Author Topic: Yuri admits he's losing money ! (Read 59544 times)

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #150 on:** March 04, 2010, 19:45 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on March 04, 2010, 18:37

Quote from: loop on March 04, 2010, 17:52
Most people wouldn't pay, they would stick to the free search engine. That's what experiencie tells. Paying customers would be maginal, if they see that exactly the same that costs money, can be got by free.

Just to clarify, the free search doesn't mean free download in my example. It just means lower prices, but you get less in terms of services etc...

Judging by the reaction from the Thinkstock search engine, among others at major sites, I bet people would be willing to pay for a search engine they know is extremely powerful, especially if they can take it for a test spin. You could also make more content available via the pay search, and only a smaller fraction inside the free search, plus non downloadable teasers of whats inside the pay search area. In essence you make it more like a club you wanna belong too because it offers things actually worth buying that make life easier for the stock buyer.

Why do you think people pay more to go to Disney Land and not just save the money and go to the more local amusement park, both have roller coasters and cotton candy. It's the experience.

I should point out that Agency Access uses a business model similar to the one I'm proposing, you pay nothing for a freebie 3 day trial, you pay a lower base fee for 1 year access to their database, more to use their email campaign management, and they offer other services ala carte on top of everything - but the bottom line is they are charging for entry into the services.

People are not used to getting into amusement parks for free. People are used to getting search for free.

They wouldn't pay unless they were forced to. Meaning, if Google, Bing, and Yahoo all started charging, and there were no other decent options, people would reluctantly pay.

And even if you managed to come up with a decent pay search, the next Google will come along and give it away for free.

Same thing with newspapers. Why pay for newspapers when it's free online? Very few newspapers are making a successful transition to online payment including the premium ones.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #151 on:** March 04, 2010, 21:22 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on March 04, 2010, 17:41

Anyhow, back to the pay for play search, it could be just like the current model, only featuring higher subscription and credit fees - the search engine being the INCENTIVE to pay more money. I really believe the future is selling access to power search tools, and you can already see how the agencies stack up in order of industry dominance. The top agencies have the best search engines. It's not hard to see this trend. There is one downside though, some of these power search tools would require more human input to achieve - you can only automate so much data entry and have so good a search experience. Sometimes you need that "human touch".

I don't see anyone paying to search when the same content is everywhere. Maybe an epiphany will come while I'm sleeping as to why this would make any sense.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #152 on:** March 04, 2010, 22:49 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 04, 2010, 21:22

Quote from: cardmaverick on March 04, 2010, 17:41
Anyhow, back to the pay for play search, it could be just like the current model, only featuring higher subscription and credit fees - the search engine being the INCENTIVE to pay more money. I really believe the future is selling access to power search tools, and you can already see how the agencies stack up in order of industry dominance. The top agencies have the best search engines. It's not hard to see this trend. There is one downside though, some of these power search tools would require more human input to achieve - you can only automate so much data entry and have so good a search experience. Sometimes you need that "human touch".

I don't see anyone paying to search when the same content is everywhere. Maybe an epiphany will come while I'm sleeping as to why this would make any sense.

The same content could be elsewhere, but can you find exactly what you need in just a few seconds? That's the difference, if you don't think that matters when people select an agency to buy from, your just not paying attention. You also gotta expand the mind a bit more and imagine search technology that goes way beyond just looking for keywords. Imagine custom search brains for each client you buy for - just load in their search brain and it'll tailor the results based on the preferences of the clients previous searches. Theres TONS of ways you can make searching for content faster, and more enjoyable.

A BIG thing to remember is the quality of the database your searching. This is a big issue for things like google to jump over - if your database is lacking in quality information to pull from when searching, your results will suck. I've searched google images in the past, and have been pretty disappointed with the results (tons of irrelevant results), it's a very overrated search to be honest, because it can't totally control the quality of database input, thats why. Istocks controlled vocab, as much as contributers hate it, is a great example of fine tuned database input. Is it perfect? No, but over time it'll get better.

Another thing to point out, exclusive content. I'm not against it, in fact I think its a good idea for an agency and makes a lot of sense. What does not make any sense are draconian contracts that practically hold you hostage as a photographer.

borg · « **Reply #153 on:** March 05, 2010, 04:58 »

Yury said here: The time coming will be rough and just as we saw a lot of macro shooters not being able to "survive" when micro arrived, so we will see a lot of amateur micro shooters not being able to survive with the entry of professional micro shooters. (The yuri clones as they are sometimes called)

This supports my earlier conclusion:
Every hobby where the money spinning, leading to the professionalisation, and transition into the industry ...
One day leading agencies will receive only professionals or most talented photographers, not everyone with good isolations without overfiltering...

macrosaur · « **Reply #154 on:** March 05, 2010, 08:32 »

maybe something got lost in translation but Yuri clearly said that he expect RPI to drop to 3$ soon making his business almost unsustainable.

if he can't sustain it, what about the non professional microstockers ?

you know why he's avoiding any comment about RM ? because he already decided to go RM full time.

just wait and see...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #155 on:** March 05, 2010, 09:06 »

Yep, free RM.

Danicek · « **Reply #156 on:** March 05, 2010, 09:15 »

Quote from: macrosaur on March 05, 2010, 08:32

if he can't sustain it, what about the non professional microstockers ?

We non-pros don't care about sustainability. We have the income from what we are pros in to aid us in ruining the business for you

.

borg · « **Reply #157 on:** March 05, 2010, 10:05 »

RPI of 3$ per month is quite good for me...!

PowerDroid · « **Reply #158 on:** March 05, 2010, 10:29 »

Quote from: borg on March 05, 2010, 10:05

RPI of 3$ per month is quite good for me...!

I typically see an RPI of about $3 - $4 per month, and it's actually been slowly rising not falling. My only real cost is my time, so I'm happy. But if I were someone with significant overhead like Yuri or anyone with a studio, I'd be looking for a Plan B.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #159 on:** March 05, 2010, 11:32 »

Hi All,

Thanks Yuri for coming on and settling this thread a bit. I just got to read it and I read from start to finish every post that was made. It is was surprising how the transition from Yuri bashing and people seeming to know his future business plans were pretty wacky at first.
I think he answered everyone with the 1 million a year right now. He could quit tomorrow rent his studios and live off what he is going to make over the next 5 years for the rest of his life.
That many images and no debt as well as investment in property I think Yuri is a classic example of a very smart business man. He loves what he is doing or he wouldn't still do it. I have lost huge amounts of revenues in Macro RF because of the inclusion of Micro but I still do it because I love it and adjusted to the changes. Done correctly it still makes an incredible income and a pretty awesome way of life.
One person mentioned, whatever makes you happy. I think that was the best thing said on this entire thread, follow what makes you really happy with an intensity and passion and you will usually always be content.
There is no doubt that sales will eventually fall for everyone on an RPI basis in stock, it is basic math like someone else was stating about maturation of your collection. You cannot sustain the same RPI as your collection grows unless you continue to increase your production numbers in relation.
I would like to think I know Yuri a little and I wouldn't begin to try and second guess his next move except to say it will be well thought out and tested in detail. He will play the game till it's not fun anymore, that would be my assumption. It seems to me he is still having fun.
Also thank you to someone for mentioning my work in this link as " the same style " ( can't remember who said it ) please remember that work you see is built for the Micro market and it is selling really well because I am reasonably new to Micro and did some studies before ever producing for the market.
Over time if I don't keep feeding the beast my sales will also drop in Micro. Check out my web site to see some of my other styles you will see quite a difference. As Yuri was explaining a good photographer can shoot whatever his mind can create if he has the talent and the understanding of light and how to capture it
I would say diversification in future markets and spreading your business to other branches of the tree will produce the most fruit. Good luck to everyone and I hope we all can make a million a year in returns.

Cheers,
Jonathan

macrosaur · « **Reply #160 on:** March 05, 2010, 12:01 »

there's another way to make more money with micros and is for ISTOCK to raise more buyers.

istock's CEO wrote his mission for 2010 is to increase istock's business 50%.

now, are they really investing millions in promotions and marketing or will they get this 50%
more by screwing their contributors even more ?

because to me, the second options sounds more realistic, correct me if i'm wrong....

agencies are more and more unable to find buyers and to sell our images.

i think Yuri is thinking about a hybrid solution, selling RM while giving few cheapes
away with micros, low-res, and adding workshops and video on top of it.

but he clearly stated he's after RM prices, not RF, so the cash $ must come from somewhere
that isn't just IS, SS, Fotolia, etc

cthoman · « **Reply #161 on:** March 05, 2010, 12:19 »

Quote from: macrosaur on March 04, 2010, 13:10

Because as soon as he opens his mouth there's a crowd of believers and disciples
foaming from their mouth in awe.

Ha. Ha. Too true.

This just in. Yuri says you should eat oatmeal for breakfast and brush your teeth in a circular motion. Sorry, I couldn't resist. The guy does great work and I respect him and all that he has accomplished, but I don't get the obsession.

ellenboughn · « **Reply #162 on:** March 05, 2010, 12:27 »

I have one word for all those worried about competition, people writing books to encourage others to enter the business and other somewhat irrational fears that the marketplace will decide that microstock will cease to make money. If you really want to have something to worry about, consider the following. It isn't smart business people like Yuri or newbies or more amateurs or more pros entering microstock it's: Flickr

PS "Free" actually will have excellent financial rewards to market leaders in the future and it won't have anything to do with selling ancillary products or links. I predict that it will drive all models from RM to micro. I'm not prepared to reveal what that might be as it is in its infancy and not worth getting all riled up about. And NO I won't be making money because of it or promoting it or anything.

macrosaur · « **Reply #163 on:** March 05, 2010, 12:57 »

Quote from: ellenboughn on March 05, 2010, 12:27

I have one word for all those worried about competition, people writing books to encourage others to enter the business and other somewhat irrational fears that the marketplace will decide that microstock will cease to make money. If you really want to have something to worry about, consider the following. It isn't smart business people like Yuri or newbies or more amateurs or more pros entering microstock it's: Flickr

PS "Free" actually will have excellent financial rewards to market leaders in the future and it won't have anything to do with selling ancillary products or links. I predict that it will drive all models from RM to micro. I'm not prepared to reveal what that might be as it is in its infancy and not worth getting all riled up about. And NO I won't be making money because of it or promoting it or anything.

there's an interesting discussion about selling on Flickr in the Alamy forum :
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=7511&p=1

i always wondered why Flickr doesn't provide any built-in function to sell photos as RM or RF
o any hybrid licence, they would make milions in my opinion, but i also understand that's
not what Flickr was designed for.

the scary thing is there are big clients already browing Flickr for images.
first of all, we should ask ourselves WHY are they spending time there instead of macro agencies.

are RM agencies to blame for being too strict in their editing ?
too much arrogance from their editors in picking up "what's selling" ?

because Flickr is clearly showing buyers are sometimes more than happy
to pay for images hardly found on Getty & friends.

i always thought agencies were wrong in their idiotic selection and tastes,
always pushing for the same artificial stock crap over and over, i'm not at all
surprised client enjoy some weird and creative photo from time to time,
especially if they can deal directly with the author and eventually
get a good price.

but my impression is it's not just about the price, but about something
else, about pictures that would be rejected by QC but that are great
nonetheless.

loop · « **Reply #164 on:** March 05, 2010, 13:24 »

I'm no more at Flickr, but, when I was, all I got was requests to use my images for free and crediting me (with some exceptions where they ofered ludicrous prices) and adding that, of course, they would need the image without the watermark (that was apparent and difficult to remove). So, Flickr is the best place to give away your images or to get them robbed.
And, as a buyer, and seeing the growing amount of people posting with their names images that they don't own, I wouldn't use a Flickr image in my life. Go and use an image that results being from Getty, and you'll receive soon The Letter.

PowerDroid · « **Reply #165 on:** March 05, 2010, 13:47 »

Flickr is a great tool if used wisely. I get many requests from Flickr users to get my watermark-free images, and in reply I attempt to sell them the pics at reasonable prices, based on intended use. Somewhere between half and two-thirds of the time, this results in sales. Additionally, I get asked if I will do freelance work, which in several cases has generated repeat business, creating customers who come back to me multiple times.

ellenboughn · « **Reply #166 on:** March 05, 2010, 14:07 »

Creative Commons now has a new license called cc+ that allows for a third party entity to license the images for a licensing fee. I'm not at all surprised that some people are generating work and licenses from Flickr as stated here. Some photographers use cc designation on their very low res images on Flickr and then charge for the higher res when they are contacted by someone interested in using the image.

And yes, Flickr has some wonderful work that hasn't been driven by what sells. I've said for a long time that the copying of the best selling images is what was damaging rf long before micro entered the scene. The same thing will have impact on micro as those looking for creativity will search outside those venues. I know I do on occasion.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #167 on:** March 05, 2010, 14:17 »

Quote from: loop on March 05, 2010, 13:24

And, as a buyer, and seeing the growing amount of people posting with their names images that they don't own, I wouldn't use a Flickr image in my life. Go and use an image that results being from Getty, and you'll receive soon The Letter.

Exactly. Also, there are no quality or release guarantees. Basically, you've got a huge unedited pool of everything. I can't imagine most serious buyers want to take a risk like that. Or maybe it's worth it if you're doing something on the cheap-cheap.

PowerDroid · « **Reply #168 on:** March 05, 2010, 14:31 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 05, 2010, 14:17

Or maybe it's worth it if you're doing something on the cheap-cheap.

I'd say most microstock buyers are people looking to do something on the "cheap-cheap" and it isn't a derogatory term. If there's growth to come in microstock, it will be in the small business arena... companies starting out as the global economy improves... companies without creative staff or even knowledge of how to put ads together... they'll search for images online and many of them will stumble into microstock and decide the prices are right. I'm trying to build as large a microstock portfolio in preparation of this, as well as increase my visibility in Flickr as quickly as possible, to take advantage of the rise in small business entrepreneurship that a global resurgence will surely bring. I'm fine with dealing in small transactions because I believe the volume will be there (my recent experience is proving this).

PowerDroid · « **Reply #169 on:** March 05, 2010, 14:34 »

Quote: And, as a buyer, and seeing the growing amount of people posting with their names images that they don't own, I wouldn't use a Flickr image in my life.

But there's an ever-growing number of people who will ONLY use Flickr because they're unaware of the alternatives and/or unwilling to explore them. The smart photographers will find ways to turn these people into customers.

PowerDroid · « **Reply #170 on:** March 05, 2010, 14:34 »

Quote from: macrosaur on March 05, 2010, 12:57

but my impression is it's not just about the price, but about something
else, about pictures that would be rejected by QC but that are great
nonetheless.

Flickr can really prove the lack of market knowledge on the part of agency reviewers... I've had photos become very popular on Flickr after being rejected at the agencies... those "inferior" shots have found paying customers.

ShadySue · « **Reply #171 on:** March 05, 2010, 14:46 »

Deleted post: modified below.

gbalex · « **Reply #172 on:** March 05, 2010, 14:48 »

Quote from: loop on March 05, 2010, 13:24

I'm no more at Flickr, but, when I was, all I got was requests to use my images for free and crediting me (with some exceptions where they ofered ludicrous prices) and adding that, of course, they would need the image without the watermark (that was apparent and difficult to remove). So, Flickr is the best place to give away your images or to get them robbed.
And, as a buyer, and seeing the growing amount of people posting with their names images that they don't own, I wouldn't use a Flickr image in my life. Go and use an image that results being from Getty, and you'll receive soon The Letter.

I agree, I have found my images over and over again stolen and featured in new accounts at flicker. I found quite a few of them in accounts that have been chosen by Getty.

Who would risk using those images, bloggers and people who do not have much to risk in the first place.

gbalex · « **Reply #173 on:** March 05, 2010, 14:51 »

Quote from: ellenboughn on March 05, 2010, 12:27

I have one word for all those worried about competition, people writing books to encourage others to enter the business and other somewhat irrational fears that the marketplace will decide that microstock will cease to make money. If you really want to have something to worry about, consider the following. It isn't smart business people like Yuri or newbies or more amateurs or more pros entering microstock it's: Flickr

PS "Free" actually will have excellent financial rewards to market leaders in the future and it won't have anything to do with selling ancillary products or links. I predict that it will drive all models from RM to micro. I'm not prepared to reveal what that might be as it is in its infancy and not worth getting all riled up about. And NO I won't be making money because of it or promoting it or anything.

" "Free" actually will have excellent financial rewards to market leaders in the future"

Where will this leave the non "market leaders"?

ShadySue · « **Reply #174 on:** March 05, 2010, 14:52 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 05, 2010, 14:46

Quote from: sjlocke on March 05, 2010, 14:17
Quote from: loop on March 05, 2010, 13:24
And, as a buyer, and seeing the growing amount of people posting with their names images that they don't own, I wouldn't use a Flickr image in my life. Go and use an image that results being from Getty, and you'll receive soon The Letter.

Exactly. Also, there are no quality or release guarantees. Basically, you've got a huge unedited pool of everything. I can't imagine most serious buyers want to take a risk like that. Or maybe it's worth it if you're doing something on the cheap-cheap.

I'm now using Flickr more and more when sourcing images on the free-free for school lessons. They have the huge advantage of being real and unstaged. Often I couldn't source usable images on e.g. iStock (too stylised, too generic) even if it was possible to purchase there. What I don't understand is why people put images up there without watermarks, if they don't want them to be avai;able under a cc licence.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Yuri admits he's losing money ! (Read 59544 times)

PaulieWalnuts

Sean Locke Photography

cardmaverick

borg

macrosaur

Sean Locke Photography

Danicek

borg

PowerDroid

Jonathan Ross

macrosaur

cthoman

ellenboughn

macrosaur

loop

PowerDroid

ellenboughn

Sean Locke Photography

PowerDroid

PowerDroid

PowerDroid

ShadySue

gbalex

gbalex

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors