me and other people and truly treat this as a discussion--a discussion typically includes two people allowed to state their opinions without feeling threatened or intimidated.
I'm not always a fan of Jim's spin on microstock...and this one in particular struck me as an unwelcome spotlight on a contributor. despite that, I think the discussion that ensued has been interesting and valid and Tyler shouldn't be stepping in and apologizing for the negativity. IMO. THAT was my point.
-
Hi RT,
I know Tom very well and I swear I have never met a person more on the ball when it comes to stock. He ran Comstock for 20 years and is an increadibley open and willing to share with individuals. He can make a photo out of anything and he knows what and how to shoot it to create the greatest profit. I remember when I was talking with Tom once, he asked me " so how many sock images did you create last year " I was pretty happy with our results and boldly said " over 1,000 ". He didn't drop a beat and said " why not 4,000? " That next year we produced over 4,000 images for Macro. It was like watching someone complete the mile in under 4 minutes. Once I was told it could be done that was the fire that got me started really producing. To this day I owe him a great deal from those early lessons. I will say if you ever have a chance to speak with him I would look upon him as a sort of Yoda in stock, listen and learn. If he were a race horse I would bet the bank on him ;)
Best,
Jonathan
-
I remember when I was talking with Tom once, he asked me " so how many sock images did you create last year " I was pretty happy with our results and boldly said " over 1,000 ". He didn't drop a beat and said " why not 4,000? " That next year we produced over 4,000 images for Macro.
Are images of socks popular in Macro then? Must be if you produced 4000 of them in a single year. Didn't you think about shooting something else though __ despite Tom's advice?
-
well there many different possibilities.
Socks isolated on white
socks isolated on black
socks with headphones
socks with goldfish jumping into them
hey I'd better stop letting out all my ideas.
-
well there many different possibilities.
Socks isolated on white
socks isolated on black
socks with headphones
socks with goldfish jumping into them
hey I'd better stop letting out all my ideas.
lol :D
-
Tyler - it's curious that you're so present and apologetic in this thread. has a thread ever NOT gone negative and then full circle on MSG? why is this one any different. I think the negativity has actually just been some fair questions and comments. frankly if you wanted to step in regarding negativity...there are other threads that could have used some moderation.
It's called a discussion Sweetie. Discussions happen when people have differing points of view. If we all agreed with each other it would be called a concensus and that would become very boring, very quickly.
If you want a heavily moderated forum then stick with Istock. Or do you come here because it is far more interesting when people are having discussions? As opposed to a place where half the people with anything to say have been banned, half the others simply don't bother because if they do then they'll be banned too and threads get locked or deleted if it pleases TPTB. What's the point of that?
Leaf is to be congratulated on the lightness of his hand on the tiller here, not told by you that he should moderate more heavily. It already works very well indeed. I can tell you that he does occasionally step in where necessary __ but not so you'd notice.
gostwyck - if you weren't so quick to jump at everything I say, you might have noticed that I made the same point you just made. I was actually mildly criticizing Tyler for moderating in this thread--and commented sarcastically that I was surprised he moderated this one but left other threads untouched--it wasn't a request for more moderation. why don't you stop being so hard on me and other people and truly treat this as a discussion--a discussion typically includes two people allowed to state their opinions without feeling threatened or intimidated.
I'm not always a fan of Jim's spin on microstock...and this one in particular struck me as an unwelcome spotlight on a contributor. despite that, I think the discussion that ensued has been interesting and valid and Tyler shouldn't be stepping in and apologizing for the negativity. IMO. THAT was my point.
Like gostwyck guessed, I am apologetic and involved in this thread because I am responsible for bringing Jim's guest post to the blog and linking it from this thread. It was with good intentions for both Jim and Daniel's cases, so when the thread turned sour I felt the need to make sure my opinion was clear.
In regards to moderation, I haven't touched anything in this thread. I would have made a note of it if I did.
-
your intentions aren't in question Tyler. :) but I think the article invites scrutiny.
-
Discussions happen when people have differing points of view. If we all agreed with each other it would be called a concensus and that would become very boring, very quickly.
... not told by you that he should moderate more heavily.
So people should be allowed have different opinions but only if they are in agreement with yours?
you make me rofl
-
Hi RT,
I know Tom very well and I swear I have never met a person more on the ball when it comes to stock. He ran Comstock for 20 years and is an increadibley open and willing to share with individuals. He can make a photo out of anything and he knows what and how to shoot it to create the greatest profit. I remember when I was talking with Tom once, he asked me " so how many sock images did you create last year " I was pretty happy with our results and boldly said " over 1,000 ". He didn't drop a beat and said " why not 4,000? " That next year we produced over 4,000 images for Macro. It was like watching someone complete the mile in under 4 minutes. Once I was told it could be done that was the fire that got me started really producing. To this day I owe him a great deal from those early lessons. I will say if you ever have a chance to speak with him I would look upon him as a sort of Yoda in stock, listen and learn. If he were a race horse I would bet the bank on him ;)
Best,
Jonathan
There have been several posts about Tom Grill. He has been a highly respected member of this industry for decades and a mentor to many, He has always been on the forefront of trends. Some of you might be interested in where he thinks the industry will be in five years.
After a friendly discussion in October at Photo Expo in New York Tom and I decided to do separate articles which I published on www.PhotoLicensingOptions.com (http://www.PhotoLicensingOptions.com) on our opposing points of view of where the industry will be in five years. Links to the two articles are below.
Looking Ahead Five Years: Tom Grill
http://www.photolicensingoptions.com/ViewArticle.aspx?code=TOM1002 (http://www.photolicensingoptions.com/ViewArticle.aspx?code=TOM1002)
Looking Ahead Five Years: Jim Pickerell
http://www.photolicensingoptions.com/ViewArticle.aspx?code=JHP2289 (http://www.photolicensingoptions.com/ViewArticle.aspx?code=JHP2289)
Sorry, but you’ll have to pay a few dollars is you want to read either of these articles. I will give you a hint. Tom is much more positive and upbeat than I am.:)
-
well there many different possibilities.
Socks isolated on white
socks isolated on black
socks with headphones
socks with goldfish jumping into them
hey I'd better stop letting out all my ideas.
Socks shaking hands
Socks alone eating salad
Socks typing on a laptop
Socks wearing stethoscopes
Socks looking at the open dryer door with looks of horror on their faces
-
well there many different possibilities.
Socks isolated on white
socks isolated on black
socks with headphones
socks with goldfish jumping into them
hey I'd better stop letting out all my ideas.
Socks shaking hands
Socks alone eating salad
Socks typing on a laptop
Socks wearing stethoscopes
Socks looking at the open dryer door with looks of horror on their faces
And very soon, designer socks drinking Coke in a McDonalds franchise.
-
Only if the mcdonalds is property released-this is editorial lite afterall!
-
Only if the mcdonalds is property released-this is editorial lite afterall!
Oh, whoops, you're right; I forgot!
-
I remember when I was talking with Tom once, he asked me " so how many sock images did you create last year " I was pretty happy with our results and boldly said " over 1,000 ". He didn't drop a beat and said " why not 4,000? " That next year we produced over 4,000 images for Macro.
Are images of socks popular in Macro then? Must be if you produced 4000 of them in a single year. Didn't you think about shooting something else though __ despite Tom's advice?
You couldn't resist, could you? ;D
-
"Socks looking at the open dryer door with looks of horror on their faces"
Wait. What? Socks can haz faces?
-
"Socks looking at the open dryer door with looks of horror on their faces"
Wait. What? Socks can haz faces?
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=vGw&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=sock-puppets.com&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1280&bih=837 (http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=vGw&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=sock-puppets.com&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1280&bih=837)
-
Ah, yes. But those would have to be property released by the mfg.
-
Lol. For the purposes of this example ;D
-
This thread socks now.
-
Hi All,
Here is a link to the quality we produced that year of 4,000 images. www.andersenross.com (http://www.andersenross.com) We also produced all 3500 of our Micro images in three months. I was not in any way trying to boast I was trying to say if you are told it can be done that might be all it takes to achieve it, the right motivation. Tom set the bar and we learned about how to produce and what people we needed to get the work completed, and also an all around different outlook on stock itself. I didn't change my style just ramped up my work load and I got help so I could focus on just shooting and writing shot lists. As Tom would say " If the shutter isn't being pushed you are not making money ".
We shot 8-10 times a month and got an average of 40-50 selects from each shoot, with holidays and sick days that works out to roughly 4,000+ shots, not really that tough to pull off. I had two assistants a producer and a person doing all the back end except the editing. I could never have done it on my own.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi All,
Here is a link to the quality we produced that year of 4,000 images. [url=http://www.andersenross.com]www.andersenross.com[/url] ([url]http://www.andersenross.com[/url]) We also produced all 3500 of our Micro images in three months. I was not in any way trying to boast I was trying to say if you are told it can be done that might be all it takes to achieve it, the right motivation. Tom set the bar and we learned about how to produce and what people we needed to get the work completed, and also an all around different outlook on stock itself. I didn't change my style just ramped up my work load and I got help so I could focus on just shooting and writing shot lists. As Tom would say " If the shutter isn't being pushed you are not making money ".
We shot 8-10 times a month and got an average of 40-50 selects from each shoot, with holidays and sick days that works out to roughly 4,000+ shots, not really that tough to pull off. I had two assistants a producer and a person doing all the back end except the editing. I could never have done it on my own.
Best,
Jonathan
what an absolute pleasure to view - Nice work!
-
Thanks Noodles,
I love your name :D
Best,
Jonathan
-
Impressive body of work, Jonathan. A delight to view. More modern magaziney than traditional stocky! If you get what I mean. Excellent.
-
The question about exclusivity or independant, is always there and always cause a debate. I would say almost all of us would be exclusives if it wasnt for the fact that the Micro market is so unpredictable so unstable. An agency, no matter how big or small that is here today might very well be gone tomorrow or swallowed up by much bigger umbrellas.
The general feeling "out there" from buyers of images, is that the Micro and stock-photographer in general is popping Valium every five minutes because they dont know if theyre going to go on the dole on a Monday morning.
Personally I prefer a big Scotch but there you go.
best.
-
The question about exclusivity or independant, is always there and always cause a debate. I would say almost all of us would be exclusives if it wasnt for the fact that the Micro market is so unpredictable so unstable. An agency, no matter how big or small that is here today might very well be gone tomorrow or swallowed up by much bigger umbrellas.
The general feeling "out there" from buyers of images, is that the Micro and stock-photographer in general is popping Valium every five minutes because they dont know if theyre going to go on the dole on a Monday morning.
Personally I prefer a big Scotch but there you go.
best.
+1
-
+2
-
Very interesting, Sorry for the late reaction ::) :-[
-
I just registered as a new member.
-
OLD THREAD ALERT - FROM 2011.
-
Wish there was a way to put the OLD THREAD ALERT on the first page instead of the last. Would of saved me some time.
That said, I wonder how Daniel LaFlor is doing these days. Betting he is losing money like the rest of us that used to do real well back then.