MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 14:05
-
Microstock sees it’s first major setback in 6 years and here is why:
http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why/ (http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why/)
-
I assume you meant revealed your involvement not reviled, although the typo made me laugh.
-
You may want to have a proof reader check that for spelling and other errors :). Like 'disruptive', not 'eruptive'
-
I also had a laugh at Yuri's angle investment. But the misuse of its in the title warned me that I was in for some typos.
-
Remember your classics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus)
-
I also had a laugh at Yuri's angle investment. But the misuse of its in the title warned me that I was in for some typos.
Well, no duh. Nobody is investing in curves anymore. Angles are the future. ;)
I shouldn't joke. I make typos all the time.
-
hahahahhahahahaha I will get back to you guys when I stop laughing
-
Al hale the mitey keeng Arcurs!!!
-
The misuse of its in the title warned me that I was in for some typos.
"Its" without the apostrophe is correct in that context. It's right how he has written it. "Its" without the apostrophe is the possessive.
It is a grammatical and spelling exception.
-
The misuse of its in the title warned me that I was in for some typos.
"Its" without the apostrophe is correct in that context. It is right how he has written it. "Its" without the apostrophe is the possessive.
It is a grammatical and spelling exception.
It's been edited. When I checked the page a few minutes ago, it was it's.
-
"Regardless of how you look at it, our redrawel of images from microstock constitute the first substantial setback in microstock history."
Yeah, ok, lol.
-
Reading between the lines I get the impression things aren't going as well with the Getty deal as you'd expected, I'm not sure a blog post trying to convince buyers that they should now buy at Getty just because you're there will help that much, but I suppose you've got to try something.
-
Hi Guys. Im here. I have the next 1-2h. Send me some proper questions
-
So, iStock is lying when they say they are the only site hosting your images
-
So, iStock is lying when they say they are the only site hosting your images
Great post
-
So, iStock is lying when they say they are the only site hosting your images
No. They are not. Exclusive does not mean Istock only. It means partner sites as well. This can't be news.
-
For the last two years there has been an opt in/opt out of partner programs. We are one of those programs
-
So, iStock is lying when they say they are the only site hosting your images
No. They are not. Exclusive does not mean Istock only. It means partner sites as well. This can't be news.
So how come your images are still on dreamstime?
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-helpful-chef-image29498268 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-helpful-chef-image29498268)
If i had to go exclusive I'd have to remove all my images first from other agencies. Can u explain why you seem to have images at DT?
-
You might have noticed huge amounts of images being removed from micro subscription sites such as Shutterstock.com, Fotolia.com, Dreamstime.com etc.
because we (contributors) looked for it, bet buyers haven't felt a thing
You might also have noticed that Shutterstock’s stock have dropped more than 12% over the past week.
yeah because of you
Perhaps you have also seen the public statement that GettyImages made about Yuri Arcurs and PeopleImages.com going exclusive with Getty/Istock and removing close to 100’000 images from competitors (Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, etc)
we (contributors) have seen it and actually we are talking about 60k files, guess you are learning maths with professionals back at GI
And if you keep a really close eye on this industry, you might have noticed that on the same day as the Getty announcement (July 16th), I also revealed my involvement in Scoopshot.com through a 1.4mil USD angle investment at a press conference in London. You can read more about it on techcrunch.
indeed, a genius move, we talking about a wow collection
To sum up: In one day, microstock saw a public release confirming that Yuri Arcurs (me) and all our 20 photographers (70% of which are on the top 10 in the world) and our entire peopleimages.com production house, would leave and move all images to Istock/Getty. They witnessed an otherwise underestimated industry (mobile photography, scoopshot.com) being granted a seal of trust in a 1.2mil USD investment.
21 x 0.7 = 14 ... 14 photographers on the top 10 OK
Furthermore, and perhaps the most interesting part: most of us would have been in the belief that sites like Shutterstock, Fotolia and others where the disruptive industry, now have to consider if they are in fact being disrupted themselves, by mobile photography.
again brilliant collection at scoopshot
Holy cow, what a week.
believe you are talking about the 2 months you took to leave microstock for good while feeding your pockets at contributors/buyers expense
Thinking back I must admit, that my chances where low: when 20% of the CEO’s where sleeping in the sun, 20% had no clue what the industry was actually about, 15% thought that the only food customers needed was burgers and if they did not eat it for breakfast we just needed to convince them. The 35% rest where paralyzed by the initial success and for all means did not want the change anything.
again you are having maths problem (by 10%) but lets say those 10% mean you don't know have a clue about this industry as well, believe if you can blame other sure they can blame you
just to finish you have spoken about mobile photography like 10 times, maybe try one more because we aren't still convinced ;D
-
So, iStock is lying when they say they are the only site hosting your images
No. They are not. Exclusive does not mean Istock only. It means partner sites as well. This can't be news.
From your press release:
"iStockphoto is now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found"
Pretty clear.
-
Hi Yuri,
How are model releases handled on scoopshot?
Good luck,
Mark
-
excellent Yuri !
this press release will be the nail in the coffin for the few microstockers left who still dream about the downfall of Getty, RM, and the so called "macrosaurs".
and yeah, if the top micro agencies can't keep their top sellers investors have definitely a hot potato in their hands or at least some will read it that way.
-
Yuri, I used to respect you and what you've been able to accomplish in microstock. But the way you've handled this is really disgusting.
Microstock companies gave you the opportunity to become what you are today. Maybe you've outgrown them, but it's really disrespectful to mock these companies on your way out the door, saying things like "professionals work with professionals" and calling your departure "the first substantial setback in microstock history."
You aren't microstock. We all are, and some of us real professionals in microstock wouldn't act like children on our way out the door if we ever opted to move on.
-
You might have noticed huge amounts of images being removed from micro subscription sites such as Shutterstock.com, Fotolia.com, Dreamstime.com etc.
because we (contributors) looked for it, bet buyers haven't felt a thing
You might also have noticed that Shutterstock’s stock have dropped more than 12% over the past week.
yeah because of you
Perhaps you have also seen the public statement that GettyImages made about Yuri Arcurs and PeopleImages.com going exclusive with Getty/Istock and removing close to 100’000 images from competitors (Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, etc)
we (contributors) have seen it and actually we are talking about 60k files, guess you are learning maths with professionals back at GI
And if you keep a really close eye on this industry, you might have noticed that on the same day as the Getty announcement (July 16th), I also revealed my involvement in Scoopshot.com through a 1.4mil USD angle investment at a press conference in London. You can read more about it on techcrunch.
indeed, a genius move, we talking about a wow collection
To sum up: In one day, microstock saw a public release confirming that Yuri Arcurs (me) and all our 20 photographers (70% of which are on the top 10 in the world) and our entire peopleimages.com production house, would leave and move all images to Istock/Getty. They witnessed an otherwise underestimated industry (mobile photography, scoopshot.com) being granted a seal of trust in a 1.2mil USD investment.
21 x 0.7 = 14 ... 14 photographers on the top 10 OK
Furthermore, and perhaps the most interesting part: most of us would have been in the belief that sites like Shutterstock, Fotolia and others where the disruptive industry, now have to consider if they are in fact being disrupted themselves, by mobile photography.
again brilliant collection at scoopshot
Holy cow, what a week.
believe you are talking about the 2 months you took to leave microstock for good while feeding your pockets at contributors/buyers expense
Thinking back I must admit, that my chances where low: when 20% of the CEO’s where sleeping in the sun, 20% had no clue what the industry was actually about, 15% thought that the only food customers needed was burgers and if they did not eat it for breakfast we just needed to convince them. The 35% rest where paralyzed by the initial success and for all means did not want the change anything.
again you are having maths problem (by 10%) but lets say those 10% mean you don't know have a clue about this industry as well, believe if you can blame other sure they can blame you
just to finish you have spoken about mobile photography like 10 times, maybe try one more because we aren't still convinced ;D
You are really angry! Why? I made your day didn't I?
-
Could u be kind enough to answer my question please Yuri as to why you still have images on DT?
Thanks
-
Hi Yuri,
How are model releases handled on scoopshot?
Good luck,
Mark
Scoopshot is editorial. Only when customers wants to use the images as a commercial product a model release is required.
-
excellent Yuri !
this press release will be the nail in the coffin for the few microstockers left who still dream about the downfall of Getty, RM, and the so called "macrosaurs".
and yeah, if the top micro agencies can't keep their top sellers investors have definitely a hot potato in their hands or at least some will read it that way.
True.
-
Scoopshot : well maybe i'm an old fart but the only business model i see about it is selling the startup to the next buyer in line after 1-2 yrs, maybe for 10-20 millions $ if lucky !
reason : many others tried this path already and got burned, including Getty.
but apart this there's a myriad of issues that are still downplayed, copyright and model/property releases for instance, scams and stolen images, etc etc, and obviously the price is too low to give decent photographers or even amateurs a good reason to invest energy and time, might be good for students with iphones and droids but they will quickly realize a "task" can easily take hours of hard work and earn a pittance.
i will try it out but i rest my case.
-
Could u be kind enough to answer my question please Yuri as to why you still have images on DT?
Thanks
I actually don't know. I will have to reference my distribution team tomorrow. I presume most will be removed quite soon.
-
You are really angry! Why? I made your day didn't I?
yes I expected that from you, running away from replying properly and yes you have made my day, still laughing!
you are so full of yourself and full of crap too ;D
-
Yuri, you most likely won't answer this the way we want you to, but I will ask anyway:
After the years (!) of iStock giving us proof of not being able to listen to (well established, professional) contributors AND constantly (to this day) having severe problems with their day to day business operations (site up-time, staff replacements, seemingly untested implementation of new features, inability to pay contributors, the list is endless, literally), what in heaven's name did Getty promise you to simply overlook all these previously mentioned facts?
Thanks for reading and even more thanks for a potential answer to that.
-
Yuri,
- a lot of photographers expected You to have social responsibility - being a major player in the field You have b seen seen as a "protector" and leader of contributors. Now You have "abandoned" them. Can You please comment on that
- do you think mobile photography is the only future income source for part-time photographers which get their moderate income on microstocks nowadays
- where do You stand in recent "Google case" Getty have had ?
thank You in advance
-
Could u be kind enough to answer my question please Yuri as to why you still have images on DT?
Thanks
I actually don't know. I will have to reference my distribution team tomorrow. I presume most will be removed quite soon.
those su-ckers scratch hard their ass, what a joke!
-
Yuri, from your experience and knowledge,
1. do you believe there will be any raise of .38 SS subscription royalty bar, maybe at quite high sales level, in the nearest future (let's say 12 months)?
2. do you believe prices for credit sales on major microsites will go any higher than current level in next 12 months or you believe we will see exactly the opposite?
3. now you obviously see a new horizons in raising income for YAP, comparing to horizons you've seen on micros, how big it is? the number you expect to have in 2014 and 2015 financial years now, how does it relate to the numbers for 2014 and 2015 you would expect to have if would stay on micros?
thank you!
-
Why did you spend all that money on peopleimages just to make it a partner of Getty/iStock? I'm sure you've negotiated a better percentage than us plebs, but still, they must be taking something.
-
Yuri, I used to respect you and what you've been able to accomplish in microstock. But the way you've handled this is really disgusting.
Microstock companies gave you the opportunity to become what you are today. Maybe you've outgrown them, but it's really disrespectful to mock these companies on your way out the door, saying things like "professionals work with professionals" and calling your departure "the first substantial setback in microstock history."
You aren't microstock. We all are, and some of us real professionals in microstock wouldn't act like children on our way out the door if we ever opted to move on.
I completely agree. So why do you think I am saying what I do? Think deeper my friend. :)
-
You are really angry! Why? I made your day didn't I?
yes I expected that from you, running away from replying properly and yes you have made my day, still laughing!
you are so full of yourself and full of crap too ;D
Arghh. That was low. I'm here. I listen and write back and this is what you want to say. Not worth my time.
-
Godt gået Jakob. Jeg har brug for at læse din artikel et par gange mere, for helt at forstå den.
Men jeg tror du har ret i din kurs og dit perspektiv for fremtinden mht mobiler og hvor billederne kommer fra. Et nyt skridt op mht crowdsourcing. Det er nok rigtigt set.
Det er sjovt nok at se at janteloven sandelig også gælder ude i verden.
-
40% marketing hype / 60% rings true
Yuri was able to swing this deal because he built a functional site and the micros knew that he and other's like him could start a bleed on market share. Frankly, I think they feared that he could successfully start a cooperative site.
Like it or not his site is extremely functional and he built it with the customer in mind.
"The main objective is to address the customer feedback I have collected over the years and create ingenious solutions to the problems they revealed. Problems such as how do I find a “normal looking” person and not overly “model looking” is solved by our looks selector in the model sidebar. If you come from Denmark for example, it is now possible to see what images other people from Denmark think look Danish, by using our country selector. You can drag and drop images into collections and collectively share and discus them with your colleagues in a chat room like environment by clicking the lightbox. You can save searches you do a lot, you can create alerts for when new images arrive matching things you are interested in. You can request custom retouching on images to extend them, find that extra copy space and get it back in just hours, and as the only site in the world you can get all files in a PNG (transparent background) format. Notice that from all of the above mentioned features, there is not one site in the world that has ANY of these features. Not one. Furthermore, by cutting out the middleman we can keep the same prices but provide a whole new level of service."
I am going to over look the marketing hype and spelling errors. I would be willing to bet that more than a few shooter out there find themselves in the following position. Great for the micros and buyers but not so great for the content providers. How do you spell unsustainable again?
"I would estimate that for the last three years I tried very hard to convince myself that microstock was in fact the right place for the professional photographer. After all, my photography carrier was born here. Perhaps exactly because of that, I tried so hard to disregard a growing mismatch between microstock and myself, in product refinement, sophistication and budget. As you grow in skills, as your company grows, our distribution partners in microstock did not. Some agencies where ok, but in total, as a mass and as a workplace, the picture was not nice. Sometimes it felt like having a michelin restaurant inside a burger joint and at the same time having to match the prices. At some point the professional get’s tired of selling 12 course testing menues at 0300AM at burger prices."
-
Yuri, you most likely won't answer this the way we want you to, but I will ask anyway:
After the years (!) of iStock giving us proof of not being able to listen to (well established, professional) contributors AND constantly (to this day) having severe problems with their day to day business operations (site up-time, staff replacements, seemingly untested implementation of new features, inability to pay contributors, the list is endless, literally), what in heaven's name did Getty promise you to simply overlook all these previously mentioned facts?
Thanks for reading and even more thanks for a potential answer to that.
Now here is something that is interesting. I could really get in trouble here. I will kindly remind you that a certain CEO left the company about 2 years ago and most of the matters you are addressing dates back to then....
-
Godt gået Jakob. Jeg har brug for at læse din artikel et par gange mere, for helt at forstå den.
Men jeg tror du har ret i din kurs og dit perspektiv for fremtinden mht mobiler og hvor billederne kommer fra. Et nyt skridt op mht crowdsourcing. Det er nok rigtigt set.
Det er sjovt nok at se at janteloven sandelig også gælder ude i verden.
Hej Jesper. Ja. Sådan er det. Jeg får så mange tæsk hver gang. Sådan er det. Man bliver hårdhudet. Men ja. vær smart nu. Dem som ikke ser sammenligningen mellem mobile stock og micro tilbage i 2005, er nok desvære en "lost case". Tak for fine ord. God vind i DK!
-
You are really angry! Why? I made your day didn't I?
yes I expected that from you, running away from replying properly and yes you have made my day, still laughing!
you are so full of yourself and full of crap too ;D
Arghh. That was low. I'm here. I listen and write back and this is what you want to say. Not worth my time.
playing the victim? oh man its hurts hearing the truth right? actually you were never part of this community, not only looking at this forum but also in terms of joining efforts in changing anything in this industry (the one that feed you and now you are spitting on), it was always about you and you and you and the way you talk here and press release show that very well
-
i dont understand all this negativity and envy towards Yuri.
he's also making clear that after endless talks with the micro agencies owners there's no way at the horizon to see a raise in price or fees, so this should finally settle the question once and for all.
i've the feeling for many here it will mark the "end of a dream" but they can't say they've not been warned since the beginning, it was obvious to see a clear pattern where the top sellers moved out to greener pastures or started their own agencies and where agencies became greedier and greedier leaving nothing to their suppliers.
-
Hi Yuri,
Thank you so much for taking 1-2 hours out of your precious schedule for us mere mortals. My question is why would you defecate all over the agencies that feed our children? You seem like a really smart guy, can you not figure out a way to make you millions without pulling down the companies that we rely on for our daily bread?
Thanks again for your time.
-
Hi Yuri
How do you see the future of subscription sites like Shutterstock? Will they loose more quality producers?
What direction will the micro agencies go? Will they lower commissions further for short term profits? Or do you think major agencies like Shutterstock is finally going to wake up and realize that they need to pay their top photographers more, if they want them to stick around?
-
Yuri, you most likely won't answer this the way we want you to, but I will ask anyway:
After the years (!) of iStock giving us proof of not being able to listen to (well established, professional) contributors AND constantly (to this day) having severe problems with their day to day business operations (site up-time, staff replacements, seemingly untested implementation of new features, inability to pay contributors, the list is endless, literally), what in heaven's name did Getty promise you to simply overlook all these previously mentioned facts?
Thanks for reading and even more thanks for a potential answer to that.
Now here is something that is interesting. I could really get in trouble here. I will kindly remind you that a certain CEO left the company about 2 years ago and most of the matters you are addressing dates back to then....
What are you? PhotoMan(iac) or PhotoMouse?
-
Other than echoing other people's comments that you need to get an editor to look over your work before you post it, I can only suggest that you keep a weather eye on your new business partner. Good luck beating the odds - their past performance speaks volumes.
I think you're way off base on the mobile photography business (and I have no real axe to grind one way or the other) but time will tell. If it is a big new thing, we all own the means to join in (a mobile phone) .
Your enthusiasm reminds me a bit of some of Bruce's posts after Getty acquired iStock. Just about every promise Getty made then has been broken, multiple times.
We'll certainly all be watching your progress with interest.
-
Yuri, you most likely won't answer this the way we want you to, but I will ask anyway:
After the years (!) of iStock giving us proof of not being able to listen to (well established, professional) contributors AND constantly (to this day) having severe problems with their day to day business operations (site up-time, staff replacements, seemingly untested implementation of new features, inability to pay contributors, the list is endless, literally), what in heaven's name did Getty promise you to simply overlook all these previously mentioned facts?
Thanks for reading and even more thanks for a potential answer to that.
Now here is something that is interesting. I could really get in trouble here. I will kindly remind you that a certain CEO left the company about 2 years ago and most of the matters you are addressing dates back to then....
Since you're still part of the iStock family I wonder why you don't seem to be concerned about their IT department skills that have proven to preform miserably up to this day (PP reporting, ringing any bells?).
So for how much longer is the CEO, that left the company 2 years ago, going to be held responsible for all this?
Thanks anyway for taking the time.
-
Yuri, you most likely won't answer this the way we want you to, but I will ask anyway:
After the years (!) of iStock giving us proof of not being able to listen to (well established, professional) contributors AND constantly (to this day) having severe problems with their day to day business operations (site up-time, staff replacements, seemingly untested implementation of new features, inability to pay contributors, the list is endless, literally), what in heaven's name did Getty promise you to simply overlook all these previously mentioned facts?
Thanks for reading and even more thanks for a potential answer to that.
Now here is something that is interesting. I could really get in trouble here. I will kindly remind you that a certain CEO left the company about 2 years ago and most of the matters you are addressing dates back to then....
Yuri, have you been assured from the current general manager that there will be improvements at istock? In terms of site functionality, contributor relations, etc?
-
i've the feeling for many here it will mark the "end of a dream" but they can't say they've not been warned since the beginning
again your warnings/predictions since 1900 about this evil industry, once more you are helping us, so happy to have you around!
-
i dont understand all this negativity and envy towards Yuri.
he's also making clear that after endless talks with the micro agencies owners there's no way at the horizon to see a raise in price or fees, so this should finally settle the question once and for all.
i've the feeling for many here it will mark the "end of a dream" but they can't say they've not been warned since the beginning, it was obvious to see a clear pattern where the top sellers moved out to greener pastures or started their own agencies and where agencies became greedier and greedier leaving nothing to their suppliers.
Yes. Greener fields. Hmm. You are right.
-
Could u be kind enough to answer my question please Yuri as to why you still have images on DT?
Thanks
I actually don't know. I will have to reference my distribution team tomorrow. I presume most will be removed quite soon.
There are 176 pages of your images on DT
-
"Regardless of how you look at it, our redrawel of images from microstock constitute the first substantial setback in microstock history."
Yeah, ok, lol.
I think Yuri is under-selling his own impact there. He really should be describing his 'redrawel' of a few images in the greater context of WORLD HISTORY. His impact is probably somewhere between the exodus of humankind from Africa and the landing of man on the moon __ maybe a bit bigger than both of those come to think of it.
It might even be the greatest 'redrawel of images' ever. It's certainly the first one I've ever heard of.
-
Could u be kind enough to answer my question please Yuri as to why you still have images on DT?
Thanks
I actually don't know. I will have to reference my distribution team tomorrow. I presume most will be removed quite soon.
There are 176 pages of your images on DT
35,107 images... easy to miss
-
Yuri,
- a lot of photographers expected You to have social responsibility - being a major player in the field You have b seen seen as a "protector" and leader of contributors. Now You have "abandoned" them. Can You please comment on that
- do you think mobile photography is the only future income source for part-time photographers which get their moderate income on microstocks nowadays
- where do You stand in recent "Google case" Getty have had ?
thank You in advance
Now this is interesting. I know I have that status and I know it will look like I'm abandoning my post-keeper position. However. Read this post in 6mth from now. I have a gameplan, but you wont see it now.
-
Jeg hedder nu Jens.
One thing, Yuri, your business decisions seem very sharp, they have always done.
But you are not the best at telling the story, not as good as you could be, just look here, people ask the wrong questions and doubt your motives.
I suggest you take a week off at some tropical island with a good amount of shade providing palm trees and then do ONE WEEK of serious self education.
Simply by reading Winston Churchills books. First he provides a detailled description of many things you did not know, alone that is interesting. But he really could twist a story so it supported his interests. He was a master of spin. Levels and levels of it.
-
Good luck with your endeavours, Yuri. May your success be even bigger than your ego.
-
Could u be kind enough to answer my question please Yuri as to why you still have images on DT?
Thanks
I actually don't know. I will have to reference my distribution team tomorrow. I presume most will be removed quite soon.
There are 176 pages of your images on DT
35,107 images... easy to miss
You guys sound as though you are personally injured by this.
Good job Yuri, I can't find any fault in you doing what you think is best for you. Do you have any info that you can share on upcoming changes at Istock?
-
Yuri, from your experience and knowledge,
1. do you believe there will be any raise of .38 SS subscription royalty bar, maybe at quite high sales level, in the nearest future (let's say 12 months)?
2. do you believe prices for credit sales on major microsites will go any higher than current level in next 12 months or you believe we will see exactly the opposite?
3. now you obviously see a new horizons in raising income for YAP, comparing to horizons you've seen on micros, how big it is? the number you expect to have in 2014 and 2015 financial years now, how does it relate to the numbers for 2014 and 2015 you would expect to have if would stay on micros?
thank you!
1. No. Absolutly no. I would expect the opposite from a company that spends 30% on google addwords and is public. Where will they get the money from? What will happen if they spend 25% next year? Stocks will drop.!
2. Ask me in 6mth. There is a gameplan.
3. I have been very fortunate in business and yes we continue to grow. In 2013 we are forecasting to be awarded as the fastest growing corporation in Denmark! :)
-
...My question is why would you defecate all over the agencies that feed our children? You seem like a really smart guy, can you not figure out a way to make you millions without pulling down the companies that we rely on for our daily bread?
Don't think for a second that he has that much pull. We all are the microstock business, not any one of us, not even Yuri. One man coming or going doesn't make or break the business.
-
again your warnings/predictions since 1900 about this evil industry, once more you are helping us, so happy to have you around!
it's not the micro industry being inherently evil, it's the agency owners making it such a bad place for suppliers.
instead of ripping each others off they could easily make a mafia round table and setup a "cartel" like in any other corrupt industry, triple the prices for buyers and double the contributors fees ... nothing would radically change for buyers as they've no way out and no escape but the agencies would make even more money and we would get paid a bit more fairly.
-
Hi Yuri,
Thank you so much for taking 1-2 hours out of your precious schedule for us mere mortals. My question is why would you defecate all over the agencies that feed our children? You seem like a really smart guy, can you not figure out a way to make you millions without pulling down the companies that we rely on for our daily bread?
Thanks again for your time.
Turn that around. What do you think happens at the end of a downward spiral?
-
I have a gameplan, but you wont see it now.
You can not kill stock industry twice
or ... can you ? ;D
-
I don't dispute photo crowdsourcing emerging as a new player in the photo market or crowd sourcing market in general. After all several newspapers are asking their readership to send in photos in lieu of staff photogs. However, to suggest that photo crowdsourcing will replace stock photography is kind of bold and rather premature. Photos that require careful planning, skill and a professional approach is and will be in demand for the foreseeable future as we know it. I understand you've made a large investment in a company with a new business model and now must extoll the virtues of your investment in your favour but I for one will continue building my own portfolio of increasingly unique photos.
I don't agree with everything you've mentioned but cannot disagree with an emerging platform as a new tier of photos.
One question. Will your staff be carrying iphones instead of DSLR'S? ;)
-
Hi Yuri
How do you see the future of subscription sites like Shutterstock? Will they loose more quality producers?
What direction will the micro agencies go? Will they lower commissions further for short term profits? Or do you think major agencies like Shutterstock is finally going to wake up and realize that they need to pay their top photographers more, if they want them to stick around?
Yes to all
-
One man coming or going doesn't make or break the business.
I agree, but I think if you change this word to "collection" it would put the whole discussion into proper perspective.
I wish you much success Yuri, but this isn't really relevant to those of us that do not shoot people/lifestyle the same way that you do. My stock sales have either remained unchanged or have gone up. If you were making the case that Microstock images specific to your subject areas might be impacted, well, maybe. I wouldn't know. Good luck!
-
Other than echoing other people's comments that you need to get an editor to look over your work before you post it, I can only suggest that you keep a weather eye on your new business partner. Good luck beating the odds - their past performance speaks volumes.
I think you're way off base on the mobile photography business (and I have no real axe to grind one way or the other) but time will tell. If it is a big new thing, we all own the means to join in (a mobile phone) .
Your enthusiasm reminds me a bit of some of Bruce's posts after Getty acquired iStock. Just about every promise Getty made then has been broken, multiple times.
We'll certainly all be watching your progress with interest.
Tell me why mobile photography is NOT a threat. I would rather hear that.
-
However. Read this post in 6mth from now. I have a gameplan, but you wont see it now.
let me guess ..if it's about startups i guess Yuri is already on talks with a few big VCs in the valley, Hardersen-Horowitz, Sequoia, etc etc .. maybe as a small stakeholder or consultant on photo-startups due to his hands-on experience and knowledge in the stock industry.
-
3. I have been very fortunate in business and yes we continue to grow. In 2013 we are forecasting to be awarded as the fastest growing corporation in Denmark! :)
How can you be the 'fastest growing corporation in Denmark' when you've actually relocated to South Africa ... so that you don't have to pay Danish taxes?
Would those be the same Danish taxes that paid for your education, that employes both of your parents, provides healthcare, etc, etc? Have you 'outgrown' Danish society as well as microstock in your eyes ... except when it suits you?
-
Hey Yuri
Har du nogle tips omkring SKAT og microstock i Danmark.
-
quality of images.
Mobile photograpy can provide editorial images that can easily comepete with press photos.
To a degree they can also compete withy autenthicity in stock images.
But they cannot provide high quality commercial images.
-
I don't dispute photo crowdsourcing emerging as a new player in the photo market or crowd sourcing market in general. After all several newspapers are asking their readership to send in photos in lieu of staff photogs. However, to suggest that photo crowdsourcing will replace stock photography is kind of bold and rather premature. Photos that require careful planning, skill and a professional approach is and will be in demand for the foreseeable future as we know it. I understand you've made a large investment in a company with a new business model and now must extoll the virtues of your investment in your favour but I for one will continue building my own portfolio of increasingly unique photos.
I don't agree with everything you've mentioned but cannot disagree with an emerging platform as a new tier of photos.
One question. Will your staff be carrying iphones instead of DSLR'S? ;)
Yes
-
However. Read this post in 6mth from now. I have a gameplan, but you wont see it now.
let me guess ..if it's about startups i guess Yuri is already on talks with a few big VCs in the valley, Hardersen-Horowitz, Sequoia, etc etc .. maybe as a small stakeholder or consultant on photo-startups due to his hands-on experience and knowledge in the stock industry.
I know Sequoia very well and was on a call with them as late as yesterday. We are saying no to investments in Scoopshot.com. If you have a good product you don't really have to look for VC's. They come to you.
-
Tell me why mobile photography is NOT a threat. I would rather hear that.
quality, for instance.
iphone images are still a long way from the quality provided by the cheapest entry level DSLRs.
on top of this many photos will be cropped and overfiltered.
-
Is Nikon and Canon going into the phone cameras with sensors as good as those now in DSLRs?
-
That's a lot of BS for a shotgun wedding.
-
Is Nikon and Canon going into the phone cameras with sensors as good as those now in DSLRs?
No. But Nokia and Samsung are
-
Hi Yuri,
thank you very much for the enlightening article. I understand the frustration of trying to push the agencies towards more price variance and encouraging midstock or even higher prices alongside the micro pricing.
There is a huge market out there that is not being tapped.
I am confused though, that you believe Getty is the right partner for you. I certainly hope it works out the way you expect it too. I would have thought you had a better chance with growing your own site peopleimages and maybe in time expanding it to your own agency. It would have been entirely your own thing, your team, your IT, your ideas. Grow it as big as you want.
I am sure many people in the industry would have supported you, if you wanted them too.
In fact, if Getty hired you as CEO, I would really believe the company could make a turnaround.
But the way things are, it looks from outside like you made a probably lucrative deal with a company that is really not known for innovation and has, as you said yourself, been following the market instead of leading it.
I don´t quite follow what is the big difference between shooting with a normal digital camera or a phone camera. Maybe it is fractionally faster to upload directly from your phone and for news reportage the advantage is that people usually carry their phone everyhwere, but fewer people have a camera with them at all times. But for shooting stock - will that really make such a difference?
Crowdsourcing with a phone is still crowd sourcing, which means it offers low entry requirements and so talent can enter the market easily. But it can do so now already and it is only the best talent that will rise to the top of a crowd sourcing platform and produce the commercially interesting content.
After all that is the real success of crowd sourced platforms - they are talent incubators.
99% of the crowd will never shoot the valuable content you are looking for. But an open platform let´s you discover the gems you might not have encountered otherwise.
Motivation,intelligence and talent can thus be discovered while ignoring the old boys network.
But will the mobile phone really discover more talent than the DSLR? And could those globals "assignments" not be done on a normal stock platform?
Whatever you do - all the best of success!
See you in Berlin
-
Which of the microstock companies have deep enough pockets to survive this price war Yuri ? Which do you predict will be bought out and which do you think will close over, say, the next 18 months ?
-
Turn that around. What do you think happens at the end of a downward spiral?
the cracks in the system are already there to be seen by those with an eye for the details.
SS going public for instance, in many cases it's the kiss of death for such companies and they launch IPOs only because they know very well they've peaked and they need to sell out soon.
-
Jeg hedder nu Jens.
One thing, Yuri, your business decisions seem very sharp, they have always done.
But you are not the best at telling the story, not as good as you could be, just look here, people ask the wrong questions and doubt your motives.
I suggest you take a week off at some tropical island with a good amount of shade providing palm trees and then do ONE WEEK of serious self education.
Simply by reading Winston Churchills books. First he provides a detailled description of many things you did not know, alone that is interesting. But he really could twist a story so it supported his interests. He was a master of spin. Levels and levels of it.
Fair nok. Jeg er ikke en story-teller nej. Og jeg er helt klart for ærlig i mine posts. Jeg er enig. Jeg kunne være meget bedre til spin. Jeg har et par folketingsmedlemmer i min famile og de siger det samme. :)
-
Maybe this is the reason istock has lowered their standards for images....they are preparing for iphone submissions?
-
Maybe this is the reason istock has lowered their standards for images....they are preparing for iphone submissions?
iStock is accepting mobile phone images since a long time, I think since fall 2012. So this is no news.
-
What a narcissist! Sneers at us all over how he won't deal with us, only with "professionals", then can't resist cobbling together some stats that might support the contention that he is god's gift to the universe and can't resist coming to amateursnapperstockgroup.com to brag about his importance.
Sorry, Yuri, didn't you get the message when iStock sacked Sean? Nobody is of any real importance to the stock industry, not Sean and not you. But don't let that get in the way of your self-esteem.
-
Hi Yuri,
thank you very much for the enlightening article. I understand the frustration of trying to push the agencies towards more price variance and encouraging midstock or even higher prices alongside the micro pricing.
There is a huge market out there that is not being tapped.
I am confused though, that you believe Getty is the right partner for you. I certainly hope it works out the way you expect it too. I would have thought you had a better chance with growing your own site peopleimages and maybe in time expanding it to your own agency. It would have been entirely your own thing, your team, your IT, your ideas. Grow it as big as you want.
I am sure many people in the industry would have supported you, if you wanted them too.
In fact, if Getty hired you as CEO, I would really believe the company could make a turnaround.
But the way things are, it looks from outside like you made a probably lucrative deal with a company that is really not known for innovation and has, as you said yourself, been following the market instead of leading it.
I don´t quite follow what is the big difference between shooting with a normal digital camera or a phone camera. Maybe it is fractionally faster to upload directly from your phone and for news reportage the advantage is that people usually carry their phone everyhwere, but fewer people have a camera with them at all times. But for shooting stock - will that really make such a difference?
Crowdsourcing with a phone is still crowd sourcing, which means it offers low entry requirements and so talent can enter the market easily. But it can do so now already and it is only the best talent that will rise to the top of a crowd sourcing platform and produce the commercially interesting content.
After all that is the real success of crowd sourced platforms - they are talent incubators.
99% of the crowd will never shoot the valuable content you are looking for. But an open platform let´s you discover the gems you might not have encountered otherwise.
Motivation,intelligence and talent can thus be discovered while ignoring the old boys network.
But will the mobile phone really discover more talent than the DSLR? And could those globals "assignments" not be done on a normal stock platform?
Whatever you do - all the best of success!
See you in Berlin
Competition has it's antennas out there. Pretty much all microsites that have launched since 2005 have been a duplicate of each other. PeopleImages.com is not.
-
I hope Yuri hasn't started to believe his own hype? I don't think one factory leaving is going to make much difference to the SS stock price in the long term. Stock prices go up and down every day for all sorts of reasons. Most sensible investors do it for the long term, the small daily or weekly fluctuations mean absolutely nothing.
What about all the Yuri clones that are still with SS? Then there's all the exclusive content that istock has lost. If anything, the istock collection has probably suffered more than the SS collection in the last year. Whenever someone leaves, the sites soon get another million images from lots of new contributors. One of them will probably be the next Yuri. I think the king will lose his crown one day, especially if he starts thinking he's much more improtant than he really is.
-
Yuri, I used to respect you and what you've been able to accomplish in microstock. But the way you've handled this is really disgusting.
Microstock companies gave you the opportunity to become what you are today. Maybe you've outgrown them, but it's really disrespectful to mock these companies on your way out the door, saying things like "professionals work with professionals" and calling your departure "the first substantial setback in microstock history."
You aren't microstock. We all are, and some of us real professionals in microstock wouldn't act like children on our way out the door if we ever opted to move on.
Wait, we are supposed to be classy and dignified when we leave sites? I wish somebody would have told me that. ;D
-
What a narcissist! Sneers at us all over how he won't deal with us, only with "professionals", then can't resist cobbling together some stats that might support the contention that he is god's gift to the universe and can't resist coming to amateursnapperstockgroup.com to brag about his importance.
Sorry, Yuri, didn't you get the message when iStock sacked Sean? Nobody is of any real importance to the stock industry, not Sean and not you. But don't let that get in the way of your self-esteem.
Hi. Send me an email on [email protected] and let's discus a bit further. I feel somewhat sad that I can make you explode like this and would like to know why. Are you ok with discussing over email?
-
This post might be a blessing- I am sure the folks at SS and others have read this post by now. Just maybe they will change their 'Game Plan' as well. Will camera phones have a place in this industry- heck, yes! But professionals with their high end camera will have a major place as well. Google Images was a game changer as well -probably one of the biggest impacts in many years but the game is still a foot...
T
-
Maybe this is the reason istock has lowered their standards for images....they are preparing for iphone submissions?
iStock is accepting mobile phone images since a long time, I think since fall 2012. So this is no news.
Indeed....but the lowering of quality for acceptance is new....
-
This post might be a blessing- I am sure the folks at SS and others have read this post by now. Just maybe they will change their 'Game Plan' as well. Will camera phones have a place in this industry- heck, yes! But professionals with their high end camera will have a major place as well. Google Images was a game changer as well -probably one of the biggest impacts in many years but the game is still a foot...
T
Mindreader!
-
Maybe this is the reason istock has lowered their standards for images....they are preparing for iphone submissions?
You people always fall for nonsense like this. Soros does this: he tells everyone gold is for idiots, and when the price drops, he buys tons of it. I remember when I read someone's list of what not to shoot, because they are so overdone: anything with laptop, businesswoman, girls with apples and similar... than you look at the guys new uploads: stuff with laptop, businesswoman, girls with apples and similar.... But you can bet the guy was very grateful if you were dumb enough to fall for it and gave him more space on those sellers by shooting some niche junk instead... what a bunch of morons :)
-
Competition has it's antennas out there. Pretty much all microsites that have launched since 2005 have been a duplicate of each other. PeopleImages.com is not.
[/quote]
Which is why I am confused you are working with Getty too. Would they really allow you to grow people images.com and become a competitor?
I mean, I am sure you have a plan, not expecting you to share it. I just am surprised you have so much faith in them if their track record of the last few years is not very encouraging. You must have seen that as well.
-
Yuri, I cannot believe the resistance you are up against here.
Maybe you should not have come here, and not expresssed anything. But you have, and I like that.
It is obvoius that the mobile market, which so much a market but as swamp, can be qualified and moneterized on, simply by selling exif data.
Like this picture was taken at this time at this place and shows a train accident.
That is super competitive, press photos have never been better and it works peer to peer also.
There are 10000 billion of pictures out there, in the chaos, if you can put order into chaos and earn money on it, you have a new step forewards.
-
What about all the Yuri clones that are still with SS? Then there's all the exclusive content that istock has lost. If anything, the istock collection has probably suffered more than the SS collection in the last year. Whenever someone leaves, the sites soon get another million images from lots of new contributors. One of them will probably be the next Yuri. I think the king will lose his crown one day, especially if he starts thinking he's much more improtant than he really is.
SS will still be selling the same number of images as before, if not more. The sales that Yuri might have had on SS will simply pass to his 'clones', giving them a greater income and increased motivation to compete yet harder.
-
Maybe this is the reason istock has lowered their standards for images....they are preparing for iphone submissions?
You people always fall for nonsense like this. Soros does this: he tells everyone gold is for idiots, and when the price drops, he buys tons of it. I remember when I read someone's list of what not to shoot, because they are so overdone: anything with laptop, businesswoman, girls with apples and similar... than you look at the guys new uploads: stuff with laptop, businesswoman, girls with apples and similar.... But you can bet the guy was very grateful if you were dumb enough to fall for it and gave him more space on those sellers by shooting some niche junk instead... what a bunch of morons :)
hehe. He is refereing to this post: http://arcurs.com/2008/05/what-should-i-shoot-and-what-sells-well/ (http://arcurs.com/2008/05/what-should-i-shoot-and-what-sells-well/)
Not quite true dough. RPI on concepts outside the "sofa, laptop, cell-phone"-sphere are much higher. The problem is that to nail them you need to think and not just duplicate. The advice in the article is true. Actually is.
-
iStock is accepting mobile phone images since a long time, I think since fall 2012. So this is no news.
it's a bad news for photography anyway.
the trend is more and more about cr-ap snapshots taken with iphone being now considered "good enough".
well sorry, they're not.
but go tell it to the sacked photo editors or the newspapers closing down, soon people will read news on facebook or twitter rather than on BBC or Reuters and i can't see how this is any positive to mankind and to us considering the average reader will be more than happy with those iphone snaps and a few lines of text.
similar and acceptable quality between an iphone snapshot and a carefully edited image shot on a nikon D4 with a F2.8 lens and all ? well i beg to differ but then again i might be an old fart ... and indeed photojournalism is dead if the future is all about Instagram or Scoopshot !
and by the way we should better advice Getty as well and their Reportage by Getty division, next thing they will know is that expensive reportages will be shot on iphones by random punks and drunks for a credit line or a case of beers.
i'm so sick of these "mobile revolution", the world was such a better place before the advent of these useless dumb-phones and one day people will realize it.
-
Yuri, I cannot believe the resistance you are up against here.
Maybe you should not have come here, and not expresssed anything. But you have, and I like that.
It is obvoius that the mobile market, which so much a market but as swamp, can be qualified and moneterized on, simply by selling exif data.
Like this picture was taken at this time at this place and shows a train accident.
That is super competitive, press photos have never been better and it works peer to peer also.
There are 10000 billion of pictures out there, in the chaos, if you can put order into chaos and earn money on it, you have a new step forewards.
Jens. It is ok. You should try to be on the panel with me in some XX country, where XX% hates microstock. This is what to expect. MSG posters are biased yes, but they are brutal and sometimes that is ok. :)
-
I'm here for the next hour or so call me if you really want to discuss this and I will post an update on the call. I will be here for another hour or so.
+27 71 6111 245
-
What a narcissist! Sneers at us all over how he won't deal with us, only with "professionals", then can't resist cobbling together some stats that might support the contention that he is god's gift to the universe and can't resist coming to amateursnapperstockgroup.com to brag about his importance.
Sorry, Yuri, didn't you get the message when iStock sacked Sean? Nobody is of any real importance to the stock industry, not Sean and not you. But don't let that get in the way of your self-esteem.
Hi. Send me an email on [email protected] and let's discus a bit further. I feel somewhat sad that I can make you explode like this and would like to know why. Are you ok with discussing over email?
I've observed you over the years. My opinion of you went down the drain in an SS thread a long time ago when someone pointed out that one of your people line-ups was ridiculous with the fake reflections not matching the line, so the whole effect was absurd. Instead of admitting you had screwed up and pulling the failed picture, you said it was all the fault of a trainee photoshop worker (who I think you named) and that while the picture was rubbish, that might be the sort of thing customers wanted.
In a couple of replies you showed 1) a complete failure to accept that anything you published could be wrong, even though it clearly was; 2) a desire to blame your staff instead of accepting responsibility when things go wrong, however minor the issue might be, and 3) complete contempt for buyers and a willingness to leave them looking like idiots by buying your mistakes.
I've wasted very little time on your pronouncements since then, though I understand you have provided a lot of useful information to people as a part of your self-promotion drive.
No need to do it in private communication, dude. Your latest "microstock fails because I leave" is just part of the observed pattern.
-
Maybe this is the reason istock has lowered their standards for images....they are preparing for iphone submissions?
You people always fall for nonsense like this. Soros does this: he tells everyone gold is for idiots, and when the price drops, he buys tons of it. I remember when I read someone's list of what not to shoot, because they are so overdone: anything with laptop, businesswoman, girls with apples and similar... than you look at the guys new uploads: stuff with laptop, businesswoman, girls with apples and similar.... But you can bet the guy was very grateful if you were dumb enough to fall for it and gave him more space on those sellers by shooting some niche junk instead... what a bunch of morons :)
hehe. He is refereing to this post: [url]http://arcurs.com/2008/05/what-should-i-shoot-and-what-sells-well/[/url] ([url]http://arcurs.com/2008/05/what-should-i-shoot-and-what-sells-well/[/url])
Not quite true dough. RPI on concepts outside the "sofa, laptop, cell-phone"-sphere are much higher. The problem is that to nail them you need to think and not just duplicate. The advice in the article is true. Actually is.
Having to really nail them is trivial when there are 20+ million images in store. But ppl will fall for this because anyone can learn to do an isolation on white, but 99% of the time they have severely inapt, unattractive models, so they get no sales. Then you can just blame it on the concept and they go back to shooting their dogs in the backyard.
-
so yuri, do you think we have a split of pictures.
the kind of pictures provided for the masses, in newspapers and television, that are all editorial and come from cell phone holders at the right place at the right time.
And more commercial pictures, without trademarks and model released that can be used in advertising.
The split has always been there, but what are you trying to do with crowdsourcng editorial on a cellphone platforml?
-
I've observed you over the years. My opinion of you went down the drain in an SS thread a long time ago when someone pointed out that one of your people line-ups was ridiculous with the fake reflections not matching the line, so the whole effect was absurd. Instead of admitting you had screwed up and pulling the failed picture, you said it was all the fault of a trainee photoshop worker (who I think you named) and that while the picture was rubbish, that might be the sort of thing customers wanted.
In a couple of replies you showed 1) a complete failure to accept that anything you published could be wrong, even though it clearly was; 2) a desire to blame your staff instead of accepting responsibility when things go wrong, however minor the issue might be, and 3) complete contempt for buyers and a willingness to leave them looking like idiots by buying your mistakes.
I've wasted very little time on your pronouncements since then, though I understand you have provided a lot of useful information to people as a part of your self-promotion drive.
No need to do it in private communication, dude. Your latest "microstock fails because I leave" is just part of the observed pattern.
KAPOW!!!!
-
What a narcissist! Sneers at us all over how he won't deal with us, only with "professionals", then can't resist cobbling together some stats that might support the contention that he is god's gift to the universe and can't resist coming to amateursnapperstockgroup.com to brag about his importance.
Sorry, Yuri, didn't you get the message when iStock sacked Sean? Nobody is of any real importance to the stock industry, not Sean and not you. But don't let that get in the way of your self-esteem.
Hi. Send me an email on [email protected] and let's discus a bit further. I feel somewhat sad that I can make you explode like this and would like to know why. Are you ok with discussing over email?
I've observed you over the years. My opinion of you went down the drain in an SS thread a long time ago when someone pointed out that one of your people line-ups was ridiculous with the fake reflections not matching the line, so the whole effect was absurd. Instead of admitting you had screwed up and pulling the failed picture, you said it was all the fault of a trainee photoshop worker (who I think you named) and that while the picture was rubbish, that might be the sort of thing customers wanted.
In a couple of replies you showed 1) a complete failure to accept that anything you published could be wrong, even though it clearly was; 2) a desire to blame your staff instead of accepting responsibility when things go wrong, however minor the issue might be, and 3) complete contempt for buyers and a willingness to leave them looking like idiots by buying your mistakes.
I've wasted very little time on your pronouncements since then, though I understand you have provided a lot of useful information to people as a part of your self-promotion drive.
No need to do it in private communication, dude. Your latest "microstock fails because I leave" is just part of the observed pattern.
Unfortunately it was the screwup of a trainee photographer. I told him nicely what kind of trouble this caused me and he was very apologetic. He is still part of our team today and teaches our advanced retouching classes. He was 16 years old at the time of the "reflective surface" mistake and was competing internationally on several photoshop competitions. I simply had to be silent about it. The reflections looked crap. Totally. I agree, but I was not going to smooch it into somebodies online reputation at the age of 16. Then I rather take it on myself. Wish I did and which you are now blaming me for.
-
I'm not stock [exceptionally not talking micro] expert at all - so what's the reason on SS stock drop mentioned in article? Looking at Getty Images, they closed on 33,98 yesterday but 52 weeks figures are 21.80 - 51.00. Why is 12% drop that tragic?
-
MSG posters are biased yes, but they are brutal and sometimes that is ok. :)
is it me or some of them are literally foaming from their mouth in anger ? :)
it's getting more and more funny to read this forum recently, one by one all their dreams and their rock solid statements about the microstock industry are crashing and burning and the only talk left is about Symbiostock of PoD sites.
-
I dont think mobile is going to take off. If it would be the next big thing, it would have taken off already. Smartphones have 8mp cameras and bigger. What are they waiting for 12mp? 18mp? It wont take off because its only the occasional shot thats good enough. Low light shots is still a problem, moving subjects is still a problem, releases are still a problem.
Sure they equip journalists with smartphones but its not going to make it ever. Not in front line journalism, not in Nat Geo, etc etc.
Candid shots of someone's toes with nail polish? Sure, someone will buy one for 5 dollar and have a laugh. Next thing they post a request for someone in a shower kissing a fish, just for laughs. Its a craze and will lose interest soon. Just as planking lost all interest, just as the hula hoop, just as roller skates, etc etc.
Why does it take so long for mobile photography to take off? The fact that instagram is popular for personal mobile images, doesnt mean mobile stock is commercially going to be a success.
So you got 33k images in 10 hours. And are you going to do what with them?
Your blog sounds delusional. The drop of SS stock because of you. Investing 1.2m to get photos of toenails. Thats 1,2 million down the hole. You would have been better off burning them in the fireplace to get some use of it. I think you're off your trolley, mate.
I am sure IS slashing the prices in half fits right in with your 'stock agencies wouldnt raise their prices' argument?
You did great doing what You did, but why that blog? Its just bitter. Makes you sound like a git.
-
Yuri, I used to respect you and what you've been able to accomplish in microstock. But the way you've handled this is really disgusting.
Microstock companies gave you the opportunity to become what you are today. Maybe you've outgrown them, but it's really disrespectful to mock these companies on your way out the door, saying things like "professionals work with professionals" and calling your departure "the first substantial setback in microstock history."
You aren't microstock. We all are, and some of us real professionals in microstock wouldn't act like children on our way out the door if we ever opted to move on.
I completely agree. So why do you think I am saying what I do? Think deeper my friend. :)
Well, for a minute I thought you might be trying to get other people to take up the cause, put more pressure on the microstock companies to make changes by getting all of us involved. But I don't think you're ever coming back to microstock so what's the point? Even if you tried, I suspect a lot of companies would tell you to hit the bricks after you publicly mocked them and implied that they aren't professionals.
So what is it? Let's not play a guessing game here. If there is some deeper meaning behind what you've said, just fill us in. Otherwise I'm taking your words at face value. You made a ton of money, moved on, and now openly mock the companies you left behind, the ones that enabled you to grow your business and make millions. What exactly am I missing?
-
What a narcissist! Sneers at us all over how he won't deal with us, only with "professionals", then can't resist cobbling together some stats that might support the contention that he is god's gift to the universe and can't resist coming to amateursnapperstockgroup.com to brag about his importance.
Sorry, Yuri, didn't you get the message when iStock sacked Sean? Nobody is of any real importance to the stock industry, not Sean and not you. But don't let that get in the way of your self-esteem.
Hi. Send me an email on [email protected] and let's discus a bit further. I feel somewhat sad that I can make you explode like this and would like to know why. Are you ok with discussing over email?
I've observed you over the years. My opinion of you went down the drain in an SS thread a long time ago when someone pointed out that one of your people line-ups was ridiculous with the fake reflections not matching the line, so the whole effect was absurd. Instead of admitting you had screwed up and pulling the failed picture, you said it was all the fault of a trainee photoshop worker (who I think you named) and that while the picture was rubbish, that might be the sort of thing customers wanted.
In a couple of replies you showed 1) a complete failure to accept that anything you published could be wrong, even though it clearly was; 2) a desire to blame your staff instead of accepting responsibility when things go wrong, however minor the issue might be, and 3) complete contempt for buyers and a willingness to leave them looking like idiots by buying your mistakes.
I've wasted very little time on your pronouncements since then, though I understand you have provided a lot of useful information to people as a part of your self-promotion drive.
No need to do it in private communication, dude. Your latest "microstock fails because I leave" is just part of the observed pattern.
You mentioning the obscure reflection on some obscure group shot is almost as bad as him inserting the SS graph. 8)
-
Det her er en fed tråd.
Den bliver reference for spekulationer i mange år.
Der bliver måske endda brug for at sætte den på vers, så man nemmere kan referere.
LOL
-
Having to really nail them is trivial when there are 20+ million images in store.
Due to Pareto's Law only 20% of those 20 million images are selling well and compensating for the remaining 80% of low sellers.
That means 2 millions of top sellers and of those 2 millions 100,000 are Yuri's, that means his portfolio alone impacts an agency like SS for around 5% of their sales but as far as we know it could be even 10-15% !
Of course random buyers will quickly grab the clones but some buyers could go back to istock if they're fans of Yuri and his team.
-
What a narcissist! Sneers at us all over how he won't deal with us, only with "professionals", then can't resist cobbling together some stats that might support the contention that he is god's gift to the universe and can't resist coming to amateursnapperstockgroup.com to brag about his importance.
Sorry, Yuri, didn't you get the message when iStock sacked Sean? Nobody is of any real importance to the stock industry, not Sean and not you. But don't let that get in the way of your self-esteem.
Hi. Send me an email on [email protected] and let's discus a bit further. I feel somewhat sad that I can make you explode like this and would like to know why. Are you ok with discussing over email?
I've observed you over the years. My opinion of you went down the drain in an SS thread a long time ago when someone pointed out that one of your people line-ups was ridiculous with the fake reflections not matching the line, so the whole effect was absurd. Instead of admitting you had screwed up and pulling the failed picture, you said it was all the fault of a trainee photoshop worker (who I think you named) and that while the picture was rubbish, that might be the sort of thing customers wanted.
In a couple of replies you showed 1) a complete failure to accept that anything you published could be wrong, even though it clearly was; 2) a desire to blame your staff instead of accepting responsibility when things go wrong, however minor the issue might be, and 3) complete contempt for buyers and a willingness to leave them looking like idiots by buying your mistakes.
I've wasted very little time on your pronouncements since then, though I understand you have provided a lot of useful information to people as a part of your self-promotion drive.
No need to do it in private communication, dude. Your latest "microstock fails because I leave" is just part of the observed pattern.
Unfortunately it was the screwup of a trainee photographer. I told him nicely what kind of trouble this caused me and he was very apologetic. He is still part of our team today and teaches our advanced retouching classes. He was 16 years old at the time of the "reflective surface" mistake and was competing internationally on several photoshop competitions. I simply had to be silent about it. The reflections looked crap. Totally. I agree, but I was not going to smooch it into somebodies online reputation at the age of 16. Then I rather take it on myself. Wish I did and which you are now blaming me for.
Thank you for proving my point. It appears under your name. Everything that appears that is good shows how great you are. Everything that is bad is the fault of someone else. It was FOR SALE on SS. And you blamed a photoshop trainee, not the photographer.
-
"I dont think mobile is going to take off. If it would be the next big thing, it would have taken off already. "
Tell this to the professional photographers at the Chicago Tribune :-[
-
... almost as bad as him inserting the SS graph. 8)
Notice how Yuri was carefully selective in the dates used on the graph posted. The truth is that SS stock is actually 10% UP since he removed his images and announced his 'exclusivity' deal on 17th May!
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/interactive-chart?timeframe=6m&charttype=line (http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/interactive-chart?timeframe=6m&charttype=line)
Recent stock drops will almost certainly be profit-taking from those who bought low. No stock ever goes up in a straight line.
-
I know Sequoia very well and was on a call with them as late as yesterday. We are saying no to investments in Scoopshot.com. If you have a good product you don't really have to look for VC's. They come to you.
well to each his own, VCs are also a way to share risks and getting big investors on board.
considering they launched and still own a part of google they could have an ace in their sleeve regarding the integration of media companies into their portfolio.
-
Believe it or not - few of us don't speak Danish. To be honest I find using Danish in this thread impolite.
-
Yuri, I used to respect you and what you've been able to accomplish in microstock. But the way you've handled this is really disgusting.
Microstock companies gave you the opportunity to become what you are today. Maybe you've outgrown them, but it's really disrespectful to mock these companies on your way out the door, saying things like "professionals work with professionals" and calling your departure "the first substantial setback in microstock history."
You aren't microstock. We all are, and some of us real professionals in microstock wouldn't act like children on our way out the door if we ever opted to move on.
I completely agree. So why do you think I am saying what I do? Think deeper my friend. :)
Well, for a minute I thought you might be trying to get other people to take up the cause, put more pressure on the microstock companies to make changes by getting all of us involved. But I don't think you're ever coming back to microstock so what's the point? Even if you tried, I suspect a lot of companies would tell you to hit the bricks after you publicly mocked them and implied that they aren't professionals.
So what is it? Let's not play a guessing game here. If there is some deeper meaning behind what you've said, just fill us in. Otherwise I'm taking your words at face value. You made a ton of money, moved on, and now openly mock the companies you left behind, the ones that enabled you to grow your business and make millions. What exactly am I missing?
I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.
-
Hi Yuri,
Thank you so much for taking 1-2 hours out of your precious schedule for us mere mortals. My question is why would you defecate all over the agencies that feed our children? You seem like a really smart guy, can you not figure out a way to make you millions without pulling down the companies that we rely on for our daily bread?
Thanks again for your time.
Turn that around. What do you think happens at the end of a downward spiral?
You fall into a hole. If your move was to help the micros then you have bigger ego than I hold humanly possible and if your gameplan is to increase pricing across the board, then it sure is a weird approach :D
-
Why take potshots at Yuri. This certainly has the attention of many and cannot be edited by the current agencies. Maybe we can take the time while everyone's watching and reading to make some headway with projects on the move like Symbiostock.
If photo crowd sourcing can work, what about Symbiostock crowd sourcing. Perhaps we can crowdsource buyers to Symbiostock. I'm considering joining the Symbiostock group.
Is everyone aware of Symbiostock and are you considering entry?
-
I'm not sure what to think,
There's a guy who made it all the way to the top from scratch, produces the best "Merchandise" in our industry and everybody else is jealous and does not give credit were credit is due. This man became very successful with hard work and great strategies. What are we doing? - Checking his spelling? - very childish of us in my opinion.
I for my part would like to succeed and listen to people who have done it, not judge them.
There is no fairness in business and I don't expect it. I'm not waiting for Yuri to change my diapers.
I'm not hoping that successful people hold back, turn around and offer their hand to me, so I can have a piece of the pie too. That's not how it works.
Great going Yuri, it does suck that you car is nicer than mine, but I know why, and you deserve it. Get it while you can!
-
If Microstock goes down there are two things that will happen. Lower quality images will be replaced by cell phone photography. But the better and more creative photographers can go back to mid stock or macro stock. There will always be a market for high end photography. Nowadays micro mid and macro stock are overlapping to much. So in the long run it can be a good thing for the creative ones among us!
-
You mentioning the obscure reflection on some obscure group shot is almost as bad as him inserting the SS graph. 8)
It wasn't his picture that bothered me. It was the way he handled the issue when someone pointed it out. For me, that was symptomatic of the way he handled his business and - enormously successful though he may be - it is not an approach I can admire. But then, I'm not "professional", which probably explains it.
(P.S. - Gunter one thing I would not blame a Dane for is his English spelling... my Danish is err ...)
-
Yuri, I used to respect you and what you've been able to accomplish in microstock. But the way you've handled this is really disgusting.
Microstock companies gave you the opportunity to become what you are today. Maybe you've outgrown them, but it's really disrespectful to mock these companies on your way out the door, saying things like "professionals work with professionals" and calling your departure "the first substantial setback in microstock history."
You aren't microstock. We all are, and some of us real professionals in microstock wouldn't act like children on our way out the door if we ever opted to move on.
I completely agree. So why do you think I am saying what I do? Think deeper my friend. :)
Well, for a minute I thought you might be trying to get other people to take up the cause, put more pressure on the microstock companies to make changes by getting all of us involved. But I don't think you're ever coming back to microstock so what's the point? Even if you tried, I suspect a lot of companies would tell you to hit the bricks after you publicly mocked them and implied that they aren't professionals.
So what is it? Let's not play a guessing game here. If there is some deeper meaning behind what you've said, just fill us in. Otherwise I'm taking your words at face value. You made a ton of money, moved on, and now openly mock the companies you left behind, the ones that enabled you to grow your business and make millions. What exactly am I missing?
I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.
You're late to the party on that one. Many of us have been speaking out about how cheap subscription sites are bad for everyone and create a race to the bottom. One of the big arguments for them was that the most successful microstocker is on all the sites so they must be great. Maybe this will start to shift some of that attitude.
-
"I dont think mobile is going to take off. If it would be the next big thing, it would have taken off already. "
Tell this to the professional photographers at the Chicago Tribune :-[
well even the NYT fired a lot of staffers and photographers, and i know of some Reuters and AFP reporters paid a pittance to risk their neck in dangerous areas.
it will be a bad day for humanity when all this will be replaced by mobile phones or Sony NEX and thrown online for free or for a few bucks to the crowd of angry readers who expect everything for free.
recently i've even heard friends claiming the images shot with the iphone by their guests in his wedding were "as good" as the ones shot by the paid photographer ... this is so sad !
online services like Instagram or Scoopshot are yet another sign of the times, and the worst is yet to come.
-
"It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks."
... With a straight face you said that?
Btw, as we've previously discussed, citizen journalism crowd sites don't work. Past failures include Getty's own Scoopt.
-
Having to really nail them is trivial when there are 20+ million images in store.
Due to Pareto's Law only 20% of those 20 million images are selling well and compensating for the remaining 80% of low sellers.
That means 2 millions of top sellers and of those 2 millions 100,000 are Yuri's, that means his portfolio alone impacts an agency like SS for around 5% of their sales but as far as we know it could be even 10-15% !
Of course random buyers will quickly grab the clones but some buyers could go back to istock if they're fans of Yuri and his team.
again your predictions are wrong, keep trying!
Yuri's father said on SS forum that Yuri was having around 4k downloads a day or 120k a month, SS reported 22.3 Million downloads in the first quarter of 2013 or 7.43 M a month, making Yuri numbers just 1.61%
-
Having to really nail them is trivial when there are 20+ million images in store.
Due to Pareto's Law only 20% of those 20 million images are selling well and compensating for the remaining 80% of low sellers.
That means 2 millions of top sellers and of those 2 millions 100,000 are Yuri's, that means his portfolio alone impacts an agency like SS for around 5% of their sales but as far as we know it could be even 10-15% !
Of course random buyers will quickly grab the clones but some buyers could go back to istock if they're fans of Yuri and his team.
That's not what I was talking about, but since you mentioned this... Have you ever been on the other side? Professional buyers? Graphic studio, ad agency, working with dozen of graphic artits, operators?
-
delete
-
Having to really nail them is trivial when there are 20+ million images in store.
Due to Pareto's Law only 20% of those 20 million images are selling well and compensating for the remaining 80% of low sellers.
That means 2 millions of top sellers and of those 2 millions 100,000 are Yuri's, that means his portfolio alone impacts an agency like SS for around 5% of their sales but as far as we know it could be even 10-15% !
Of course random buyers will quickly grab the clones but some buyers could go back to istock if they're fans of Yuri and his team.
So for microstock 80/20 is the rule, but for Yuri its 100%? He had around 15.000 unsold images on Fotolia, out of 58k back in October.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/yuri-arcurs-has-over-15-000-unsold-images-on-ft/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/yuri-arcurs-has-over-15-000-unsold-images-on-ft/)
-
I'm not sure what to think,
There's a guy who made it all the way to the top from scratch, produces the best "Merchandise" in our industry and everybody else is jealous and does not give credit were credit is due. This man became very successful with hard work and great strategies. What are we doing? - Checking his spelling? - very childish of us in my opinion.
I for my part would like to succeed and listen to people who have done it, not judge them.
There is no fairness in business and I don't expect it. I'm not waiting for Yuri to change my diapers.
I'm not hoping that successful people hold back, turn around and offer their hand to me, so I can have a piece of the pie too. That's not how it works.
Great going Yuri, it does suck that you car is nicer than mine, but I know why, and you deserve it. Get it while you can!
You Made my day!
-
MSG posters are biased yes, but they are brutal and sometimes that is ok. :)
is it me or some of them are literally foaming from their mouth in anger ? :)
it's getting more and more funny to read this forum recently, one by one all their dreams and their rock solid statements about the microstock industry are crashing and burning and the only talk left is about Symbiostock of PoD sites.
You're the one that somehow managed to get kicked off the alamy forum. I know you say it was all their fault but that's not true. So if you want to see someone foaming at the mouth, perhaps you should look in a mirror :)
-
What a narcissist! Sneers at us all over how he won't deal with us, only with "professionals", then can't resist cobbling together some stats that might support the contention that he is god's gift to the universe and can't resist coming to amateursnapperstockgroup.com to brag about his importance.
Sorry, Yuri, didn't you get the message when iStock sacked Sean? Nobody is of any real importance to the stock industry, not Sean and not you. But don't let that get in the way of your self-esteem.
Hi. Send me an email on [email protected] and let's discus a bit further. I feel somewhat sad that I can make you explode like this and would like to know why. Are you ok with discussing over email?
I've observed you over the years. My opinion of you went down the drain in an SS thread a long time ago when someone pointed out that one of your people line-ups was ridiculous with the fake reflections not matching the line, so the whole effect was absurd. Instead of admitting you had screwed up and pulling the failed picture, you said it was all the fault of a trainee photoshop worker (who I think you named) and that while the picture was rubbish, that might be the sort of thing customers wanted.
In a couple of replies you showed 1) a complete failure to accept that anything you published could be wrong, even though it clearly was; 2) a desire to blame your staff instead of accepting responsibility when things go wrong, however minor the issue might be, and 3) complete contempt for buyers and a willingness to leave them looking like idiots by buying your mistakes.
I've wasted very little time on your pronouncements since then, though I understand you have provided a lot of useful information to people as a part of your self-promotion drive.
No need to do it in private communication, dude. Your latest "microstock fails because I leave" is just part of the observed pattern.
Unfortunately it was the screwup of a trainee photographer. I told him nicely what kind of trouble this caused me and he was very apologetic. He is still part of our team today and teaches our advanced retouching classes. He was 16 years old at the time of the "reflective surface" mistake and was competing internationally on several photoshop competitions. I simply had to be silent about it. The reflections looked crap. Totally. I agree, but I was not going to smooch it into somebodies online reputation at the age of 16. Then I rather take it on myself. Wish I did and which you are now blaming me for.
Thank you for proving my point. It appears under your name. Everything that appears that is good shows how great you are. Everything that is bad is the fault of someone else. It was FOR SALE on SS. And you blamed a photoshop trainee, not the photographer.
Are you serious? I would not want to the under your wing. Have some heart please. Are you suggesting that I be a more evil boss and less forgiving?
-
I'm mystified why there is such an obsession with Yuri? He operates a business and makes decisions based on what is best for his business, not other competing photographers. And, yes there is a place for citizen photojournalism ... I've always said an amateur gets lucky and produces a good photo - a pro does it on demand. There will always be a demand for professional photography.
-
I meant:
What are we doing - checking his spelling?
Sorry, English is not my first language either, edited and fixed in my OP
Checking his spelling should be considered a free service. If you are the king of stock and most successful photographer in the world and the one that brought down SS stock and caused the biggest upset in microstock history, you could expect a proofread announcement. Otherwise it just looks so silly.
-
I'm mystified why there is such an obsession with Yuri? He operates a business and makes decisions based on what is best for his business, not other competing photographers. And, yes there is a place for citizen photojournalism ... I've always said an amateur gets lucky and produces a good photo - a pro does it on demand. There will always be a demand for professional photography.
Did you read the blog? Alexander the Great would feel threatened by so much display of megalomania. :)
-
Yuri, I used to respect you and what you've been able to accomplish in microstock. But the way you've handled this is really disgusting.
Microstock companies gave you the opportunity to become what you are today. Maybe you've outgrown them, but it's really disrespectful to mock these companies on your way out the door, saying things like "professionals work with professionals" and calling your departure "the first substantial setback in microstock history."
You aren't microstock. We all are, and some of us real professionals in microstock wouldn't act like children on our way out the door if we ever opted to move on.
I completely agree. So why do you think I am saying what I do? Think deeper my friend. :)
Well, for a minute I thought you might be trying to get other people to take up the cause, put more pressure on the microstock companies to make changes by getting all of us involved. But I don't think you're ever coming back to microstock so what's the point? Even if you tried, I suspect a lot of companies would tell you to hit the bricks after you publicly mocked them and implied that they aren't professionals.
So what is it? Let's not play a guessing game here. If there is some deeper meaning behind what you've said, just fill us in. Otherwise I'm taking your words at face value. You made a ton of money, moved on, and now openly mock the companies you left behind, the ones that enabled you to grow your business and make millions. What exactly am I missing?
I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.
So how come this haven't bothered you for years and years? I'm guessing it only started to be a problem after sales either stagnated or reduced despite uploading... which means the actual problem is not the business model but the competition.
-
The internet is more forgiving of spelling mistakes then ever before. English is being used by so many people online for whom it is not the first language and many of those who are native to English, still don´t know how to write.
I really wouldn´t worry about that.
-
I have a simple question for Yuri:
Do you believe that photographers should go artist exclusive with istock/Getty?
Do you have the impression the company has a successful future and growth ahead of it?
Thanks!
-
Having to really nail them is trivial when there are 20+ million images in store.
Due to Pareto's Law only 20% of those 20 million images are selling well and compensating for the remaining 80% of low sellers.
That means 2 millions of top sellers and of those 2 millions 100,000 are Yuri's, that means his portfolio alone impacts an agency like SS for around 5% of their sales but as far as we know it could be even 10-15% !
Of course random buyers will quickly grab the clones but some buyers could go back to istock if they're fans of Yuri and his team.
You seem to forget that the 80/20 split will also apply to Yuri. So he might only have 20,000 images that sell very well and nearly all of them will be the most copied images on all the sites.
-
Well I saw stocks rise and fall, lets wait for Shutterstock To Announce Second Quarter 2013 Earnings Release on August 7, 2013.
And I dont think it will be a disaster as they are the only site for me that is selling images on daily basis even with small portfolio.
-
Believe it or not - few of us don't speak Danish. To be honest I find using Danish in this thread impolite.
It is not necessary to speak Danish. But you can read it anyway. It is somewhere between English and German.
-
Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.
Welcome to the club. It took you long enough to get here, although I'm not sure about the whole iStock/Getty thing.
-
The internet is more forgiving of spelling mistakes then ever before. English is being used by so many people online for whom it is not the first language and many of those who are native to English, still don´t know how to write.
I really wouldn´t worry about that.
Every browser has spell check, even blogs have spell check. Just because people write poor English doesnt mean it should become the standard.
-
What a narcissist! Sneers at us all over how he won't deal with us, only with "professionals", then can't resist cobbling together some stats that might support the contention that he is god's gift to the universe and can't resist coming to amateursnapperstockgroup.com to brag about his importance.
Sorry, Yuri, didn't you get the message when iStock sacked Sean? Nobody is of any real importance to the stock industry, not Sean and not you. But don't let that get in the way of your self-esteem.
Hi. Send me an email on [email protected] and let's discus a bit further. I feel somewhat sad that I can make you explode like this and would like to know why. Are you ok with discussing over email?
I've observed you over the years. My opinion of you went down the drain in an SS thread a long time ago when someone pointed out that one of your people line-ups was ridiculous with the fake reflections not matching the line, so the whole effect was absurd. Instead of admitting you had screwed up and pulling the failed picture, you said it was all the fault of a trainee photoshop worker (who I think you named) and that while the picture was rubbish, that might be the sort of thing customers wanted.
In a couple of replies you showed 1) a complete failure to accept that anything you published could be wrong, even though it clearly was; 2) a desire to blame your staff instead of accepting responsibility when things go wrong, however minor the issue might be, and 3) complete contempt for buyers and a willingness to leave them looking like idiots by buying your mistakes.
I've wasted very little time on your pronouncements since then, though I understand you have provided a lot of useful information to people as a part of your self-promotion drive.
No need to do it in private communication, dude. Your latest "microstock fails because I leave" is just part of the observed pattern.
Unfortunately it was the screwup of a trainee photographer. I told him nicely what kind of trouble this caused me and he was very apologetic. He is still part of our team today and teaches our advanced retouching classes. He was 16 years old at the time of the "reflective surface" mistake and was competing internationally on several photoshop competitions. I simply had to be silent about it. The reflections looked crap. Totally. I agree, but I was not going to smooch it into somebodies online reputation at the age of 16. Then I rather take it on myself. Wish I did and which you are now blaming me for.
Thank you for proving my point. It appears under your name. Everything that appears that is good shows how great you are. Everything that is bad is the fault of someone else. It was FOR SALE on SS. And you blamed a photoshop trainee, not the photographer.
Are you serious? I would not want to the under your wing. Have some heart please. Are you suggesting that I be a more evil boss and less forgiving?
Actually, you would have liked it under my wing because I took responsibility for my staff's mistakes, so if there had been a problem I would have taken the rap, not you. I know that is not the fashion among top business people these days.
If you did protect his reputation, you did it by naming a girl photoshop trainee instead of the photographer.
And the mistake was actually yours, for a failure of quality control.
All you actually needed to do was say "I produce a lot of pictures and once in a while something goes wrong, sorry" and then pull the offending picture. That would have solved everything. Instead you insulted buyers and threw blame at staff whom you never acknowledge when things are going right.
The most astonishing thing is that you seem not to be able to understand what I said in the previous posts. Instead, you are trying to play the "he was only a child, how can you be so nasty to him" card.
Sorry, that's pathetic.
-
I'm mystified why there is such an obsession with Yuri? He operates a business and makes decisions based on what is best for his business, not other competing photographers. And, yes there is a place for citizen photojournalism ... I've always said an amateur gets lucky and produces a good photo - a pro does it on demand. There will always be a demand for professional photography.
Did you read the blog? Alexander the Great would feel threatened by so much display of megalomania. :)
Indeed I did. It's an advertising piece for and by Yuri. What would you expect from company advertising? Most companies churn out PR bumf non-stop. I know, because a ton of it lands in my in box. His company is no exception.
-
I have a simple question for Yuri:
Do you believe that photographers should go artist exclusive with istock/Getty?
Do you have the impression the company has a successful future and growth ahead of it?
Thanks!
They know the most about the business of selling stock images. The rest are still just catching up. It never really was fair game, but we all signed up to play along.
-
Believe it or not - few of us don't speak Danish. To be honest I find using Danish in this thread impolite.
It is not necessary to speak Danish. But you can read it anyway. It is somewhere between English and German.
True. Now I can read it. In fact any language is somewhere between English, German, Russian, Chinese and Hungarian.
-
2) a desire to blame your staff instead of accepting responsibility when things go wrong, however minor the issue might be,
He does have a history of that.
When he was outed for having some (just a few IIRC) RM pics on Alamy which were also RF elsewhere, he blamed his staff.
Clearly, he doesn't believe in 'the buck stops here'.
-
What a narcissist! Sneers at us all over how he won't deal with us, only with "professionals", then can't resist cobbling together some stats that might support the contention that he is god's gift to the universe and can't resist coming to amateursnapperstockgroup.com to brag about his importance.
Sorry, Yuri, didn't you get the message when iStock sacked Sean? Nobody is of any real importance to the stock industry, not Sean and not you. But don't let that get in the way of your self-esteem.
Hi. Send me an email on [email protected] and let's discus a bit further. I feel somewhat sad that I can make you explode like this and would like to know why. Are you ok with discussing over email?
I've observed you over the years. My opinion of you went down the drain in an SS thread a long time ago when someone pointed out that one of your people line-ups was ridiculous with the fake reflections not matching the line, so the whole effect was absurd. Instead of admitting you had screwed up and pulling the failed picture, you said it was all the fault of a trainee photoshop worker (who I think you named) and that while the picture was rubbish, that might be the sort of thing customers wanted.
In a couple of replies you showed 1) a complete failure to accept that anything you published could be wrong, even though it clearly was; 2) a desire to blame your staff instead of accepting responsibility when things go wrong, however minor the issue might be, and 3) complete contempt for buyers and a willingness to leave them looking like idiots by buying your mistakes.
I've wasted very little time on your pronouncements since then, though I understand you have provided a lot of useful information to people as a part of your self-promotion drive.
No need to do it in private communication, dude. Your latest "microstock fails because I leave" is just part of the observed pattern.
Unfortunately it was the screwup of a trainee photographer. I told him nicely what kind of trouble this caused me and he was very apologetic. He is still part of our team today and teaches our advanced retouching classes. He was 16 years old at the time of the "reflective surface" mistake and was competing internationally on several photoshop competitions. I simply had to be silent about it. The reflections looked crap. Totally. I agree, but I was not going to smooch it into somebodies online reputation at the age of 16. Then I rather take it on myself. Wish I did and which you are now blaming me for.
Thank you for proving my point. It appears under your name. Everything that appears that is good shows how great you are. Everything that is bad is the fault of someone else. It was FOR SALE on SS. And you blamed a photoshop trainee, not the photographer.
Are you serious? I would not want to the under your wing. Have some heart please. Are you suggesting that I be a more evil boss and less forgiving?
Actually, you would have liked it under my wing because I took responsibility for my staff's mistakes, so if there had been a problem I would have taken the rap, not you. I know that is not the fashion among top business people these days.
If you did protect his reputation, you did it by naming a girl photoshop trainee instead of the photographer.
And the mistake was actually yours, for a failure of quality control.
All you actually needed to do was say "I produce a lot of pictures and once in a while something goes wrong, sorry" and then pull the offending picture. That would have solved everything. Instead you insulted buyers and threw blame at staff whom you never acknowledge when things are going right.
The most astonishing thing is that you seem not to be able to understand what I said in the previous posts. Instead, you are trying to play the "he was only a child, how can you be so nasty to him" card.
Sorry, that's pathetic.
Ok. You got me a bit upset. I posted my phone number just a few post's ago. Please call me and I will get the "photoshop trainee" on the call and we can ask him directly what he thought of my handling of the situation. If you really want to call me, let's do exactly that. Call me!
-
Yuri,
It is a very confident blog, maybe too confident (being diplomatic). I have no axe to grind with you and I am not jealous of your success as stock is a hobby for me. You earned your success.
I don't see mobiles being the future as you do. Quality is not good enough. There is money to be made if you are in the right place at the right time like citizen journalism.
My experience is when a leader in a field leaves then someone fills the gaps. Everyone is replaceable. The world moves on and adapts.
If you can take loyal customers with you and earn more money when the stock industry appears to be racing to the bottom, then good luck to you.
-
I'm mystified why there is such an obsession with Yuri? He operates a business and makes decisions based on what is best for his business, not other competing photographers. And, yes there is a place for citizen photojournalism ... I've always said an amateur gets lucky and produces a good photo - a pro does it on demand. There will always be a demand for professional photography.
Did you read the blog? Alexander the Great would feel threatened by so much display of megalomania. :)
Indeed I did. It's an advertising piece for and by Yuri. What would you expect from company advertising? Most companies churn out PR bumf non-stop. I know, because a ton of it lands in my in box. His company is no exception.
If its an advertising piece, then its an even worse job. Come on, get real. If you are THAT big in the stock world, at least get your press release spell checked and a little less delusional in wording and get the maths right. 70% of 21 of his photographers in the top 10? Thats 14 in the top 10. 55% of CEOs where not interested the other 35% were paralyzed. Thats 10% short. ;) Sorry, but if those mistakes are made, I am not going to believe the other 'facts' either. Its all about perception, in advertising, isnt it?
I think all the CEOs he bashed in that blog are laughing their balls off and Mr Klein is realising he appointed a git. :)
-
Considering the deal that Istock/Getty did with Google and the this group was trying to stop this deal and throw in a bit of a protest, i find Yuri going exclusive with them sort of a slap in the face and his attitude bordering on huberis
-
I have a simple question for Yuri:
Do you believe that photographers should go artist exclusive with istock/Getty?
Do you have the impression the company has a successful future and growth ahead of it?
Thanks!
They know the most about the business of selling stock images. The rest are still just catching up. It never really was fair game, but we all signed up to play along.
It is a very elegant answer. I genuinly hope it works out for you. But I have a hard time imagining that someone as driven as you will be able to handle the delays, the wall of silence, the intransparancy, the lack of accountability for their own mistakes. Externalizing blame isn´t you, but unfortunately this is what I have come to associate with getty/istock. Otherwise I would still be there.
I was very supportive of istock, also of higher prices and a midstock model.
But the old istock that knew how to harvest and develop the talent in the crowd, that could unify artists,buyers, designers and team is a thing of the past. Vanished.
So it is very interesting you are so confident in their ability to grow their market share again.
We will see.
Exclusive images would be a nice move...;)
-
Yuri,
It is a very confident blog, maybe too confident (being diplomatic). I have no axe to grind with you and I am not jealous of your success as stock is a hobby for me. You earned your success.
I don't see mobiles being the future as you do. Quality is not good enough. There is money to be made if you are in the right place at the right time like citizen journalism.
My experience is when a leader in a field leaves that someone fills the gaps. Everyone is replaceable. The world moves on and adapts.
If you can take loyal customers with you and earn more money when the stock industry appears to be racing to the bottom, then good luck to you.
I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer.
-
unintentional quote deleted
-
How many spelling mistakes do I have Ron?
Sorry, with your observing avatar it just looked like you are checking my post. :)
-
Ok. You got me a bit upset. I posted my phone number just a few post's ago. Please call me and I will get the "photoshop trainee" on the call and we can ask him directly what he thought of my handling of the situation. If you really want to call me, let's do exactly that. Call me!
There's no need, Yuri. It really doesn't matter to me and I'm perfectly happy to accept it if you say that in-house you are kind and considerate to your staff.
My issue was nothing at all to do with your handling of your staff, it was about your own attitude and a phone call is not going to make a difference to that however charming you may be.
I see things in you that are very common in extremely successful people but which I happen not to admire. Lots of other people do admire them. I think we just have a totally different view of life and what is important.
-
How many spelling mistakes do I have Ron?
Sorry, with your observing avatar it just looked like you are checking my post. :)
I dont know, I am not native English, but I do use spell check to at least cover the basics. :)
-
I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.
No, I don't think it's optimal. I agree with you, there is a problem in this business when it comes to pricing and pay rates.
My issue with you isn't about the business. This business has been the way it is for a long time now, and it was upon that flawed business model that you made a pretty nice pile of money. You want to leave and move on, that's perfectly fine. But I think you're doing it poorly, and frankly you're acting like a child in the process.
So these other companies wouldn't change what they've been doing just because you hopped on a plane and came knocking. That, to you, means that they aren't professionals? They seemed awfully professional enough when you were cashing those big checks.
I just think it's pretty lame that you had no problem playing this game for years when the rules suited you, and now that you have tried to change the rules and you've moved on to something else when it didn't work, it's open season on mocking everyone who is still in this. All while proclaiming yourself the most important thing in microstock and your leaving being the most significant event in microstock history. Surely you don't really believe that, do you?
-
You mentioning the obscure reflection on some obscure group shot is almost as bad as him inserting the SS graph. 8)
It wasn't his picture that bothered me. It was the way he handled the issue when someone pointed it out. For me, that was symptomatic of the way he handled his business and - enormously successful though he may be - it is not an approach I can admire. But then, I'm not "professional", which probably explains it.
(P.S. - Gunter one thing I would not blame a Dane for is his English spelling... my Danish is err ...)
You are bickering him like some estranged wife, and he does the same with Shutterstock.
-
Hi Yuri,
I asked a question a while back in this thread but I think it got swallowed in a wave of vitriol. I wonder if you could tell us if you've been given any assurances that Istock will improve their inadequate it infrastructure? Their IT systems seem to be on the border of collapse, for example. This may well be due to the priorities of previous CEO's - but what does the future hold there? Anything you can share with us?
-
Yuri,
It is a very confident blog, maybe too confident (being diplomatic). I have no axe to grind with you and I am not jealous of your success as stock is a hobby for me. You earned your success.
I don't see mobiles being the future as you do. Quality is not good enough. There is money to be made if you are in the right place at the right time like citizen journalism.
My experience is when a leader in a field leaves that someone fills the gaps. Everyone is replaceable. The world moves on and adapts.
If you can take loyal customers with you and earn more money when the stock industry appears to be racing to the bottom, then good luck to you.
I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer.
Well one thing to really consider, is where the business is moving overall. Not sure how in your country, but in ours we receive tons of flyers every day. All are in that box for old paper in front of the house. No one is reading it anymore. No one (from the young population) needs a newspaper/magazines at all. If you are looking for sale/news/prizes/magazines/pictures/photos/designs and whatever else - you look at internet via smartphone/tablet/your pc. What resolution is needed ? Very small for an add.
So yes, the projects for mobile phones will have future just because of this. But that doesn't mean, that dslr content will be obsolete. Not yet.
-
You mentioning the obscure reflection on some obscure group shot is almost as bad as him inserting the SS graph. 8)
It wasn't his picture that bothered me. It was the way he handled the issue when someone pointed it out. For me, that was symptomatic of the way he handled his business and - enormously successful though he may be - it is not an approach I can admire. But then, I'm not "professional", which probably explains it.
(P.S. - Gunter one thing I would not blame a Dane for is his English spelling... my Danish is err ...)
You are bickering him like some estranged wife, and he does the same with Shutterstock.
And what exactly are you doing? Are you his wing-man or something?
-
Ok. You got me a bit upset. I posted my phone number just a few post's ago. Please call me and I will get the "photoshop trainee" on the call and we can ask him directly what he thought of my handling of the situation. If you really want to call me, let's do exactly that. Call me!
There's no need, Yuri. It really doesn't matter to me and I'm perfectly happy to accept it if you say that in-house you are kind and considerate to your staff.
My issue was nothing at all to do with your handling of your staff, it was about your own attitude and a phone call is not going to make a difference to that however charming you may be.
I see things in you that are very common in extremely successful people but which I happen not to admire. Lots of other people do admire them. I think we just have a totally different view of life and what is important.
Yes we do. And I think the secondary gain from disrespecting the "successful" serves a much deeper satisfaction for you than what you are willing to put on the line if talking to me in person. You stereotype me, and even when I offer a direct honest conversation "there is no need". You need my stereotype more than you need good arguments. :)
-
You mentioning the obscure reflection on some obscure group shot is almost as bad as him inserting the SS graph. 8)
It wasn't his picture that bothered me. It was the way he handled the issue when someone pointed it out. For me, that was symptomatic of the way he handled his business and - enormously successful though he may be - it is not an approach I can admire. But then, I'm not "professional", which probably explains it.
(P.S. - Gunter one thing I would not blame a Dane for is his English spelling... my Danish is err ...)
You are bickering him like some estranged wife, and he does the same with Shutterstock.
And what exactly are you doing? Are you his wing-man or something?
having some fun watching it. :)
-
Are you serious? I would not want to the under your wing. Have some heart please. Are you suggesting that I be a more evil boss and less forgiving?
You accept the blame publically, apologise and remedy the error. After all, the work goes out in your name.
You can then discuss the matter in private with your staff.
-
I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.
No, I don't think it's optimal. I agree with you, there is a problem in this business when it comes to pricing and pay rates.
My issue with you isn't about the business. This business has been the way it is for a long time now, and it was upon that flawed business model that you made a pretty nice pile of money. You want to leave and move on, that's perfectly fine. But I think you're doing it poorly, and frankly you're acting like a child in the process.
So these other companies wouldn't change what they've been doing just because you hopped on a plane and came knocking. That, to you, means that they aren't professionals? They seemed awfully professional enough when you were cashing those big checks.
I just think it's pretty lame that you had no problem playing this game for years when the rules suited you, and now that you have tried to change the rules and you've moved on to something else when it didn't work, it's open season on mocking everyone who is still in this. All while proclaiming yourself the most important thing in microstock and your leaving being the most significant event in microstock history. Surely you don't really believe that, do you?
Are you angry with me for leaving you behind? You mock me for thinking i'm significant and then blame me for not controlling the universe and leaving you behind...hhmmm. Not that is a good one :)
-
I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.
No, I don't think it's optimal. I agree with you, there is a problem in this business when it comes to pricing and pay rates.
My issue with you isn't about the business. This business has been the way it is for a long time now, and it was upon that flawed business model that you made a pretty nice pile of money. You want to leave and move on, that's perfectly fine. But I think you're doing it poorly, and frankly you're acting like a child in the process.
So these other companies wouldn't change what they've been doing just because you hopped on a plane and came knocking. That, to you, means that they aren't professionals? They seemed awfully professional enough when you were cashing those big checks.
I just think it's pretty lame that you had no problem playing this game for years when the rules suited you, and now that you have tried to change the rules and you've moved on to something else when it didn't work, it's open season on mocking everyone who is still in this. All while proclaiming yourself the most important thing in microstock and your leaving being the most significant event in microstock history. Surely you don't really believe that, do you?
Are you angry with me for leaving you behind? You mock me for thinking i'm significant and then blame me for not controlling the path of stock photography and leaving you behind...hhmmm. Not that is a good one :)
-
"I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer"
No, you aren't. It isn't the camera. It's the planning. It's the talent. It's the releases. It's the trust. A bunch of editorial phone snaps from the crowd isn't going to change commercial stock. And the size of the sensor isn't going to change the success rate of crowd journalism sites.
-
I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer.
I'd be interested to see that. I seriously doubt that the laws of physics allow for that, taking into account the airy disc, but it would be interesting to see some samples at full size with complete exif data.
-
I have a simple question for Yuri:
Do you believe that photographers should go artist exclusive with istock/Getty?
Do you have the impression the company has a successful future and growth ahead of it?
Thanks!
They know the most about the business of selling stock images. The rest are still just catching up. It never really was fair game, but we all signed up to play along.
Clearly they do not. That's why they are losing the game, month by month, to SS and also why they have just dropped prices massively at HUGE costs to themselves, as well as to their contributors. It's also why they've just sacked the boss for the second time in two years.
It would appear that you've jumped aboard a sinking ship Matey.
-
I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.
No, I don't think it's optimal. I agree with you, there is a problem in this business when it comes to pricing and pay rates.
My issue with you isn't about the business. This business has been the way it is for a long time now, and it was upon that flawed business model that you made a pretty nice pile of money. You want to leave and move on, that's perfectly fine. But I think you're doing it poorly, and frankly you're acting like a child in the process.
So these other companies wouldn't change what they've been doing just because you hopped on a plane and came knocking. That, to you, means that they aren't professionals? They seemed awfully professional enough when you were cashing those big checks.
I just think it's pretty lame that you had no problem playing this game for years when the rules suited you, and now that you have tried to change the rules and you've moved on to something else when it didn't work, it's open season on mocking everyone who is still in this. All while proclaiming yourself the most important thing in microstock and your leaving being the most significant event in microstock history. Surely you don't really believe that, do you?
You are making assumptions without knowing what went on in the meetings or how those involved conducted themselves.
It is not the artist who dictated what the sites would accept or what they paid. Micro sites have continued to raise the quality bar and dictate buyer expectations without compensating content providers for those drastic and prolonged changes. Case in point, just look at the vast majority of ports for those who have been at this awhile. Ask yourself if the content or the tools and expendables used to produce it have changed.
I can't really believe how many people are taking it up for those who are perfectly willing to drive the price of our assets down in the race to gain market share. You can count on the fact that if they had paid to produce OUR content themselves they would be far more diligent in guarding it's value.
Why are so many willing to take it up for and defend the sites who have a long track record of frequently changing the rules and the contracts that we signed up for when we started this journey?
-
"I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer"
No, you aren't. It isn't the camera. It's the planning. It's the talent. It's the releases. It's the trust. A bunch of editorial phone snaps from the crowd isn't going to change commercial stock. And the size of the sensor isn't going to change the success rate of crowd journalism sites.
Wow Sean. You sound as conservative as the macrostock opposition back in 2005, when talking about microstock. Can't you see this? I mean. I could literarily take your last post and time-machine it back 7 years and it would fit perfectly as a criticism towards microstock. I mean, are you seriously going around purposefully trying to avoid the obvious facts?
Now here is a funny thing. You see I actually know Sean personally. We had a drink at a conference in California a good 4 years ago. My first remark to him was something of the likes of "Sean... you are not such a bad guy after all, just when you are on the forums". A few seconds later he confessed: "no, but don't tell anybody". So as of now. Officially. I would like to state that Sean L, is in fact a nice guy! He may not seem like it, but he is.
-
"I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer"
No, you aren't. It isn't the camera. It's the planning. It's the talent. It's the releases. It's the trust. A bunch of editorial phone snaps from the crowd isn't going to change commercial stock. And the size of the sensor isn't going to change the success rate of crowd journalism sites.
And apparently the tiny lens on these $600 phones is MUCH better than any $2k L lens? It must be for the quality to be "better than any DSLR". What utter nonsense.
-
I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.
No, I don't think it's optimal. I agree with you, there is a problem in this business when it comes to pricing and pay rates.
My issue with you isn't about the business. This business has been the way it is for a long time now, and it was upon that flawed business model that you made a pretty nice pile of money. You want to leave and move on, that's perfectly fine. But I think you're doing it poorly, and frankly you're acting like a child in the process.
So these other companies wouldn't change what they've been doing just because you hopped on a plane and came knocking. That, to you, means that they aren't professionals? They seemed awfully professional enough when you were cashing those big checks.
I just think it's pretty lame that you had no problem playing this game for years when the rules suited you, and now that you have tried to change the rules and you've moved on to something else when it didn't work, it's open season on mocking everyone who is still in this. All while proclaiming yourself the most important thing in microstock and your leaving being the most significant event in microstock history. Surely you don't really believe that, do you?
You are making assumptions without knowing what went on in the meetings or how those involved conducted themselves.
It is not the artist who dictated what the sites would accept or what they paid. Micro sites have continued to raise the quality bar and dictate buyer expectations without compensating content providers for those drastic and prolonged changes. Case in point, just look at the vast majority of ports for those who have been at this awhile. Ask yourself if the content or the tools and expendables used to produce it have changed.
I can't really believe how many people are taking it up for those who are perfectly willing to drive the price of our assets down in the race to gain market share. You can count on the fact that if they had paid to produce OUR content themselves they would be far more diligent in guarding it's value.
Why are so many willing to take it up for and defend the sites who have a long track record of frequently changing the rules and the contracts that we signed up for when we started this journey?
Who said I was not in those meetings?
-
"I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer"
No, you aren't. It isn't the camera. It's the planning. It's the talent. It's the releases. It's the trust. A bunch of editorial phone snaps from the crowd isn't going to change commercial stock. And the size of the sensor isn't going to change the success rate of crowd journalism sites.
And apparently the tiny lens on these $600 phones is MUCH better than any $2k L lens? It must be for the quality to be "better than any DSLR". What utter nonsense.
Well you will see for yourself. I understand your standpoint but you will bite your words in two years from now. It's not about the optics you see, it is about the size of the optics relative to the sensor size, at which camera phones have a clear advantage.
-
Ok. You got me a bit upset. I posted my phone number just a few post's ago. Please call me and I will get the "photoshop trainee" on the call and we can ask him directly what he thought of my handling of the situation. If you really want to call me, let's do exactly that. Call me!
There's no need, Yuri. It really doesn't matter to me and I'm perfectly happy to accept it if you say that in-house you are kind and considerate to your staff.
My issue was nothing at all to do with your handling of your staff, it was about your own attitude and a phone call is not going to make a difference to that however charming you may be.
I see things in you that are very common in extremely successful people but which I happen not to admire. Lots of other people do admire them. I think we just have a totally different view of life and what is important.
Yes we do. And I think the secondary gain from disrespecting the "successful" serves a much deeper satisfaction for you than what you are willing to put on the line if talking to me in person. You stereotype me, and even when I offer a direct honest conversation "there is no need". You need my stereotype more than you need good arguments. :)
"Stereotype" is the wrong word. "Preconceptions" might be better. And, of course, they might be wrong. But a 10 minute phone call isn't going to prove anything. It would be pointless. I tend to see your enthusiasm for a chat as public relations rather than having anything substantial to it. And while you may care if I have given a hit to your ego or your public image, why should I be desperate to pursue the issue privately?
I'm not surprised that you have concluded that I get satisfaction from "disrespecting successful" since the idea that I am jealous of your phenomental success (and it is phenomenal) massages your ego. But how come I have never said a word against Sean Locke or Hidesy or Lisa Young or any of the other superstars of stock? Aren't I meant to be jealous of them, too? I mean, I hate success, don't I? Because I'm such a failure? Yet I have never, ever, copied anything like one of your pictures - which is where success is meant to lie.
The reality is that we have different aspirations. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, as someone once wrote in "The Danish Play".
-
I have seen this question Twice...but still no answer.....
Hi Yuri,
I asked a question a while back in this thread but I think it got swallowed in a wave of vitriol. I wonder if you could tell us if you've been given any assurances that Istock will improve their inadequate it infrastructure? Their IT systems seem to be on the border of collapse, for example. This may well be due to the priorities of previous CEO's - but what does the future hold there? Anything you can share with us?
-
You mentioning the obscure reflection on some obscure group shot is almost as bad as him inserting the SS graph. 8)
It wasn't his picture that bothered me. It was the way he handled the issue when someone pointed it out. For me, that was symptomatic of the way he handled his business and - enormously successful though he may be - it is not an approach I can admire. But then, I'm not "professional", which probably explains it.
(P.S. - Gunter one thing I would not blame a Dane for is his English spelling... my Danish is err ...)
You are bickering him like some estranged wife, and he does the same with Shutterstock.
And what exactly are you doing? Are you his wing-man or something?
having some fun watching it. :)
Welcome!
-
The technology is moving fast, and don't get me wrong, I love technology and the progress, but the mobile talks just remind me those fake Nokia ads :D
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/nokia-apology-fake-lumia-920-smartphone-ad (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/nokia-apology-fake-lumia-920-smartphone-ad)
http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3297878/nokias-pureview-still-photos-also-include-fakes (http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3297878/nokias-pureview-still-photos-also-include-fakes)
-
I have seen this question Twice...but still no answer.....
Hi Yuri,
I asked a question a while back in this thread but I think it got swallowed in a wave of vitriol. I wonder if you could tell us if you've been given any assurances that Istock will improve their inadequate it infrastructure? Their IT systems seem to be on the border of collapse, for example. This may well be due to the priorities of previous CEO's - but what does the future hold there? Anything you can share with us?
Well, I think if we don't get a reply after the fourth showing we can assume that Yuri has had no assurances from istock and that the site will soon fall apart at the seams...
-
Ok. You got me a bit upset. I posted my phone number just a few post's ago. Please call me and I will get the "photoshop trainee" on the call and we can ask him directly what he thought of my handling of the situation. If you really want to call me, let's do exactly that. Call me!
There's no need, Yuri. It really doesn't matter to me and I'm perfectly happy to accept it if you say that in-house you are kind and considerate to your staff.
My issue was nothing at all to do with your handling of your staff, it was about your own attitude and a phone call is not going to make a difference to that however charming you may be.
I see things in you that are very common in extremely successful people but which I happen not to admire. Lots of other people do admire them. I think we just have a totally different view of life and what is important.
Yes we do. And I think the secondary gain from disrespecting the "successful" serves a much deeper satisfaction for you than what you are willing to put on the line if talking to me in person. You stereotype me, and even when I offer a direct honest conversation "there is no need". You need my stereotype more than you need good arguments. :)
"Stereotype" is the wrong word. "Preconceptions" might be better. And, of course, they might be wrong. But a 10 minute phone call isn't going to prove anything. It would be pointless. I tend to see your enthusiasm for a chat as public relations rather than having anything substantial to it. And while you may care if I have given a hit to your ego or your public image, why should I be desperate to pursue the issue privately?
I'm not surprised that you have concluded that I get satisfaction from "disrespecting successful" since the idea that I am jealous of your phenomental success (and it is phenomenal) massages your ego. But how come I have never said a word against Sean Locke or Hidesy or Lisa Young or any of the other superstars of stock? Aren't I meant to be jealous of them, too? I mean, I hate success, don't I? Because I'm such a failure? Yet I have never, ever, copied anything like one of your pictures - which is where success is meant to lie.
The reality is that we have different aspirations. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, as someone once wrote in "The Danish Play".
I wont continue our discussion after this. I feel a bit sorry for you having seen your last post. I wish you the best "BaldricksTrousers" and hope for your success, but I have my full name in these post's and I could be talking to anybody. I even put my phone number here so you could call me. We are in different worlds "BaldricksTrousers". I want to resolve and get somewhere, you want to stay anonymous and throw hand grenades. Not my style.
-
Yuri, my questions:
So if micro is declining what segment of people do you see as having the greatest opportunity for being successful at mobile and in general with stock?
- General public mobile phone users?
- Microstockers who embrace mobile?
- Traditional macro people who embrace mobile?
- Other?
And given all of this seems to be tied to Getty is there any advantage to being an existing Getty contributor?
-
I have seen this question Twice...but still no answer.....
Hi Yuri,
I asked a question a while back in this thread but I think it got swallowed in a wave of vitriol. I wonder if you could tell us if you've been given any assurances that Istock will improve their inadequate it infrastructure? Their IT systems seem to be on the border of collapse, for example. This may well be due to the priorities of previous CEO's - but what does the future hold there? Anything you can share with us?
Well, I think if we don't get a reply after the fourth showing we can assume that Yuri has had no assurances from istock and that the site will soon fall apart at the seams...
A lot of things are going on on that front. Istock is in high gear in terms of improving their site.
-
[q
Ok. You got me a bit upset. I posted my phone number just a few post's ago. Please call me and I will get the "photoshop trainee" on the call and we can ask him directly what he thought of my handling of the situation. If you really want to call me, let's do exactly that. Call me!
There's no need, Yuri. It really doesn't matter to me and I'm perfectly happy to accept it if you say that in-house you are kind and considerate to your staff.
My issue was nothing at all to do with your handling of your staff, it was about your own attitude and a phone call is not going to make a difference to that however charming you may be.
I see things in you that are very common in extremely successful people but which I happen not to admire. Lots of other people do admire them. I think we just have a totally different view of life and what is important.
Yes we do. And I think the secondary gain from disrespecting the "successful" serves a much deeper satisfaction for you than what you are willing to put on the line if talking to me in person. You stereotype me, and even when I offer a direct honest conversation "there is no need". You need my stereotype more than you need good arguments. :)
"Stereotype" is the wrong word. "Preconceptions" might be better. And, of course, they might be wrong. But a 10 minute phone call isn't going to prove anything. It would be pointless. I tend to see your enthusiasm for a chat as public relations rather than having anything substantial to it. And while you may care if I have given a hit to your ego or your public image, why should I be desperate to pursue the issue privately?
I'm not surprised that you have concluded that I get satisfaction from "disrespecting successful" since the idea that I am jealous of your phenomental success (and it is phenomenal) massages your ego. But how come I have never said a word against Sean Locke or Hidesy or Lisa Young or any of the other superstars of stock? Aren't I meant to be jealous of them, too? I mean, I hate success, don't I? Because I'm such a failure? Yet I have never, ever, copied anything like one of your pictures - which is where success is meant to lie.
The reality is that we have different aspirations. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, as someone once wrote in "The Danish Play".
I wont continue our discussion after this. I feel a bit sorry for you having seen your last post. I wish you the best "BaldricksTrousers" and hope for your success, but I have my full name in these post's and I could be talking to anybody. I even put my phone number here so you could call me. We are in different worlds "BaldricksTrousers". I want to resolve and get somewhere, you want to stay anonymous and throw hand grenades. Not my style.
Oh, my name is Paul Cowan and you should be able to see that through the links to my portfolio that are published here. People who are active on the forums have known who I am for a long time
But you are right that the conversation is pointless. I really don't know why you "feel a bit sorry for me". No need, I assure you.
-
"I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer"
No, you aren't. It isn't the camera. It's the planning. It's the talent. It's the releases. It's the trust. A bunch of editorial phone snaps from the crowd isn't going to change commercial stock. And the size of the sensor isn't going to change the success rate of crowd journalism sites.
And apparently the tiny lens on these $600 phones is MUCH better than any $2k L lens? It must be for the quality to be "better than any DSLR". What utter nonsense.
Well you will see for yourself. I understand your standpoint but you will bite your words in two years from now. It's not about the optics you see, it is about the size of the optics relative to the sensor size, at which camera phones have a clear advantage.
Firstly quality is determined by the sensor, but modern DSLR sensors are so sensitive, that they can already show the flaws in even the best quality glass. The more light that is gathered (determined by the size of the lens) the more detail that can be seen and resolved by the sensor. That's basic physics. You'll be telling us next that they'll be removing those big astronomical telescopes on top of mountains and replacing them with your little camera phones.
-
Two good things Yuri has done: 1. Not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model, true origin of many of our troubles. For me, subs it's not micro, but "nano-stock". 2. Putting his images at PeopleImages at respectable prices.
About Scoopt... I don't think it really will work, the same that I don't thing that Connect will, but that is just again mi hunch. I've been wrong imn the past and I will be in the future.
I wont't say nothing on the rest. Just say that I'm taking abback seeing the change of attitude of many of you towards Yuri... it seems, mostly by the fact that he has gone exclusive at IS.
-
Just say that I'm taking abback seeing the change of attitude of many of you towards Yuri... it seems, mostly by the fact that he has gone exclusive at IS.
While still having 'a few' photos at a rival company. By an employee's oversight, allegedly. So that'll be pseudo-exclusive.
-
"I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer"
No, you aren't. It isn't the camera. It's the planning. It's the talent. It's the releases. It's the trust. A bunch of editorial phone snaps from the crowd isn't going to change commercial stock. And the size of the sensor isn't going to change the success rate of crowd journalism sites.
And apparently the tiny lens on these $600 phones is MUCH better than any $2k L lens? It must be for the quality to be "better than any DSLR". What utter nonsense.
Well you will see for yourself. I understand your standpoint but you will bite your words in two years from now. It's not about the optics you see, it is about the size of the optics relative to the sensor size, at which camera phones have a clear advantage.
Everything is about the optics, no matter what size sensor you have, if it has bad optics quality will suffer.
-
Thanks for the call, Yuri. And. yes. maybe I am too trenchant sometimes. But I still think you screwed up.
-
Everything is about the optics, no matter what size sensor you have, if it has bad optics quality will suffer.
From what Yuri just told me, I deduce that the argument is that the quality of modern optics is so high that the small size doesn't matter and the lens size relative to the sensor size reduces aberrations giving a clearer picture.
I would need to see this to believe it - but we all know that the quality of DSLRs and top end lenses vastly exceeds what is really needed for 99% of stock pictures.
Isn't it generally the case that the smaller the lens the easier it is to make it to a high quality? Large lenses have generally had worse resolution that has been made up for by the size of the film/sensor they project on to.
But there are still the issues of pixel pitch. aperture and diffraction.
-
"I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer"
No, you aren't. It isn't the camera. It's the planning. It's the talent. It's the releases. It's the trust. A bunch of editorial phone snaps from the crowd isn't going to change commercial stock. And the size of the sensor isn't going to change the success rate of crowd journalism sites.
And apparently the tiny lens on these $600 phones is MUCH better than any $2k L lens? It must be for the quality to be "better than any DSLR". What utter nonsense.
Well you will see for yourself. I understand your standpoint but you will bite your words in two years from now. It's not about the optics you see, it is about the size of the optics relative to the sensor size, at which camera phones have a clear advantage.
Everything is about the optics, no matter what size sensor you have, if it has bad optics quality will suffer.
I was a very late adopter to digital, so I'm not bashing mobile phones at this stage. I think they are very limited in what they can do, but I'm impressed at the quality my already-ancient Galaxy S2 can produce, if the light is good. In less than optimal light, like the flat light we usually get here, it's challenged. But technology moves on.
-
Ok. You got me a bit upset. I posted my phone number just a few post's ago. Please call me and I will get the "photoshop trainee" on the call and we can ask him directly what he thought of my handling of the situation. If you really want to call me, let's do exactly that. Call me!
There's no need, Yuri. It really doesn't matter to me and I'm perfectly happy to accept it if you say that in-house you are kind and considerate to your staff.
My issue was nothing at all to do with your handling of your staff, it was about your own attitude and a phone call is not going to make a difference to that however charming you may be.
I see things in you that are very common in extremely successful people but which I happen not to admire. Lots of other people do admire them. I think we just have a totally different view of life and what is important.
Yes we do. And I think the secondary gain from disrespecting the "successful" serves a much deeper satisfaction for you than what you are willing to put on the line if talking to me in person. You stereotype me, and even when I offer a direct honest conversation "there is no need". You need my stereotype more than you need good arguments. :)
"Stereotype" is the wrong word. "Preconceptions" might be better. And, of course, they might be wrong. But a 10 minute phone call isn't going to prove anything. It would be pointless. I tend to see your enthusiasm for a chat as public relations rather than having anything substantial to it. And while you may care if I have given a hit to your ego or your public image, why should I be desperate to pursue the issue privately?
I'm not surprised that you have concluded that I get satisfaction from "disrespecting successful" since the idea that I am jealous of your phenomental success (and it is phenomenal) massages your ego. But how come I have never said a word against Sean Locke or Hidesy or Lisa Young or any of the other superstars of stock? Aren't I meant to be jealous of them, too? I mean, I hate success, don't I? Because I'm such a failure? Yet I have never, ever, copied anything like one of your pictures - which is where success is meant to lie.
The reality is that we have different aspirations. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, as someone once wrote in "The Danish Play".
I wont continue our discussion after this. I feel a bit sorry for you having seen your last post. I wish you the best "BaldricksTrousers" and hope for your success, but I have my full name in these post's and I could be talking to anybody. I even put my phone number here so you could call me. We are in different worlds "BaldricksTrousers". I want to resolve and get somewhere, you want to stay anonymous and throw hand grenades. Not my style.
actually your style is trowing grenades, since I saw you the first time here (yep a rare occasion) I understood what was your purpose every single time, pretty much to distract all competition (which you don't have of course because you are number 1 according to all your profiles at agencies and also having the most downloaded models, cats and birds) while you carried on doing your thing which was very right at that time but deeply wrong at this exact moment
not knowing who is BT even after 5 or 6 posts directed at you today shows the lack of community concern you have, the only thing that matters to you is that we know you
-
Wow. I've tried and tried to find the old quote I want, but I can't locate it. It was about new ideas. At first people reject, they throw pitchforks, then they relax their opinion maybe dip their toe in the waters, and finally they accept and embrace the new idea. Trust me... the real quote was actually quite good, if it comes to me I'll post it. Good for Yuri for making bold moves. Every time I hear the word Getty/Istock/partner program I cringe a little though - I hope you are truly their partner and not their property.
I do believe their is a huge market for cellphone images, but I also believe that only the agency will profit from it. Am I just rejecting change - but I can't see a cell phone photographer making a steady living with this style of photography. A cell photo has a huge value to a newspaper, but little commercial value other than their authentic/grungy/instant appeal. I do design work for regular people, birth announcements, championship banners, photo books etc. and I am appalled by the cell photos they send to me. They are spending 100 bucks on birth announcements, but I wouldn't even show the photos to my blind aunt, let alone mail out 200 copies. It is just terrible that I have said that about my customers because obviously they don't think any thing is wrong with the quality - so it's my problem, not theirs. I would love to have a 40mp cell phone camera, but hopefully it can also override backlighting and the other issues that cause main probs.
Let's have this conversation again in 5 years and see where we are at!
-
Two good things Yuri has done: 1. Not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model, true origin of many of our troubles. For me, subs it's not micro, but "nano-stock".
What do you mean Yuri is "not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model"?
In case you're not aware, right now he has over 35K images available to subscribers at DT __ that's 10x more than I do!
Yuri has been doing microstock for about 8 years now and, in that time, literally nobody on the planet has sold more images at sub prices than he has. If you consider subs 'damaging' then nobody has been more damaging to the industry than he has. I've sold close to 400K licenses since I started but I'm sure it would probably take me well over 100+ more years to achieve the same level of damage that he has done.
It seems strange that you are giving him credit for supposedly not selling subs (when actually he is) and when he's also been selling subs for 100% of his time in the industry. Even if Yuri stopped selling subs tomorrow then that would be the first DAY in 8 years that he has not done so. Kind of like crediting an alcoholic for giving up the booze when he's still swigging away.
-
Let's have this conversation again in 5 years and see where we are at!
that is easy, we will be "talking" to the man who owns the biggest corporation in Europe ;D
-
Yuri, my questions:
So if micro is declining what segment of people do you see as having the greatest opportunity for being successful at mobile and in general with stock?
- General public mobile phone users?
- Microstockers who embrace mobile?
- Traditional macro people who embrace mobile?
- Other?
And given all of this seems to be tied to Getty is there any advantage to being an existing Getty contributor?
Us. We are. We will do excellent in the mobile arena. But it is back to "no photoshop" and shooting as is. Which is fun!
-
I've sold close to 400K licenses since I started
Aside: You're more than 30% ahead of me you bogger. So I guess you won that long-ago race hands down!
OK, back to the topic, people.
(edited for maths error - honestly - it's very late here!)
-
Thanks for the call, Yuri. And. yes. maybe I am too trenchant sometimes. But I still think you screwed up.
Yes. Good call Paul. Send me your email so I can send you that high res test shots from the upcoming mobile phones. Msg me. :)
-
... but we all know that the quality of DSLRs and top end lenses vastly exceeds what is really needed for 99% of stock pictures.
That's not in question but I still don't believe that a phone manufacturer's cheap sensor/lens combo will compare favourably with a quality DSLR & L glass __ which was what Yuri said. I have no doubt that it could easily be 'good enough' for most stock though.
-
Two good things Yuri has done: 1. Not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model, true origin of many of our troubles. For me, subs it's not micro, but "nano-stock".
What do you mean Yuri is "not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model"?
In case you're not aware, right now he has over 35K images available to subscribers at DT __ that's 10x more than I do!
Yuri has been doing microstock for about 8 years now and, in that time, literally nobody on the planet has sold more images at sub prices than he has. If you consider subs 'damaging' then nobody has been more damaging to the industry than he has. I've sold close to 400K licenses since I started but I'm sure it would probably take me well over 100+ more years to achieve the same level of damage that he has done.
It seems strange that you are giving him credit for supposedly not selling subs (when actually he is) and when he's also been selling subs for 100% of his time in the industry. Even if Yuri stopped selling subs tomorrow then that would be the first DAY in 8 years that he has not done so. Kind of like crediting an alcoholic for giving up the booze when he's still swigging away.
I mean he has deleted his portfolio at most subs site and he is in the process of doing the same with the remaining ones, as he has said. So simple.
I'm no thinking in the past. I look at the future, past can't be changed, and what we need are turning points and bridges to a better future.
-
Are you angry with me for leaving you behind? You mock me for thinking i'm significant and then blame me for not controlling the universe and leaving you behind...hhmmm. Not that is a good one :)
Not what I said, at all. I don't feel "behind" in microstock, and I certainly don't see Getty as being ahead in the game.
I think we're done here. Thanks for the lively conversation anyway.
-
Question regarding mobile phone photography: how about shallow DOF images (outdoor portraits, food photography, others), action/sport shots, wildlife (200 - 400mm focal length needed at least)? And all other aspects that make a DSLR a must for stock photography? Apart for some extreme macros, the mobile phones will get everything in DOF with that small sensor and poor lens. How will it sync with your ProPhoto strobes? etc-etc-etc...
-
Thanks for the call, Yuri. And. yes. maybe I am too trenchant sometimes. But I still think you screwed up.
Yes. Good call Paul. Send me your email so I can send you that high res test shots from the upcoming mobile phones. Msg me. :)
I've emailed you on the address you gave earlier - you've got me blocked on site messaging
-
Two good things Yuri has done: 1. Not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model, true origin of many of our troubles. For me, subs it's not micro, but "nano-stock".
What do you mean Yuri is "not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model"?
In case you're not aware, right now he has over 35K images available to subscribers at DT __ that's 10x more than I do!
Yuri has been doing microstock for about 8 years now and, in that time, literally nobody on the planet has sold more images at sub prices than he has. If you consider subs 'damaging' then nobody has been more damaging to the industry than he has. I've sold close to 400K licenses since I started but I'm sure it would probably take me well over 100+ more years to achieve the same level of damage that he has done.
It seems strange that you are giving him credit for supposedly not selling subs (when actually he is) and when he's also been selling subs for 100% of his time in the industry. Even if Yuri stopped selling subs tomorrow then that would be the first DAY in 8 years that he has not done so. Kind of like crediting an alcoholic for giving up the booze when he's still swigging away.
I mean he has deleted his portfolio at most subs site and he is in the process of doing the same with the remaining ones, as he has said. So simple.
I'm no thinking in the past. I look at the future, past can't be changed, and what we need are turning points and bridges to a better future.
I'll give it 5 years maximum, probably a lot less, then he'll be back at SS like the rest of us. He'll come to realise that 'Professionals deal with professionals'. I wonder when Carlyle will tire of their 'investment' or try to wring the last ounce of cash out of it? Two years from now, maybe less?
-
I had to check out the phone- See url
http://mashable.com/2012/02/27/nokia-808-pureview-photos/ (http://mashable.com/2012/02/27/nokia-808-pureview-photos/)
-
I had to check out the phone- See url
[url]http://mashable.com/2012/02/27/nokia-808-pureview-photos/[/url] ([url]http://mashable.com/2012/02/27/nokia-808-pureview-photos/[/url])
I see a thumbnail image that appears to contain no shadow detail at all. It looks roughly like the results one would expect from the meniscus lens on an old Brownie 127.
Maybe yuri will send me something more convincing.
-
"For a maturing photographer microstock is a great learning platform, but if you mistake “school” for “workplace”, you are in trouble. I did so for years." - Yuri Arcurs
sounds like he has graduated to me, and realized it. it's called growth and development, so really there is no need for all this envy i see posted.
as MichaelJayPhoto said... "Good luck with your endeavours, Yuri. May your success be even bigger than your ego.'
yes, good luck in whatever you do, but you really do need to get over yourself. you remind me of another microstock photographer who reminds me of you...
-
"sounds like he has graduated to me, and realized it. it's called growth and development, so really there is no need for all this envy i see posted."
I think you're mistaking envy for something else. Like Gostwyck said, here is the one company which has contributed thousands of images to dozens or hundreds of sites over the past years, contributing to the success of the low price model. Suddenly, the game has changed, and you are all amateurs, happy to keep lining the pockets of the evil microstock villians, while he has left you in the dust for greener pastures, as someone who has 'started something', completely ignoring all the efforts of those here, no help or assistance to you, just ha ha, and maybe get $5 from your phone.
It isn't envy. It's realization that previous actions were only done for a certain reason. It's anger at misplaced trust and lack of concern for the community at large. Of course, you know what happens when you try to effect change ;) .
-
I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.
No, I don't think it's optimal. I agree with you, there is a problem in this business when it comes to pricing and pay rates.
My issue with you isn't about the business. This business has been the way it is for a long time now, and it was upon that flawed business model that you made a pretty nice pile of money. You want to leave and move on, that's perfectly fine. But I think you're doing it poorly, and frankly you're acting like a child in the process.
So these other companies wouldn't change what they've been doing just because you hopped on a plane and came knocking. That, to you, means that they aren't professionals? They seemed awfully professional enough when you were cashing those big checks.
I just think it's pretty lame that you had no problem playing this game for years when the rules suited you, and now that you have tried to change the rules and you've moved on to something else when it didn't work, it's open season on mocking everyone who is still in this. All while proclaiming yourself the most important thing in microstock and your leaving being the most significant event in microstock history. Surely you don't really believe that, do you?
You are making assumptions without knowing what went on in the meetings or how those involved conducted themselves.
It is not the artist who dictated what the sites would accept or what they paid. Micro sites have continued to raise the quality bar and dictate buyer expectations without compensating content providers for those drastic and prolonged changes. Case in point, just look at the vast majority of ports for those who have been at this awhile. Ask yourself if the content or the tools and expendables used to produce it have changed.
I can't really believe how many people are taking it up for those who are perfectly willing to drive the price of our assets down in the race to gain market share. You can count on the fact that if they had paid to produce OUR content themselves they would be far more diligent in guarding it's value.
Why are so many willing to take it up for and defend the sites who have a long track record of frequently changing the rules and the contracts that we signed up for when we started this journey?
Who said I was not in those meetings?
My point was that you were at those meeting and we do not have enough information to comment on the conduct or the professionalism of the micro site owners because we were not there.
At least you tried to negotiate better terms for your content, which is far more than the majority of us have done. It is long past time for a price adjustment for HCV content.
-
...It isn't envy. It's realization that previous actions were only done for a certain reason. It's anger at misplaced trust and lack of concern for the community at large. Of course, you know what happens when you try to effect change ;) .
I don't think anyone here is under any obligation to the community at large. Yuri is free to move on to whatever pastures he likes, owing us nothing in return. We all have the same deal here. We contribute to this microstock thing while we're here, adding our own voice and skill to the mix, and we owe nothing to anyone if/when we leave.
I just think it's unfortunate the way in which he's chosen to make his exit. He's not so much leaving us behind as he is just doing something different while mocking what he was doing previously. It's like proudly driving around in an Audi for years and then getting a Lexus and swinging by the Audi dealership to mock Audis, Audi owners, dealers, salesmen, mechanics, etc.
-
Maybe I didn't say that right. People are angry with themselves for misplacing their trust and belief that there was any community concern.
... And yes to your thoughts. Maybe they're just angry at that.
But no, I don't sense any envy anywhere.
-
...It isn't envy. It's realization that previous actions were only done for a certain reason. It's anger at misplaced trust and lack of concern for the community at large. Of course, you know what happens when you try to effect change ;) .
I don't think anyone here is under any obligation to the community at large. Yuri is free to move on to whatever pastures he likes, owing us nothing in return. We all have the same deal here. We contribute to this microstock thing while we're here, adding our own voice and skill to the mix, and we owe nothing to anyone if/when we leave.
I just think it's unfortunate the way in which he's chosen to make his exit. He's not so much leaving us behind as he is just doing something different while mocking what he was doing previously. It's like proudly driving around in an Audi for years and then getting a Lexus and swinging by the Audi dealership to mock Audis, Audi owners, dealers, salesmen, mechanics, etc.
Maybe the Audi turned out to be a lemon, it just took a few years to find out.
-
Thanks Yuri !!!!
The only ones making ANY $$$ with subscription plans are the agencies not the photographer/artist.
I am going back to exclusive with istock (my rasters are already exc.)
I understand business' need to make $$ but so do we! Somewhere there is a happy medium .... 1. Value for clients 2. Profit for agencies 3. Profit for the photographer/artist.
At one point a few years or so ago I remember istock had hit that "sweet spot" I remember EVERYONE was making good $$ and the clients/designers just loved the place!!!!!
My dream is to see the industry return to such days :)
-
Hello Yuri,
Love your success and have followed you and Sean for years. I still chug along and am stay exclusive with iStock. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest. How much better do you think iStock is compared to shutterstock?
-
...It isn't envy. It's realization that previous actions were only done for a certain reason. It's anger at misplaced trust and lack of concern for the community at large. Of course, you know what happens when you try to effect change ;) .
I don't think anyone here is under any obligation to the community at large. Yuri is free to move on to whatever pastures he likes, owing us nothing in return. We all have the same deal here. We contribute to this microstock thing while we're here, adding our own voice and skill to the mix, and we owe nothing to anyone if/when we leave.
I just think it's unfortunate the way in which he's chosen to make his exit. He's not so much leaving us behind as he is just doing something different while mocking what he was doing previously. It's like proudly driving around in an Audi for years and then getting a Lexus and swinging by the Audi dealership to mock Audis, Audi owners, dealers, salesmen, mechanics, etc.
Maybe the Audi turned out to be a lemon, it just took a few years to find out.
If by "lemon" you mean "super successful business that generated millions of dollars per year" then yeah, sure, it was a lemon.
-
Yuri, props for everything you've accomplished and congrats on your new deal. You're certainly overstating your impact on sstk stock price though. I think their earnings will continue to grow which will drive the stock higher in the long term.
I have to believe that mobile will have an impact on stock. If newspapers are firing photographers for iPhones it's just a matter of time. The question is how big the impact will be and how best to make money from it. You can bet that sstk and the other sites will try to offer their own mobile service soon. Or just buy scoopshot.
-
Yuri and I started at the same time back in 2004/2005
He has done Amazingly well in this industry, he has my respect in that aspect.
Infact one of his early post was something to the effect of "Mike Ledray has 500 images on Shutterstock, I hope to catch up one day"
Well I say he caught up and surpassed me long ago! Good Job Amigo.
Yuri pulling his images out of Shutterstock and causing the Stock Price to go down 12%? I find that a bit arrogant and probably not quite correct (in my un educated opinion on the stock market)
I own SS Stock, bought it the first day, it was up 107% the other day from when I purchased my stock, it has gone up and down 12-20% by itself as the stock market does. It is currently up 86% from when I bought mine. If it goes down to $28.00 per share again ill be buying MORE MUCH MORE!
I say Shutterstock is the greatest stock site on earth. Sure they are making a profit, so am I, with my 11,000+++ images that sell daily, over and over again.
I wish Yuri all the best in the future and hope his decisions work out for him in a good way.
I love this business and photography in general and have fun creating concepts and shooting stock.
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/426/426,1276396607,15/stock-photo-an-instant-camera-with-money-coming-out-representing-make-money-with-your-photos-concept-55063690.jpg)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-55063690/stock-photo-an-instant-camera-with-money-coming-out-representing-make-money-with-your-photos-concept.html?src=VJJJife6-XfBrxqIU1rG6g-1-1 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-55063690/stock-photo-an-instant-camera-with-money-coming-out-representing-make-money-with-your-photos-concept.html?src=VJJJife6-XfBrxqIU1rG6g-1-1)
Rock On Yuri!
-
"sounds like he has graduated to me, and realized it. it's called growth and development, so really there is no need for all this envy i see posted."
I think you're mistaking envy for something else. Like Gostwyck said, here is the one company which has contributed thousands of images to dozens or hundreds of sites over the past years, contributing to the success of the low price model. Suddenly, the game has changed, and you are all amateurs, happy to keep lining the pockets of the evil microstock villians, while he has left you in the dust for greener pastures, as someone who has 'started something', completely ignoring all the efforts of those here, no help or assistance to you, just ha ha, and maybe get $5 from your phone.
It isn't envy. It's realization that previous actions were only done for a certain reason. It's anger at misplaced trust and lack of concern for the community at large. Of course, you know what happens when you try to effect change ;) .
sean i agree with you, but i also see the other side too. i don't think it fair to place the blame solely on the game changer called microstock rather the contributors, internet, and technology too, but yes it did change the game. the only reasoning for this is that photographers allowed it to happen. people like you and a host of others came into the game of "professional" stock photography from an entry level if you will, and yes that changed the whole industry for better or worse. the amount of crap on all of these microstock sites is pathetic. i think guys like you are much much better than selling your quality work for peanuts, yet only a few years ago you guys would also sh!t on me for saying so, and tell me i was jealous and a trad. i still think you are way better than microstock quality wise. i don't think you or yuri brought anything new to the table at all, but you both supported dramatic price slashing in the industry, which brought on this whole new concept of sell lots of them for peanuts approach to stock photography.
yes, i see yuri as biting the hand that fed him and reversing what he thought he knew, but he too for years has been saying it is bullsh!t and suggested numerous times long ago that contributing to some of these models was a mistake, as was submitting to every site, but he also acknowledges his mistake, and it now trying to grow out of microstock, which makes sense, but i also fear it is too late. the lid is already off of pandora's box in regards to stock photography, and microstock changed that. i shoot microstock, but only opted in when i saw the writing on the wall, and "sold out". did i sell out? yes and no, yes in the sense i too started contributing my work to sell for pennies on the dollar, and no because i could see this new slaughter in pricing of imagery would soon become the norm, and it did. am i happy that i chose to do what i did, yes and no, yes because i made a fair chunk of change from all the previous getty rejects, and no because getty and the trads have all lowered the valuation of photography to keep up with the microstock wave. it's a catch 22, you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
i think yuri is smart to pull out of micros, but i am afraid it is too late for all of us in this regard, sort of like bruces holier than though bullsh!t and getting moral about paying 50% royalties, in a sense both bruce and yuri are the same, they both helped ruin a once healthy industry and are now both back peddling (and rich), they both used/manipulated the "community" to their benefit, and they are both very smart business men who could care less about any of us. it's business.
-
"I have to believe that mobile will have an impact on stock."
Why? and what? Nobody has yet said what they think this impact is. Just because you make another camera that is about the same size as my Canon Powershot, does not mean a revolution is coming.
-
I shouldn't comment but this is niggling me. How can 70% of your 20 photographers be in the top 10 in the world?
More relevant to the topic - There are a lot of interesting trends to watch in this industry. Mobile photography will definitely have a place, a good eye can do a lot with a small camera and the technology will only improve, but you are limited to editorial when selling any with people. And one trend I've seen in forums is buyers saying they want "real people", but they can't find any "good" ones, and it turns out that often "real people" doesn't really mean real at all. Although consumers are starting to turn against overly air-brushed and plastic looking models, I'm not sure they're ready to face the other extreme of actual real people, warts and all (sadly and wrongly in my opinion, but that's the world we live in).
-
At one point a few years or so ago I remember istock had hit that "sweet spot" I remember EVERYONE was making good $$ and the clients/designers just loved the place!!!!!
My dream is to see the industry return to such days :)
That's probably not going to happen, but there will probably be other opportunities that develop.
-
...It isn't envy. It's realization that previous actions were only done for a certain reason. It's anger at misplaced trust and lack of concern for the community at large. Of course, you know what happens when you try to effect change ;) .
I don't think anyone here is under any obligation to the community at large. Yuri is free to move on to whatever pastures he likes, owing us nothing in return. We all have the same deal here. We contribute to this microstock thing while we're here, adding our own voice and skill to the mix, and we owe nothing to anyone if/when we leave.
I just think it's unfortunate the way in which he's chosen to make his exit. He's not so much leaving us behind as he is just doing something different while mocking what he was doing previously. It's like proudly driving around in an Audi for years and then getting a Lexus and swinging by the Audi dealership to mock Audis, Audi owners, dealers, salesmen, mechanics, etc.
I see it more as leaving because of unfair and or deceptive business practices. The sites view doing business with us as a one way street, they expect us to produce at higher and higher standards without fair compensation for an increasingly superior product.
What is wrong with saying that the Audi's service package was not up to snuff, he tried to negotiate better terms and service with the auto dealer and they ignored his needs. Therefor he decided to part ways and is simply sharing why he felt the need to do this. There are sites all over the net offering customer feedback on cars, what is so wrong with discussing dissatisfaction with a business partner which fell short in fulfilling their side of the business arrangement.
That said I fear he may be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire in regards to IS/Getty
-
"I have to believe that mobile will have an impact on stock."
Why? and what? Nobody has yet said what they think this impact is. Just because you make another camera that is about the same size as my Canon Powershot, does not mean a revolution is coming.
sean, he might be onto something here...
i don't think it will bring a new revolution in the sense of stock photography, rather i see stock reverting back to the trad style of a site that has editors, fewer image choices, but more often than not better quality. lets be real, microstock is full of the copy shot on almost every subject and with no editing at all, only inpsections.
as for what yure is getting at, on the site he is referring to PoopShoot :) this appears to be a virtual request site with the opportunity to re-sell the image afterwords. similar to how the chicago tribune fired all their photographers and taught their journalists how to use their phones to shoot. PoopShoot looks like you can request a photo, and whoever is there gets an notification, goes out and shoots it, and makes a few bucks.
as much as i hate this concept, just as i did with microstock when i first heard about it, yuri might be right about this. i don't think it will be a big "stock" site, but it will eventually wipe out most photo journalists that are "trad" and create this whole new "micro" breed of photo journalist, who in turn can tell us "trads" that we should quit being so bitter about technology :) and that photo journalism was a "closed" shop, and that selling your photos hundreds of times for $2 is the way to go...
-
"I have to believe that mobile will have an impact on stock."
Why? and what? Nobody has yet said what they think this impact is. Just because you make another camera that is about the same size as my Canon Powershot, does not mean a revolution is coming.
I think mobile (i.e. relatively low technical quality, mostly poor lighting) will impact stock, but it's hard to say to what degree. I think there will always be a place for professional released imagery. At one level, we are all swimming in these low technical quality images (e.g. on local news shows where they show viewers' cell phone images, on advertising where you see pseudo low technical quality imagery, on tv shows with intentionally "shaky" video and jerky zooms to mimic home video etc.) However, there will always be a place for professional quality imagery because in fact it is simply more pleasing to look at and it looks more immediate and real. Who walks through their daily life seeing things that are shaky, noisy, and just plain lousy looking? There will always be a place for strong composition, lighting and technical quality.
-
So if I understand well Hasselblad sacked Yuri and he will be sponsored by Nokia.
Preference for sinking ships? ;)
-
...What is wrong with saying that the Audi's service package was not up to snuff, he tried to negotiate better terms and service with the auto dealer and they ignored his needs. Therefor he decided to part ways and is simply sharing why he felt the need to do this. There are sites all over the net offering customer feedback on cars, what is so wrong with discussing dissatisfaction with a business partner which fell short in fulfilling their side of the business arrangement...
Nothing wrong with it if Yuri just stated it as such. And did so respectfully.
Instead he came out with his comments about "professionals work with professionals", implying that neither we nor the microstock companies he left deserve the distinction. And then tossed his ego around suggesting that he is the most significant thing to happen to microstock.
We can respectfully state their reasons for disliking one company or another and do it while leaving our egos at the door. Well, most of us can, anyway.
-
what the * guys, most of you sound like a bunch of angry trolls.
i fully agree with Yuri moving to Getty, 100% and that should be the end of the story and the message to all newbies and old stockers : microstock is a ripoff and pros should better not deal with croo-ks.
as for the super duper mirrorless sensors with glued prime lens that will feature in new high-end phones, gimme a break, i see some new sample images from the latest nokia and it suc-ks even in daytime, a bad noisy 41MP image will look a bit better when downsized to 12MP but that's the very best scenario you can expect !
-
At one point a few years or so ago I remember istock had hit that "sweet spot" I remember EVERYONE was making good $$ and the clients/designers just loved the place!!!!!
My dream is to see the industry return to such days :)
That's probably not going to happen, but there will probably be other opportunities that develop.
Good point, I must say for the 1st time in 2 years I feel pretty good about our industry.
-
Firstly quality is determined by the sensor, but modern DSLR sensors are so sensitive, that they can already show the flaws in even the best quality glass. The more light that is gathered (determined by the size of the lens) the more detail that can be seen and resolved by the sensor. That's basic physics. You'll be telling us next that they'll be removing those big astronomical telescopes on top of mountains and replacing them with your little camera phones.
i know what they're doing with phones, and it's nothing short than a dirty trick to get cr-ap quality.
basically they will package sensor + single lens + focus in a single package and fit in 5-6mm of space.
it works already .. but the tradeoff is quality is bad in any field and there's no way you can improve it.
it's laughable that many think there will be a big progress on this technology as they've already hit the wall and all they can do is using bigger and better sensors to slightly improve the overall output but from a sh-it lens you do miracles even if it was a medium format Hasselblad !
the only guys falling for this tripe and the BS marketing will be the same crowd who's ready to pay twice than an entry level DSLR for the latest Sony NEX or Nikon 1.
-
sort of like 'over clocking' the cpu's in the old days and telling folks that you have a 1 GHz when your chip is a 550 MHz
-
sort of like 'over clocking' the cpu's in the old days and telling folks that you have a 1 GHz when your chip is a 550 MHz
even worse than that, for instance how they deal with the autofocus is very interesting and will not provide a properly focused image !
really, the nokia samples look shite even at ISO100 in daylight, i can't see where all their enthusiasm comes from and the 41MP pitch is pure marketing BS as each photo will ger resized and denoised and filtered 2-3 times before becoming a JPEG ... that's ridicolous but otherwise it would be obvious for all to see how bad these sensor/lens combos are.
and i'm not impressed at all also by Sony NEX & friends, rubbish so far, and no reason to improve further with such small lenses and cr-ap plastic bodies.
as always, manufacturers are profiting from dumb buyers who are totally clueless about image quality and couldnt find their as-s with both hands if asked.
what's next ? will the new nokias make me a coffee too ? really it's getting ridicolous at this point and more and mroe people ask me to skype them rather than making phone calls, wha the F ??
-
Yuri, from your experience and knowledge,
1. do you believe there will be any raise of .38 SS subscription royalty bar, maybe at quite high sales level, in the nearest future (let's say 12 months)?
2. do you believe prices for credit sales on major microsites will go any higher than current level in next 12 months or you believe we will see exactly the opposite?
3. now you obviously see a new horizons in raising income for YAP, comparing to horizons you've seen on micros, how big it is? the number you expect to have in 2014 and 2015 financial years now, how does it relate to the numbers for 2014 and 2015 you would expect to have if would stay on micros?
thank you!
1. No. Absolutly no. I would expect the opposite from a company that spends 30% on google addwords and is public. Where will they get the money from? What will happen if they spend 25% next year? Stocks will drop.!
2. Ask me in 6mth. There is a gameplan.
3. I have been very fortunate in business and yes we continue to grow. In 2013 we are forecasting to be awarded as the fastest growing corporation in Denmark! :)
Unfortunately, "fastest-growing" may not mean much. A corporation could sell, say, 1 photo in 2012 and 3 in 2013, which would mean 200% growth (amazing!). Lies, damned lies and statistics, and all that.
-
If newspapers are firing photographers for iPhones it's just a matter of time. The question is how big the impact will be and how best to make money from it.
When firms eliminate jobs, it doesn't mean there is a way to "make money from it." It simply means that the owners or shareholders of that business get to keep more money because there are fewer employees to pay. A few people that were already doing quite well make a bit extra and lots of people that needed regular jobs to make ends meet are in a tougher situation.
It was this way for bank tellers, check out cashiers, farm labor, and now some of the higher skilled positions such as staff photo journalists. In the latter case, you can bet the firms aren't anxious to compensate the crowd sourced replacement, they just want cheap or free labor that's "good enough."
-
Having to really nail them is trivial when there are 20+ million images in store.
Due to Pareto's Law only 20% of those 20 million images are selling well and compensating for the remaining 80% of low sellers.
That means 2 millions of top sellers and of those 2 millions 100,000 are Yuri's, that means his portfolio alone impacts an agency like SS for around 5% of their sales but as far as we know it could be even 10-15% !
Of course random buyers will quickly grab the clones but some buyers could go back to istock if they're fans of Yuri and his team.
Why do you assume all of his images are top sellers? Didn't I read in another thread that half his images have never sold at all?
-
sort of like 'over clocking' the cpu's in the old days and telling folks that you have a 1 GHz when your chip is a 550 MHz
Good points. And digital will never replace film. The quality just sucks! No professional will ever use digital... ;)
-
...What is wrong with saying that the Audi's service package was not up to snuff, he tried to negotiate better terms and service with the auto dealer and they ignored his needs. Therefor he decided to part ways and is simply sharing why he felt the need to do this. There are sites all over the net offering customer feedback on cars, what is so wrong with discussing dissatisfaction with a business partner which fell short in fulfilling their side of the business arrangement...
Nothing wrong with it if Yuri just stated it as such. And did so respectfully.
Instead he came out with his comments about "professionals work with professionals", implying that neither we nor the microstock companies he left deserve the distinction. And then tossed his ego around suggesting that he is the most significant thing to happen to microstock.
We can respectfully state their reasons for disliking one company or another and do it while leaving our egos at the door. Well, most of us can, anyway.
Agree with you about checking ego's at the door, they often do more harm than good.
-
...It isn't envy. It's realization that previous actions were only done for a certain reason. It's anger at misplaced trust and lack of concern for the community at large. Of course, you know what happens when you try to effect change ;) .
I don't think anyone here is under any obligation to the community at large. Yuri is free to move on to whatever pastures he likes, owing us nothing in return. We all have the same deal here. We contribute to this microstock thing while we're here, adding our own voice and skill to the mix, and we owe nothing to anyone if/when we leave.
I just think it's unfortunate the way in which he's chosen to make his exit. He's not so much leaving us behind as he is just doing something different while mocking what he was doing previously. It's like proudly driving around in an Audi for years and then getting a Lexus and swinging by the Audi dealership to mock Audis, Audi owners, dealers, salesmen, mechanics, etc.
Maybe the Audi turned out to be a lemon, it just took a few years to find out.
If by "lemon" you mean "super successful business that generated millions of dollars per year" then yeah, sure, it was a lemon.
I drive an Audi... its not true, its not a lemon, its a fantastic car. Wouldnt want to trade it for a Lexus ;)
-
Believe it or not - few of us don't speak Danish. To be honest I find using Danish in this thread impolite.
It is not necessary to speak Danish. But you can read it anyway. It is somewhere between English and German.
True. Now I can read it. In fact any language is somewhere between English, German, Russian, Chinese and Hungarian.
Like most of latin languages spoken by millions of people…… ;D
-
what the * guys, most of you sound like a bunch of angry trolls.
i fully agree with Yuri moving to Getty, 100% and that should be the end of the story and the message to all newbies and old stockers : microstock is a ripoff and pros should better not deal with croo-ks.
as for the super duper mirrorless sensors with glued prime lens that will feature in new high-end phones, gimme a break, i see some new sample images from the latest nokia and it suc-ks even in daytime, a bad noisy 41MP image will look a bit better when downsized to 12MP but that's the very best scenario you can expect !
As opposed to getty, a nice friendly and fair company loved so dearly by photographers :)
-
Firstly quality is determined by the sensor, but modern DSLR sensors are so sensitive, that they can already show the flaws in even the best quality glass. The more light that is gathered (determined by the size of the lens) the more detail that can be seen and resolved by the sensor. That's basic physics. You'll be telling us next that they'll be removing those big astronomical telescopes on top of mountains and replacing them with your little camera phones.
i know what they're doing with phones, and it's nothing short than a dirty trick to get cr-ap quality.
basically they will package sensor + single lens + focus in a single package and fit in 5-6mm of space.
it works already .. but the tradeoff is quality is bad in any field and there's no way you can improve it.
it's laughable that many think there will be a big progress on this technology as they've already hit the wall and all they can do is using bigger and better sensors to slightly improve the overall output but from a sh-it lens you do miracles even if it was a medium format Hasselblad !
the only guys falling for this tripe and the BS marketing will be the same crowd who's ready to pay twice than an entry level DSLR for the latest Sony NEX or Nikon 1.
Now you sound like an angry troll. . ;)
Its not okay to bash Yuri, but you are doing the same, in a more sneaky way, indirectly. LOL ;)
-
Such a shame that 95% of this thread was wasted on bickering, quibbling and sniping. Yuri offered an opportunity for debate and it was wasted.
Regarding mobile phones, as I said in an earlier thread 'wake up and smell the coffee'.
And honestly, why on earth question Yuri's qualification and judgement of smart phone potential. Do you think he doesn't understand what competing with a DSLR requires?
-
Such a shame that 95% of this thread was wasted on bickering, quibbling and sniping. Yuri offered an opportunity for debate and it was wasted.
As I said in a
I believe he started the bickering, quibbling and sniping when he wrote this http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why/ (http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why/)
You reap what you sow.
-
sort of like 'over clocking' the cpu's in the old days and telling folks that you have a 1 GHz when your chip is a 550 MHz
If you overclocked it, it really was 1 Ghz, buddy.
-
If we disregard non-images sales on micro sites, the withdrawal of our content, equals to a loss of total downloads in the range of 4-15% depending on the microstock site involved. Now consider why a subscriber to a microstock subscription plan should pay the same per month, if his favorite images are suddenly removed? If he paid 299 USD last month, why should he pay the same when now he/she can download less?
How about Shutterstock added 150.000 images last week, so the price for the package should go up now?
Furthermore, by cutting out the middleman we can keep the same prices but provide a whole new level of service. As of last month, our entire collection of images, now reaching 120’000, can only be found on our own site Peopleimages.com, GettyImages.com and Istockphoto.com.
http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_more-latest-adition_pg1 (http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_more-latest-adition_pg1)
I also revealed my involvement in Scoopshot.com through a 1.4mil USD engle investment at a press conference in London. You can read more about it on techcrunch.
To sum up: In one day, microstock saw a public release confirming that Yuri Arcurs (me) and all our 20 photographers (70% of which are on the top 10 in the world) and our entire peopleimages.com production house, would leave and move all images to Istock/Getty. They witnessed an otherwise underestimated industry (mobile photography, scoopshot.com) being granted a seal of trust in a 1.2mil USD investment.
Which one is it?
-
After reading the blog post three things occurred to me:
- I should speak of myself in the third person more often.
- The royal "we" is used much too sparingly on the internet.
- If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
-
And honestly, why on earth question Yuri's qualification and judgement of smart phone potential. Do you think he doesn't understand what competing with a DSLR requires?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_business_failures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_business_failures)
He wont be the first getting it wrong. Kodak anyone?
-
I thought SS stock had fallen because Attila had rejected most of my last batch of new images. Way to burst my bubble.
It sounds like this Getty/Istock he speaks of is a totally different entity from the one that has been shafting the rest of us for so long.
-
Unfortunately it was overnight for me so missed the chance to join this conversation - an opportunity to question Yuri about his predictions for the future is not to be missed whether you agree with him or not!
I too strongly dislike the subs model at such low royalty rates, nothing has done more to commodify photography. I know some of you do well at SS, but I imagine diminishing returns are just round the corner.
Unfortunately I cannot place the trust in Getty that Yuri has done, even though they are my agent. Their actions towards their exclusive photographers have never been positive since they bought iStock, from the Vetta royalty rate cut, the RC system that's designed to limit the number of artists receiving semi-reasonable royalties, destruction of the referral system, flooding the library with wholly owned content and making new uploads worthless by skewing best match.
I guess Yuri may have negotiated a deal that overcomes some of these obstacles to success there, so good luck to him.
The real problem in this industry is low royalty percentages, they should be up at the 70-80% mark as they are in the Apple App Store to make a sustainable, healthy business and profits for everyone, agencies and copyright owners alike.
I'm not as sceptical as some of you about phone cameras. If tech-change over the past decade has shown us anything it's that disruption and amazing advances can and do happen. Who'd of thought I'd be shooting with a 36mp D800 a few years ago?
Seeing a great image, controlling light and being in position are pro photographer skills that are never going to go away, irrespective of the camera used and I for one would be grateful if I didn't have to carry 7kg of kit up Himalayan peaks any more!
-
It's very confronting, isn't it, to be told what we all dread... I had lunch with a journo friend today who moaned about bloggers ruining her industry, and how she refuses to turn up to cover events that bloggers have been invited to. "they take rubbish photos and have poor writing skills, and they get their stories up almost instantly" was the gist of it. I couldn't help but think: yeah, so you have to outdo them or find something else to do. I realised that she might well say the same to me if I whinged about microstock.
Things are changing and we need to find a way to make it work. Yuri is doing that for himself. Congrats.
-
Unfortunately it was overnight for me so missed the chance to join this conversation - an opportunity to question Yuri about his predictions for the future is not to be missed whether you agree with him or not!
He was questioned about the future but his answers were focused on marketing his new projects... The guy is pissing on our backs and telling us it's raining.... we need to move on, he has.
-
Seeing a great image, controlling light and being in position are pro photographer skills that are never going to go away, irrespective of the camera used and I for one would be grateful if I didn't have to carry 7kg of kit up Himalayan peaks any more!
You havent had to for years, point and shoot has been around forever. Whats the difference with a camera phone?
-
I checked one of tasks on Scoopshot few days ago - "Was your baby born yesterday, just like the Royal Baby Boy? Please record a short VIDEO clip of your newborn and tell us a bit about him or her - name, birth place and date, height and weight and, perhaps, a few details about the birth"
There was lot of PHOTOS - full page of babies and children - 1, 3, 5, 10, 12 years old, cats, dogs, parrots. I didn't check all photos but at first sight I haven't seen ANY VIDEO with newborn baby as described in brief.
Being client I doubt I would come back to Scoopshot again.
Crowdsourcing is basically good idea but let's face it - crowd includes many idiots.
-
Seeing a great image, controlling light and being in position are pro photographer skills that are never going to go away, irrespective of the camera used and I for one would be grateful if I didn't have to carry 7kg of kit up Himalayan peaks any more!
You havent had to for years, point and shoot has been around forever. Whats the difference with a camera phone?
Sorry, I meant a small camera with DSLR-like quality, not necessarily a phone. I've experimented with various stupidly expensive compact cameras and they're not quite ready yet I don't think, but they will be soon I'm sure.
-
Unfortunately I cannot place the trust in Getty that Yuri has done, even though they are my agent. Their actions towards their exclusive photographers have never been positive since they bought iStock, from the Vetta royalty rate cut, the RC system that's designed to limit the number of artists receiving semi-reasonable royalties, destruction of the referral system, flooding the library with wholly owned content and making new uploads worthless by skewing best match.
I guess Yuri may have negotiated a deal that overcomes some of these obstacles to success there, so good luck to him.
The real problem in this industry is low royalty percentages, they should be up at the 70-80% mark as they are in the Apple App Store to make a sustainable, healthy business and profits for everyone, agencies and copyright owners alike.
I am puzzled as well. The way he speaks of getty/istock is like he is talking about a completly different company than the one we experienced first hand. He reminds me how excited Bruce was in 2006 when he made the deal with Getty. He came on the forums reassuring us that Getty "get´s it" and really understands his vision for istockphoto. Yet the only vision they understood was how to kill the place off as quickly as possible as soon as Bruce was gone.
Maybe Getty is a rite of passage for him. A step in the industry he has to pass through, before he moves back out and grows peopleimages.com to it´s full potential.
If he really could drag Getty into the 21 century and make them the professional company he suggests they are, this would be good for everyone as well. But I sincerely doubt it will happen. The companies DNA is not based on the internet, technology or online transparent community leadership skills. And this is what it takes these days...
If the Apple store would open it´s doors to artists and allow us to sell at 70%, this would be the best thing that has ever happened to the industry. It would bring immediate balance in favor of the artist. If anyone understands what it feels like to have their ideas stolen and see others profit from their hard creative work it is Apple.
Doesn´t anyone here have the telephone number of Tim Cook?
-
It's very confronting, isn't it, to be told what we all dread...
I dread nothing. His factory became unsustainable, I am not a factory, I am a one man operation, I am very sustainable.
-
Seeing a great image, controlling light and being in position are pro photographer skills that are never going to go away, irrespective of the camera used and I for one would be grateful if I didn't have to carry 7kg of kit up Himalayan peaks any more!
You havent had to for years, point and shoot has been around forever. Whats the difference with a camera phone?
Sorry, I meant a small camera with DSLR-like quality, not necessarily a phone. I've experimented with various stupidly expensive compact cameras and they're not quite ready yet I don't think, but they will be soon I'm sure.
Ok, that makes sense. :)
-
oh, maybe he's going to take them down, from the inside :D
-
DSLR image of a cell phone used to state that DSLR will be killed by cell phones... kikikiki
(http://)
-
Yuri works for Yuri... and that's all! He doesn't give a f*** about any of us
Honestly all I've read in Yuri's page and the few pages of this topic leave with one single thought: Yuri's rants are nothing but BS and a marketing gimmick!
If he really wanted to make a dent in this industry and make himself heard by the agencies CEO he could have done countless times in the past.
All it would take was to set up an agency himself, with the help from a few others in a similar position, like independent Black Diamonds in IS or the Fotolia Emeralds. In fact, nothing that hasn't been asked to him and others like him many, many times.
The money and time he spent on all those flights to wine and dine with the micro agencies CEO's, the setup of his own site and now the scoopshot.com adventure would be enough to create a game-changing agency! A few years back if Yuri had setup an agency with a decent royalty split I'm sure the vast, vast, vast majority of photographers would follow him withdrawing 70 or 80% of the salable images from all the agencies dragging the prices down, and shamelessly exploiting the contributors. I even believe that he could have some kind of an exclusive program and many people would accept it.
No one like him, in this industry, was in the position to accomplish to create a major earthquake in favor of the contributors. He had the knowledge of the business, the contacts with other successful photographers and even the funding to do it. With his high-profile (anything he said was repeated in all forums and debated to death) the word would spread like a wild-fire between contributors and clients.
But he always chose not to do it. As I said he only looks after himself and we're nothing but pawns in his game. Time to wake up guys and start ignoring him. Nothing good for us will come from him.
Yuri is not our saviour. He had so many chances in the past to be it and always took the step back. Yuri is nothing more than a businessman trying to earn as much as he can and using us as mere pawns in his marketing strategy.
Lets' stop creating all this hype around him.
-
Yuri works for Yuri... and that's all! He doesn't give a f*** about any of us
Honestly all I've read in Yuri's page and the few pages of this topic leave with one single thought: Yuri's rants are nothing but BS and a marketing gimmick!
If he really wanted to make a dent in this industry and make himself heard by the agencies CEO he could have done countless times in the past.
All it would take was to set up an agency himself, with the help from a few others in a similar position, like independent Black Diamonds in IS or the Fotolia Emeralds. In fact, nothing that hasn't been asked to him and others like him many, many times.
The money and time he spent on all those flights to wine and dine with the micro agencies CEO's, the setup of his own site and now the scoopshot.com adventure would be enough to create a game-changing agency! A few years back if Yuri had setup an agency with a decent royalty split I'm sure the vast, vast, vast majority of photographers would follow him withdrawing 70 or 80% of the salable images from all the agencies dragging the prices down, and shamelessly exploiting the contributors. I even believe that he could have some kind of an exclusive program and many people would accept it.
No one like him, in this industry, was in the position to accomplish to create a major earthquake in favor of the contributors. He had the knowledge of the business, the contacts with other successful photographers and even the funding to do it. With his high-profile (anything he said was repeated in all forums and debated to death) the word would spread like a wild-fire between contributors and clients.
But he always chose not to do it. As I said he only looks after himself and we're nothing but pawns in his game. Time to wake up guys and start ignoring him. Nothing good for us will come from him.
Yuri is not our saviour. He had so many chances in the past to be it and always took the step back. Yuri is nothing more than a businessman trying to earn as much as he can and using us as mere pawns in his marketing strategy.
Lets' stop creating all this hype around him.
Best post ever
-
I checked one of tasks on Scoopshot few days ago - "Was your baby born yesterday, just like the Royal Baby Boy? Please record a short VIDEO clip of your newborn and tell us a bit about him or her - name, birth place and date, height and weight and, perhaps, a few details about the birth"
There was lot of PHOTOS - full page of babies and children - 1, 3, 5, 10, 12 years old, cats, dogs, parrots. I didn't check all photos but at first sight I haven't seen ANY VIDEO with newborn baby as described in brief.
Being client I doubt I would come back to Scoopshot again.
Crowdsourcing is basically good idea but let's face it - crowd includes many idiots.
It is not crowdsourcing, but trollsourcing :D and we all know, how many of them are on the net :D
-
DSLR image of a cell phone used to state that DSLR will be killed by cell phones... kikikiki
(http://)
Yeah I noticed that too :D
-
Scoopshot is a startup for photos on demand. It means that smb. needs an image(s) and all stupid (sorry) persons over the world or some location trying to create image on request. A contributor will get 2, 5 USD. Scoopshot will get an another 2, 5 USD.
Now let`s think. How this 2,5 dollars are sustainable. Transport to asked-demanded location needs some expenses too.
It is not traditional microstock at this moment. It is not selling a volume. Yes, an agency owners will receive some money. And Yuri is on the side of owners.
Maybe Scoopshot owners trying to sell this startup after one year to Getty. With big profit. This is a question.
Maybe an owners turn a Scoopshoot into camera phone images stock agency too. But there is a Foap already.
Mobile phone camere never will catch a quality of dslr or even a good pocket camera. More glass and bigger sensor is a key for technical quality. Apps and filters helps a lot, but cameraphone is ok in good light. In editorial photo business a light conditions are very often bad.
Sorry about my English.
http://www.jaaknilson.ee (http://www.jaaknilson.ee)
-
Yuri works for Yuri... and that's all! He doesn't give a f*** about any of us
Honestly all I've read in Yuri's page and the few pages of this topic leave with one single thought: Yuri's rants are nothing but BS and a marketing gimmick!
If he really wanted to make a dent in this industry and make himself heard by the agencies CEO he could have done countless times in the past.
All it would take was to set up an agency himself, with the help from a few others in a similar position, like independent Black Diamonds in IS or the Fotolia Emeralds. In fact, nothing that hasn't been asked to him and others like him many, many times.
The money and time he spent on all those flights to wine and dine with the micro agencies CEO's, the setup of his own site and now the scoopshot.com adventure would be enough to create a game-changing agency! A few years back if Yuri had setup an agency with a decent royalty split I'm sure the vast, vast, vast majority of photographers would follow him withdrawing 70 or 80% of the salable images from all the agencies dragging the prices down, and shamelessly exploiting the contributors. I even believe that he could have some kind of an exclusive program and many people would accept it.
No one like him, in this industry, was in the position to accomplish to create a major earthquake in favor of the contributors. He had the knowledge of the business, the contacts with other successful photographers and even the funding to do it. With his high-profile (anything he said was repeated in all forums and debated to death) the word would spread like a wild-fire between contributors and clients.
But he always chose not to do it. As I said he only looks after himself and we're nothing but pawns in his game. Time to wake up guys and start ignoring him. Nothing good for us will come from him.
Yuri is not our saviour. He had so many chances in the past to be it and always took the step back. Yuri is nothing more than a businessman trying to earn as much as he can and using us as mere pawns in his marketing strategy.
Lets' stop creating all this hype around him.
Best post ever
+1
-
oh, maybe he's going to take them down, from the inside :D
Three minutes before to read your post I was thinking exactly the same.
Maybe he acts as a Trojan Horse, to better destroyed his main enemy from the inside :D
(I refer to the Story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Horse) not to the virus :P )
-
removed
-
... but let's face it - crowd includes many idiots.
'bout 95%
-
If newspapers are firing photographers for iPhones it's just a matter of time. The question is how big the impact will be and how best to make money from it.
When firms eliminate jobs, it doesn't mean there is a way to "make money from it." It simply means that the owners or shareholders of that business get to keep more money because there are fewer employees to pay. A few people that were already doing quite well make a bit extra and lots of people that needed regular jobs to make ends meet are in a tougher situation.
It was this way for bank tellers, check out cashiers, farm labor, and now some of the higher skilled positions such as staff photo journalists. In the latter case, you can bet the firms aren't anxious to compensate the crowd sourced replacement, they just want cheap or free labor that's "good enough."
that's exactly what the Huffington Post and AOL are doing with unpaid bloggers and they also get some free images from readers.
-
Yuri works for Yuri... and that's all! He doesn't give a f*** about any of us
Honestly all I've read in Yuri's page and the few pages of this topic leave with one single thought: Yuri's rants are nothing but BS and a marketing gimmick!
If he really wanted to make a dent in this industry and make himself heard by the agencies CEO he could have done countless times in the past.
All it would take was to set up an agency himself, with the help from a few others in a similar position, like independent Black Diamonds in IS or the Fotolia Emeralds. In fact, nothing that hasn't been asked to him and others like him many, many times.
The money and time he spent on all those flights to wine and dine with the micro agencies CEO's, the setup of his own site and now the scoopshot.com adventure would be enough to create a game-changing agency! A few years back if Yuri had setup an agency with a decent royalty split I'm sure the vast, vast, vast majority of photographers would follow him withdrawing 70 or 80% of the salable images from all the agencies dragging the prices down, and shamelessly exploiting the contributors. I even believe that he could have some kind of an exclusive program and many people would accept it.
No one like him, in this industry, was in the position to accomplish to create a major earthquake in favor of the contributors. He had the knowledge of the business, the contacts with other successful photographers and even the funding to do it. With his high-profile (anything he said was repeated in all forums and debated to death) the word would spread like a wild-fire between contributors and clients.
But he always chose not to do it. As I said he only looks after himself and we're nothing but pawns in his game. Time to wake up guys and start ignoring him. Nothing good for us will come from him.
Yuri is not our saviour. He had so many chances in the past to be it and always took the step back. Yuri is nothing more than a businessman trying to earn as much as he can and using us as mere pawns in his marketing strategy.
Lets' stop creating all this hype around him.
Best post ever
+1
+1
that said, who was foolish enough to think he did give a flying f!ck about anyone but himself? or bruce of IS fame for that matter?
it's always been about business, and power to them! they succeeded and cashed in, nothing wrong with that.
-
As opposed to getty, a nice friendly and fair company loved so dearly by photographers :)
ok, but remember that agencies like Getty owe us nothing.
if many here have been refused by Getty they can only blame their portfolios.
and tell me one good reason why Getty should open the doors to any random amateurs, they've already istock and thinkstock for that.
-
sort of like 'over clocking' the cpu's in the old days and telling folks that you have a 1 GHz when your chip is a 550 MHz
Good points. And digital will never replace film. The quality just sucks! No professional will ever use digital... ;)
well !!!
digital cameras have been toys for many years, they were also costing an arm and a leg while with a nikon F4 and a good lens you could get amazing prints, and if that wasnt enough you still had medium format cameras and some of them are still smoking the D800E hands down in 2013.
yeah i remember articles about prototypes of 100MP sensors already 10 yrs ago but it look like an eternity, all you had in stores where 4MP and 6MP expensive toys, paired with slow computers, slow printers, slow internet, slow everything.
you can't blame pros for sticking to film until the launch of the canon 1Ds and nikon D3 ... that's when the digital market finally got serious and gave good reasons to pros to embrace digital.
-
It's very confronting, isn't it, to be told what we all dread... I had lunch with a journo friend today who moaned about bloggers ruining her industry, and how she refuses to turn up to cover events that bloggers have been invited to. "they take rubbish photos and have poor writing skills, and they get their stories up almost instantly" was the gist of it. I couldn't help but think: yeah, so you have to outdo them or find something else to do. I realised that she might well say the same to me if I whinged about microstock.
Things are changing and we need to find a way to make it work. Yuri is doing that for himself. Congrats.
she's right.
bloggers indeed take rubbish photos and can't write properly.
the problem is, readers as well are getting rougher and less sophisticated, they're more than ok with the rubbish they read on blogs and they also expect everything to be free.
it will be funny to see how this scenario will develop soon when nobody will go to cover events as they can't pay for the production costs and bloggers will start begging for money or stopping blogging altogether.
-
I'm not as sceptical as some of you about phone cameras. If tech-change over the past decade has shown us anything it's that disruption and amazing advances can and do happen. Who'd of thought I'd be shooting with a 36mp D800 a few years ago?
me !
there was already Hasselblad doing digital medium formats, and many rumours about sony's 12 and 24MP sensors in the works.
but if we talk about mobile phones sorry it's a lost battle.
sensor will get better and better but the LENS in phones will never have enough space to perform decently, let alone the autofocus and the lack of a real zoom etc
on the other side, small compacts like Sony NEX could maybe reach the quality of an entry level DSLR before or later, but they're still toys.
besides, the innovation in lenses in the last 10-20 yrs has been minimal.
suffice to say a Leica Noctilux F1.0 from the '70s is still producing sharper images than any canon or nikon lens sold today !
-
Scoopshot is a startup for photos on demand. It means that smb. needs an image(s) and all stupid (sorry) persons over the world or some location trying to create image on request. A contributor will get 2, 5 USD. Scoopshot will get an another 2, 5 USD.
Now let`s think. How this 2,5 dollars are sustainable. Transport to asked-demanded location needs some expenses too.
It is not traditional microstock at this moment. It is not selling a volume. Yes, an agency owners will receive some money. And Yuri is on the side of owners.
Maybe Scoopshot owners trying to sell this startup after one year to Getty. With big profit. This is a question.
Maybe an owners turn a Scoopshoot into camera phone images stock agency too. But there is a Foap already.
Mobile phone camere never will catch a quality of dslr or even a good pocket camera. More glass and bigger sensor is a key for technical quality. Apps and filters helps a lot, but cameraphone is ok in good light. In editorial photo business a light conditions are very often bad.
Sorry about my English.
[url]http://www.jaaknilson.ee[/url] ([url]http://www.jaaknilson.ee[/url])
Just the calories you burn thinking about it cost more than 2,5$
-
"Yuri is not our saviour. He had so many chances in the past to be it and always took the step back."
Which is what is happening here. Nothing has happened that will affect any of us. He has in fact taken the easy road, getting in bed with the 'evil empire'. Don't expect any 'change from the inside', as we know how that ends, not that there's interest in doing it anyways. Toe the company line and the cash will be paid.
"I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks."
The hubris of this statement still dazzles me.
Btw, my question about the IS press release lie was never addressed :).
-
Btw, my question about the IS press release lie was never addressed :).
He kind-of did. Seems he isn't in full control of his operation:
picture5469:
Could u be kind enough to answer my question please Yuri as to why you still have images on DT?
Thanks
Yuri:
I actually don't know. I will have to reference my distribution team tomorrow. I presume most will be removed quite soon.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-arcurs-first-public-statement/msg333079/#msg333079 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-arcurs-first-public-statement/msg333079/#msg333079)
Proves iS didn't make any due diligence checks either: I've read of people being refused exclusivity because of having a couple of files (not a few thousand) on a site they'd long forgotten about, and for the sake of a very few files and a site's deletion policy having to sit out months before they could become exclusive; there was the recently-referenced case of someone having their port suspended over just a very few files on another tiny site by forgetfulness (they probably hadn't earned anything there for years) and iS even saying that exclusives must not have images in NU at Alamy as there was a possiblity that a particular NU might resemble an RF contract.
-
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS). That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."
-
That blog was written in a hurry, just to get something online, to brag. It was full of spelling mistakes, errors, incorrect calculations, incorrect assumptions and contradicting info. Its the same stuff as coming to a public forum to ask for advice on how to deal with a legal case. Doing so as a CEO of a multi million dollar company, I find that weird. There is no need for all of that. Professionals deal with professionals, I guess Getty and Yuri are the perfect fit.
-
Sean state's the truth in that what iStock said is an out right lie. If they said you can only find his content on iStock and our partner sites that wold be true. You see Getty bought peopleimages, now the crazy thing here is Yuri keeps 100% commission at peopleimages?? Whhhaaat! So I need to start a site, sell it to Getty and I still keep 100% of sales for me :-), Now that is a good deal!! Fact is people Stocksy is still the most honest and fair place for photographers to sell at!! I am exclusive and not on Stocksy but it is what is needed here. Still can't figure out why Stocksy dose not get more hype here. Yuri is for Yuri and that is fine, he won't do anything for me and if he thinks he is so special to Getty he will have a hard lesson to learn. That goes for anyone and any job, there is no one person that is so special, trust me if you quit today the industry will still be fine without you that is just life.
-
Sean state's the truth in that what iStock said is an out right lie. If they said you can only find his content on iStock and our partner sites that wold be true. You see Getty bought peopleimages, now the crazy thing here is Yuri keeps 100% commission at peopleimages?? Whhhaaat! So I need to start a site, sell it to Getty and I still keep 100% of sales for me :-), Now that is a good deal!! Fact is people Stocksy is still the most honest and fair place for photographers to sell at!! I am exclusive and not on Stocksy but it is what is needed here. Still can't figure out why Stocksy dose not get more hype here. Yuri is for Yuri and that is fine, he won't do anything for me and if he thinks he is so special to Getty he will have a hard lesson to learn. That goes for anyone and any job, there is no one person that is so special, trust me if you quit today the industry will still be fine without you that is just life.
or maybe, just maybe yuri did what so many other photographers have done before, sell out to getty for a lot of coin and move on. bruce did it albeit he was not a photographer. i know also of a few other photographer founded agencies that did it too and got swallowed up into the getty empire.
at the end of the day, they made a business decision.
this whole getty buy it up program dates back for many years before microstock was even a concept.
-
Two good things Yuri has done: 1. Not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model, true origin of many of our troubles. For me, subs it's not micro, but "nano-stock". 2. Putting his images at PeopleImages at respectable prices.
About Scoopt... I don't think it really will work, the same that I don't thing that Connect will, but that is just again mi hunch. I've been wrong imn the past and I will be in the future.
I wont't say nothing on the rest. Just say that I'm taking abback seeing the change of attitude of many of you towards Yuri... it seems, mostly by the fact that he has gone exclusive at IS.
I don't know why so many people ignore the fact that Getty/istock are experimenting with true nanostock. We have all these huge threads that usually aren't worth reading while this one, that I consider to be the most important in recent years had hardly any attention.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/interesting-times-in-which-to-live/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/interesting-times-in-which-to-live/)
-
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS). That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."
He answered that one too, but only once he'd sat through iStock's "change the meaning of the English Language 101" course:
Sean Locke Photography:
"So, iStock is lying when they say they are the only site hosting your images"
Yuri:
"No. They are not. Exclusive does not mean Istock only. It means partner sites as well. This can't be news."
Which I took as meaning, but in iStockNewSpeak, who knows what anything means, that somehow PeopleImages is now an iStock Partner Site. At least in some way iStockLawyer thinks will keep off misrepresentation lawsuits.
-
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS). That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."
He answered that one too, but only once he'd sat through iStock's "change the meaning of the English Language 101" course:
Sean Locke Photography:
"So, iStock is lying when they say they are the only site hosting your images"
Yuri:
"No. They are not. Exclusive does not mean Istock only. It means partner sites as well. This can't be news."
Which I took as meaning, but in iStockNewSpeak, who knows what anything means, that somehow PeopleImages is now an iStock Partner Site. At least in some way iStockLawyer thinks will keep off misrepresentation lawsuits.
Come on now Sue, this cant be news, Dreamstime is an Istock partner site. :)
-
Come on now Sue, this cant be news, Dreamstime is an Istock partner site. :)
[/quote]
LOL 8)
-
...Nothing has happened that will affect any of us...
Bottom line, for me. This is not the most significant event in microstock history, contrary to what Yuri thinks. He'll point to the stock price dropping around the time he left SS, but really he hasn't changed anything. One person just does not have that much power in this business. Yuri himself proved that when he failed in his world tour of stock agencies in his effort to get them to change their ways.
It's been mentioned in this thread that we should be embracing this opportunity to talk to him about the business, get some insight from him. I would have been all for that if he didn't have to inject his ego into this and make it all about him. If he genuinely came here to make his announcement and talk shop for a bit, that would have been awesome. Instead he made it all about him, how important he is to himself, and how lame everyone else is for not doing what he wanted. All while making sure that we all know that he thinks of himself as the most important thing in microstock, ever.
Any value there would have been in any information we could have gotten from Yuri was lost the minute he posted that fluff article on his blog and stroked his own ego to the point where nothing else he could say would be meaningful in a real discussion about the business.
This change has no impact on my business or anyone else's. I can think of a dozen events in recent years in this business that had a real impact on every one of us.
-
Two good things Yuri has done: 1. Not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model, true origin of many of our troubles. For me, subs it's not micro, but "nano-stock". 2. Putting his images at PeopleImages at respectable prices.
About Scoopt... I don't think it really will work, the same that I don't thing that Connect will, but that is just again mi hunch. I've been wrong imn the past and I will be in the future.
I wont't say nothing on the rest. Just say that I'm taking abback seeing the change of attitude of many of you towards Yuri... it seems, mostly by the fact that he has gone exclusive at IS.
I don't know why so many people ignore the fact that Getty/istock are experimenting with true nanostock. We have all these huge threads that usually aren't worth reading while this one, that I consider to be the most important in recent years had hardly any attention.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/interesting-times-in-which-to-live/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/interesting-times-in-which-to-live/[/url])
But that is just for looking at, not for buying rights. Anyway, I don't foresee Getty, neither contributors making any kind of significant income out of that. It's marginal.
-
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS). That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."
He answered that one too, but only once he'd sat through iStock's "change the meaning of the English Language 101" course:
Sean Locke Photography:
"So, iStock is lying when they say they are the only site hosting your images"
Yuri:
"No. They are not. Exclusive does not mean Istock only. It means partner sites as well. This can't be news."
Which I took as meaning, but in iStockNewSpeak, who knows what anything means, that somehow PeopleImages is now an iStock Partner Site. At least in some way iStockLawyer thinks will keep off misrepresentation lawsuits.
I'm not talking about the company being exclusive. I'm talking about the representation that IS is 'the only site'. That's just a lie.
-
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS). That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."
He answered that one too, but only once he'd sat through iStock's "change the meaning of the English Language 101" course:
Sean Locke Photography:
"So, iStock is lying when they say they are the only site hosting your images"
Yuri:
"No. They are not. Exclusive does not mean Istock only. It means partner sites as well. This can't be news."
Which I took as meaning, but in iStockNewSpeak, who knows what anything means, that somehow PeopleImages is now an iStock Partner Site. At least in some way iStockLawyer thinks will keep off misrepresentation lawsuits.
I'm not talking about the company being exclusive. I'm talking about the representation that IS is 'the only site'. That's just a lie.
Of course it is, but it's iStockNewSpeak.
Or the 'new kind of trust'.
-
Lets' stop creating all this hype around him.
I actually just came to watch the circus.
-
Lets' stop creating all this hype around him.
I actually just came to watch the circus.
LOOOOOOL!
-
Lets' stop creating all this hype around him.
I actually just came to watch the circus.
And did you see the chimps?
-
I don't know about the chimps but the clowns are in abundance.
-
oh, maybe he's going to take them down, from the inside :D
Three minutes before to read your post I was thinking exactly the same.
Maybe he acts as a Trojan Horse, to better destroyed his main enemy from the inside :D
(I refer to the Story [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Horse[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Horse[/url]) not to the virus :P )
My first thought last night when Yuri said "to wait 6 months and look back - he can't reveal all" [paraphrased] that he was making a deal to manage iStockphoto or to get investors to help him buy it out.
-
Such a shame that 95% of this thread was wasted on bickering, quibbling and sniping. Yuri offered an opportunity for debate and it was wasted.
Regarding mobile phones, as I said in an earlier thread 'wake up and smell the coffee'.
And honestly, why on earth question Yuri's qualification and judgement of smart phone potential. Do you think he doesn't understand what competing with a DSLR requires?
Very True. I'm still here, but I have to focus on good questions and not "personal" attacks on my persona.
-
Unfortunately it was overnight for me so missed the chance to join this conversation - an opportunity to question Yuri about his predictions for the future is not to be missed whether you agree with him or not!
I too strongly dislike the subs model at such low royalty rates, nothing has done more to commodify photography. I know some of you do well at SS, but I imagine diminishing returns are just round the corner.
Unfortunately I cannot place the trust in Getty that Yuri has done, even though they are my agent. Their actions towards their exclusive photographers have never been positive since they bought iStock, from the Vetta royalty rate cut, the RC system that's designed to limit the number of artists receiving semi-reasonable royalties, destruction of the referral system, flooding the library with wholly owned content and making new uploads worthless by skewing best match.
I guess Yuri may have negotiated a deal that overcomes some of these obstacles to success there, so good luck to him.
The real problem in this industry is low royalty percentages, they should be up at the 70-80% mark as they are in the Apple App Store to make a sustainable, healthy business and profits for everyone, agencies and copyright owners alike.
I'm not as sceptical as some of you about phone cameras. If tech-change over the past decade has shown us anything it's that disruption and amazing advances can and do happen. Who'd of thought I'd be shooting with a 36mp D800 a few years ago?
Seeing a great image, controlling light and being in position are pro photographer skills that are never going to go away, irrespective of the camera used and I for one would be grateful if I didn't have to carry 7kg of kit up Himalayan peaks any more!
I completely agree. If app store has 70% (because they want good content, Steve Jobs), then something is out of balance in our industry. Will it stay that way? Let's get a proper discussion going.
-
Such a shame that 95% of this thread was wasted on bickering, quibbling and sniping. Yuri offered an opportunity for debate and it was wasted.
Regarding mobile phones, as I said in an earlier thread 'wake up and smell the coffee'.
And honestly, why on earth question Yuri's qualification and judgement of smart phone potential. Do you think he doesn't understand what competing with a DSLR requires?
Very True. I'm still here, but I have to focus on good questions and not "personal" attacks on my persona.
What was the purpose of your blog then?
At least you changed 35% to 45% to make it a 100%, so you took some feedback from here, thats a positive ;)
-
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS). That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."
He answered that one too, but only once he'd sat through iStock's "change the meaning of the English Language 101" course:
Sean Locke Photography:
"So, iStock is lying when they say they are the only site hosting your images"
Yuri:
"No. They are not. Exclusive does not mean Istock only. It means partner sites as well. This can't be news."
Which I took as meaning, but in iStockNewSpeak, who knows what anything means, that somehow PeopleImages is now an iStock Partner Site. At least in some way iStockLawyer thinks will keep off misrepresentation lawsuits.
I was thinking of iStock becoming a property of Yuri. But I think you are closer with this comment. Getty/iStock has bought Yuri, including his stock sales site and his collection. It certainly would be the Getty way to buy an agency and bring it under their roof. But as we see with iStock, the control of the collection, and especially the site, gets hammered by the eventual Getty management style. Yuri may be grabbing his money and getting ready to run - much like Bruce.
-
I completely agree. If app store has 70% (because they want good content, Steve Jobs), then something is out of balance in our industry. Will it stay that way? Let's get a proper discussion going.
Ok, so 70-80% is a fair deal. What is the percentage you get at Getty then? Is it 20% 45% or more? Can you disclose that?
-
"I completely agree. If app store has 70% (because they want good content, Steve Jobs), then something is out of balance in our industry. Will it stay that way? Let's get a proper discussion going."
So, a: why are you joining a company who has done nothing but lower rates to industry lows and b: what are you doing to ensure everyone here makes 70% on their work?
-
Scoopshot is a startup for photos on demand. It means that smb. needs an image(s) and all stupid (sorry) persons over the world or some location trying to create image on request. A contributor will get 2, 5 USD. Scoopshot will get an another 2, 5 USD.
Now let`s think. How this 2,5 dollars are sustainable. Transport to asked-demanded location needs some expenses too.
It is not traditional microstock at this moment. It is not selling a volume. Yes, an agency owners will receive some money. And Yuri is on the side of owners.
Maybe Scoopshot owners trying to sell this startup after one year to Getty. With big profit. This is a question.
Maybe an owners turn a Scoopshoot into camera phone images stock agency too. But there is a Foap already.
Mobile phone camere never will catch a quality of dslr or even a good pocket camera. More glass and bigger sensor is a key for technical quality. Apps and filters helps a lot, but cameraphone is ok in good light. In editorial photo business a light conditions are very often bad.
Sorry about my English.
[url]http://www.jaaknilson.ee[/url] ([url]http://www.jaaknilson.ee[/url])
This post is good. You address major concerns. I agree that 5 USD per task is ridiculous, but so was 1 USD per download for Istockphoto.com back 7 years ago. We are looking at the birth of a new industry. It's not refined like microstock is today. Mistakes are ok, small income is ok, bad images are ok, it does not mean it is where it will end. You have to see the potential long term.
-
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS). That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."
Sean. You are not exclusive with IS any more. And please read the post I sent out about you actually being a good person later in this thread. :)
Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now www.peopleimages.com (http://www.peopleimages.com) is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?
-
This post is good. You address major concerns. I agree that 5 USD per task is ridiculous, but so was 1 USD per download for Istockphoto.com back 7 years ago. We are looking at the birth of a new industry. It's not refined like microstock is today. Mistakes are ok, small income is ok, bad images are ok, it does not mean it is where it will end. You have to see the potential long term.
That doesn't really make a lot of sense. Shouldn't there be lessons learned from micro? It's hard to dig out from underneath the original low prices that micro established.
-
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS). That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."
Sean. You are not exclusive with IS any more. And please read the post I sent out about you actually being a good person later in this thread. :)
Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now [url=http://www.peopleimages.com]www.peopleimages.com[/url] ([url]http://www.peopleimages.com[/url]) is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?
So does that mean that IS will send my remaining images there and in a few months (or more) the sales will be reported over the course of a few months?
What concessions did you get from Getty/IS to go exclusive there?
-
Hi Yuri
I have a very hard time seeing scoopshot as a place where photographers can make any substantial amount of money. Do you agree that scoopshot is not the place for photographers trying to make a living?
You are taking some heat from your comment about professionalism, but you do not need to have been present in any meetings to see that there are at least some truth to that. Just compare the front page of Dreamstime to that of Peopleimages... Are there any plans of making Peopleimages open to outside photographers?
-
Lets' stop creating all this hype around him.
I actually just came to watch the circus.
And did you see the chimps?
I don't know about chimps, but there was a lot of poop flinging.
-
This post is good. You address major concerns. I agree that 5 USD per task is ridiculous, but so was 1 USD per download for Istockphoto.com back 7 years ago. We are looking at the birth of a new industry. It's not refined like microstock is today. Mistakes are ok, small income is ok, bad images are ok, it does not mean it is where it will end. You have to see the potential long term.
That doesn't really make a lot of sense. Shouldn't there be lessons learned from micro? It's hard to dig out from underneath the original low prices that micro established.
Exactly. And if this project shows sign of any success there will many similar sites appearing that to compensate the delay will start a price war, forcing scoopshot or whatever it's called to lower the prices at some point. And instead of starting a price war around $20 or $50 they will start at $2.5 leaving people fighting for crumbs.
If someone could resist supporting a new agency that wants to pay $10 when you get $20 at the current one, who cares if one pays 2.5 and another 1? Earning so little will lead people to try to feed all agencies to earn money by sales volume than by individual sales.
This has happened in Micro once the agencies started cutting the commissions. Some of you may even record the recent problems between Fotolia and the Emeralds supplying Photodune. The cuts have been so severe in so many agencies people started to spread their portfolio through all agencies they could to compensate the loss in a short term perspective.
-
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS). That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."
Sean. You are not exclusive with IS any more. And please read the post I sent out about you actually being a good person later in this thread. :)
Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now [url=http://www.peopleimages.com]www.peopleimages.com[/url] ([url]http://www.peopleimages.com[/url]) is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?
But Getty owns Istock, Thinkstock, etc __ that's the difference. Unless you've sold peopleimages to Getty then you are a competitor to them, offering the same non-exclusive products at much lower prices.
What if someone were to believe Istock's statement and pay the 'exclusive' prices for your images ... and then later discover that the same images were available elsewhere much cheaper ... what then?
-
This is microstock.
It is eating itself up, there is no sustainability, only exploitation. And when first it becomes unsustainable its time to move on.
fx to scoopshot and start a new cycle.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/581470_10151746787949586_1331910912_n.jpg)
-
"I completely agree. If app store has 70% (because they want good content, Steve Jobs), then something is out of balance in our industry. Will it stay that way? Let's get a proper discussion going."
So, a: why are you joining a company who has done nothing but lower rates to industry lows and b: what are you doing to ensure everyone here makes 70% on their work?
yuri joined several agencies that have done nothing but lower rates to industry lows both in terms of valuation of the image and the royalty rate to the industry, this was his pillar to success. you happened to join one of those agencies and supported it for years - what's your excuse?
he has no reason to ensure everyone here makes 70% on their work, i have never seen a rate as such in the stock industry - ever. until microstock came along and your ilk, 40% - 50% royalty rate was normal.
it's easy math sean - if you use the microstock poll results to the left here, you will note the numbers.
now do a little math, if you add up all the earnings ratings (excluding istock) they add up to 202.10 for 20 sites, yet to be exclusive with IS it adds up to 346.1 which clearly indicates that being exclusive with IS for better or worse is the very clear and undisputed winner. now add in the fact that mr. full of himself will most likely get 45% royalties based on the current RC system which a very select few can attain, plus all the additional getty sales, then clearly he is way ahead of the game. nobody can dispute this.
now if i can "speculate" here for a moment, i'd bet he also got some sort of signing bonus to become exclusive, it would only make sense as he is a shrewd businessman - all speculation here.
so clearly he is way ahead of the game financially without doing millions upon millions of hours of additional work by uploading to countless sites and dealing with the idiosyncrasies of each site in terms of key wording and categories etc.
if i did not know any better, i'd say he has doubled his stock income and reduced his workload by more than half just by this very move. makes total sense to me.
i personally could care less about yuri as i have never deified him in any way, but that still does not change the fact that he has become successful on his own merit, and he has the luxury to pick and choose how he shall reap the rewards of his work.
it's really a simple concept if you look at it with a clear head and a true business sense.
-
Hello Yuri,
I am exclusive with iStock and have been a lot longer then you have. That being the case I have only seen Getty reduce our share espically with the RC system. I would love your ideas on how to get rid of the RC system, I would be thrilled to get behind you on this as would the whole community. Please advise us as the ball is in your court.
-
Hello Yuri,
I am exclusive with iStock and have been a lot longer then you have. That being the case I have only seen Getty reduce our share espically with the RC system. I would love your ideas on how to get rid of the RC system, I would be thrilled to get behind you on this as would the whole community. Please advise us as the ball is in your court.
sadly, getty/IS is not his court. it's the carlyle groups court. but i do agree with what you are saying.
-
Hello Yuri,
I am exclusive with iStock and have been a lot longer then you have. That being the case I have only seen Getty reduce our share espically with the RC system. I would love your ideas on how to get rid of the RC system, I would be thrilled to get behind you on this as would the whole community. Please advise us as the ball is in your court.
Why should he care? He's no doubt in the top RC category, and even more probably has negotiated terms above the nominal top 45% rate.
He has demonstrated again and again that he only cares for himself, which he is perfectly entitled to; but why he condescends to come on here to rub our noses in it it a total mystery.
-
" he has no reason to ensure everyone here makes 70% on their work,"
I'm not saying he does. It just sounded like with the 'agreeing' and things 'being out of balance', that he was offering to do something.
-
he has no reason to ensure everyone here makes 70% on their work, i have never seen a rate as such in the stock industry - ever. until microstock came along and your ilk, 40% - 50% royalty rate was normal.
Alamy paid 70% in the past. They've lowered our commission to 65, 60 and now 50%. Yet they never used the sustainability argument to do it. According to them they've used the extra income to fund new projects and market expansion. Do I agree with it? No, But at least they are using the money to expand the business, so they say.
iStock takes +80% because to have less is "unsustainable" to the business!!! Really? Others can manage a business and profit millions with 50 to 70% paid to contributors and iStock cannot keep the boat afloat with 80%, so they had to grab 85% in some cases?!!!
Is this the same iStock that has been ripping us off that Yuri praises now in this post and his site? Or is there another iStock I missed the announcement?
As I said before, this is just another post, in the line of many others, that Yuri uses to promote himself and his business trying to appear as our "buddy" but with quite concrete and financial benefits for him on the backstage.
And great for him!
But it's just pathetic and insulting that he's promoting one of the most, if not the most disgusting agency of all. Not to mention incompetent!
-
I like the scoopshot concept and think it has a market, I have always wished iStock had a submission app like this for iStock! Combined with easy release bam you have it all there on a good sunny day
-
I could care less what Yuri does. He is just busy promoting his own business.
What keeps nagging at me is this mobile phone thing. So if someone requests a shot and all the members upload what they think the buyer wants and end up with 30 thou pictures, like Yuri described, why would that work? A buyer would have to dig through 30 thou pics to find what he wants. That would take a lot of time. Probably 3/4 are crap shots that couldn't even be used taken by someone who doesn't even know how to photograph. If you as a contributor didn't upload soon enough, then your picture would be buried in the heap. No way a buyer would dig through 30 thou photos looking for the right one. Yes it would be profitable to the site owner, but I don't see how to the contributor who gets buried in the heap, even if he had the best shot. Am I understanding this right? Seriously explain to me how this would work?
As for iStock/Getty, I think the reason most people are angry is because of the praise Yuri gives them after the treatment we all got from them. Maybe he didn't experience it because of who he is. I personally feel that is the reason. Anyone that enters a business deal will not bad mouth their business partner, especially if they are making money. Its the big money people who get invited to the bank's Christmas party and gets the free ham at Christmas, not the little guy. Who knows Yuri may be making more per sale than any one of us by iStock/Getty, just to keep him on board.
-
Yuri, just out of interest why didn't you support Stocksy. Surely a Co-op with built in profit share would be a permanent industry game changer and far more lucrative for you in the long term.
-
This post is good. You address major concerns. I agree that 5 USD per task is ridiculous, but so was 1 USD per download for Istockphoto.com back 7 years ago. We are looking at the birth of a new industry. It's not refined like microstock is today. Mistakes are ok, small income is ok, bad images are ok, it does not mean it is where it will end. You have to see the potential long term.
So the "refined" microstock, the one that was so unbearable for you that you left to sign an exclusive deal with Getty, if that is a look at the future of how these businesses develop, what makes you think that your mobile photography business will buck the trend?
-
Does Getty now own Peopleimages.com or is it still a separate site that you (Yuri) own and Getty has no interest in the revenue?
I don’t understand how the “partner program” works. Getty owns Thinkstock and Photos.com 100% . They pay a royalty to the contributors. They don’t own Flickr, but certain photographers are allowed to become Getty contributors just like all other photographers that are directly contracted to Getty.
Does Getty get the gross revenue of Peopleimages.com and pay you a royalty as is the case with Thinkstock?
What I don’t understand is the big price discounts customers can get on most of your images (roughly 80%) by Peopleimages.com instead of iStock. Granted that your Pure+ and Premium images are priced at about the same level as Exclusive and Vetta it seems to me that there is a huge advantage for customers to go to Peopleimages instead of iStock and I can’t understand why Getty allows this if you still own, and get 100% of Peopleimages. What am I missing?
On the other hand I suspect Getty is also selling your images through Thinkstock (part of the partner program), in an effort to compete with Shutterstock. This would mean that your images are also available at much lower prices than at either Peopleimages or iStock, if customers are smart enough to go to Thinkstock to purchase the images they need. Are some, or all, of your images available on Thinkstock?
-
Alamy paid 70% in the past. They've lowered our commission to 65, 60 and now 50%. Yet they never used the sustainability argument to do it. According to them they've used the extra income to fund new projects and market expansion. Do I agree with it? No, But at least they are using the money to expand the business, so they say.
Except when they're investing in weird stuff of doubtful use connected to mobile phones:
http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2013/07/04/5411.aspx (http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2013/07/04/5411.aspx)
being discussed here:
http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/629-manything-blog (http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/629-manything-blog)
-
Such a shame that 95% of this thread was wasted on bickering, quibbling and sniping. Yuri offered an opportunity for debate and it was wasted.
Regarding mobile phones, as I said in an earlier thread 'wake up and smell the coffee'.
And honestly, why on earth question Yuri's qualification and judgement of smart phone potential. Do you think he doesn't understand what competing with a DSLR requires?
Very True. I'm still here, but I have to focus on good questions and not "personal" attacks on my persona.
Actually you avoided a number of worthwhile but risque questions and diverted to a 'divorce with children' type sneering with that baldrickswahetever nick...
-
Hi Yuri
I have a very hard time seeing scoopshot as a place where photographers can make any substantial amount of money. Do you agree that scoopshot is not the place for photographers trying to make a living?
You are taking some heat from your comment about professionalism, but you do not need to have been present in any meetings to see that there are at least some truth to that. Just compare the front page of Dreamstime to that of Peopleimages... Are there any plans of making Peopleimages open to outside photographers?
First. Thank you for a honest question and not just "angry noise" Scoopshot is by no means a place for professionals as it is now. As microstock was not 7 years ago. For now you should just get to learn mobile shooting and then when it matures, there will be a market share for sure.
-
Lets' stop creating all this hype around him.
I actually just came to watch the circus.
And did you see the chimps?
I saw a few. :)
-
he has no reason to ensure everyone here makes 70% on their work, i have never seen a rate as such in the stock industry - ever. until microstock came along and your ilk, 40% - 50% royalty rate was normal.
Alamy paid 70% in the past. They've lowered our commission to 65, 60 and now 50%. Yet they never used the sustainability argument to do it. According to them they've used the extra income to fund new projects and market expansion. Do I agree with it? No, But at least they are using the money to expand the business, so they say.
iStock takes +80% because to have less is "unsustainable" to the business!!! Really? Others can manage a business and profit millions with 50 to 70% paid to contributors and iStock cannot keep the boat afloat with 80%, so they had to grab 85% in some cases?!!!
Is this the same iStock that has been ripping us off that Yuri praises now in this post and his site? Or is there another iStock I missed the announcement?
As I said before, this is just another post, in the line of many others, that Yuri uses to promote himself and his business trying to appear as our "buddy" but with quite concrete and financial benefits for him on the backstage.
And great for him!
But it's just pathetic and insulting that he's promoting one of the most, if not the most disgusting agency of all. Not to mention incompetent!
Istock has to feed a big failing professional company that was bought and buys on leverage, that's why. What do you think 'private equity' is? It's just the new label for 'leveraged buyout firm', after that genre became severely embarrassing to associate with.
-
Yuri
How does scoopshot work? After the request is closed what happens to all those pictures, are they deleted or kept on the site?
Just wondering....I can't do it because I still have one of those dinosaur phones from 10 years ago and can't bring myself to replace something that isn't broken when they cost so much.
-
Does Getty now own Peopleimages.com or is it still a separate site that you (Yuri) own and Getty has no interest in the revenue?
I don’t understand how the “partner program” works. Getty owns Thinkstock and Photos.com 100% . They pay a royalty to the contributors. They don’t own Flickr, but certain photographers are allowed to become Getty contributors just like all other photographers that are directly contracted to Getty.
Does Getty get the gross revenue of Peopleimages.com and pay you a royalty as is the case with Thinkstock?
What I don’t understand is the big price discounts customers can get on most of your images (roughly 80%) by Peopleimages.com instead of iStock. Granted that your Pure+ and Premium images are priced at about the same level as Exclusive and Vetta it seems to me that there is a huge advantage for customers to go to Peopleimages instead of iStock and I can’t understand why Getty allows this if you still own, and get 100% of Peopleimages. What am I missing?
On the other hand I suspect Getty is also selling your images through Thinkstock (part of the partner program), in an effort to compete with Shutterstock. This would mean that your images are also available at much lower prices than at either Peopleimages or iStock, if customers are smart enough to go to Thinkstock to purchase the images they need. Are some, or all, of your images available on Thinkstock?
Yuri still has at least 24k images on Thinkstock, etc;
http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/search/# (http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/search/#)"Yuri%20Arcurs"/s=DynamicRank/f=PIHVX
-
First. Thank you for a honest question and not just "angry noise" Scoopshot is by no means a place for professionals as it is now. As microstock was not 7 years ago. For now you should just get to learn mobile shooting and then when it matures, there will be a market share for sure.
you mean like a sort of CNN's iReport ? sounds much more juicy, sort of an assignment billboard.
-
Except when they're investing in weird stuff of doubtful use connected to mobile phones:
[url]http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2013/07/04/5411.aspx[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2013/07/04/5411.aspx[/url])
being discussed here:
[url]http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/629-manything-blog[/url] ([url]http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/629-manything-blog[/url])
it just shows they've no idea how to further expand their core business (editorial) and on top of this now they claim to become soon a "creative" agency without even clearly stating what they define for creative, many contributors have just got their whole portfolios labelled as creative including images of their dogs taking a poo .. talk about strict selection !
-
I could care less what Yuri does. He is just busy promoting his own business.
What keeps nagging at me is this mobile phone thing. So if someone requests a shot and all the members upload what they think the buyer wants and end up with 30 thou pictures, like Yuri described, why would that work? A buyer would have to dig through 30 thou pics to find what he wants. That would take a lot of time. Probably 3/4 are crap shots that couldn't even be used taken by someone who doesn't even know how to photograph. If you as a contributor didn't upload soon enough, then your picture would be buried in the heap. No way a buyer would dig through 30 thou photos looking for the right one. Yes it would be profitable to the site owner, but I don't see how to the contributor who gets buried in the heap, even if he had the best shot. Am I understanding this right? Seriously explain to me how this would work?
what about this scenario instead :
sellers do a quick search on google images, steal the images, do some quick resize and a couple automated filters, upload the whole cr-ap on ScoopShot and get the money.
who's gonna double check about this ? nobody, and nobody will ever sue for 5$ or iphone quality snaps !
the whole idea is ripe to become a hotbed for spam and scams of any sort.
-
I completely agree. If app store has 70% (because they want good content, Steve Jobs), then something is out of balance in our industry. Will it stay that way? Let's get a proper discussion going.
because Apple and Google are two of the biggest brands in the world, their costs to acquire a customer are minimal because of their brand power and identity and moreover their stores are an integral part of their own products, that's the lock-in and therefore they have no direct competition apart a few dodgy stores for hacked android apps or jailbroken iphones.
they don't need to invest 30-40% of their earnings in advertising as SS or iStock, it's like comparing apples and oranges, even if they spend billions to advertise their products and their brands of course but that's another story ... selling apps and games and ebooks is relatively easy, selling stock images is hard and that's exactly why nobody can afford to give us 70-80% of a sale, even Tony Stone couldn't do it during the golden age of stock.
i mean if selling stock was so easy you wouldn't even need Getty and you could get rich just with PeopleImages alone.
Getty is the only one who really knows the score, all the ones bashing Getty here are just foaming from their mouthes because Getty relegates them to istock or thinkstock.
all i can say is ... Getty is not a closed fortress like Corbis, study carefully the Getty site, make a new portfolio and apply to Getty, if they like your stuff they will take you in.
-
Unfortunately it was overnight for me so missed the chance to join this conversation - an opportunity to question Yuri about his predictions for the future is not to be missed whether you agree with him or not!
I too strongly dislike the subs model at such low royalty rates, nothing has done more to commodify photography. I know some of you do well at SS, but I imagine diminishing returns are just round the corner.
Unfortunately I cannot place the trust in Getty that Yuri has done, even though they are my agent. Their actions towards their exclusive photographers have never been positive since they bought iStock, from the Vetta royalty rate cut, the RC system that's designed to limit the number of artists receiving semi-reasonable royalties, destruction of the referral system, flooding the library with wholly owned content and making new uploads worthless by skewing best match.
I guess Yuri may have negotiated a deal that overcomes some of these obstacles to success there, so good luck to him.
The real problem in this industry is low royalty percentages, they should be up at the 70-80% mark as they are in the Apple App Store to make a sustainable, healthy business and profits for everyone, agencies and copyright owners alike.
I'm not as sceptical as some of you about phone cameras. If tech-change over the past decade has shown us anything it's that disruption and amazing advances can and do happen. Who'd of thought I'd be shooting with a 36mp D800 a few years ago?
Seeing a great image, controlling light and being in position are pro photographer skills that are never going to go away, irrespective of the camera used and I for one would be grateful if I didn't have to carry 7kg of kit up Himalayan peaks any more!
I completely agree. If app store has 70% (because they want good content, Steve Jobs), then something is out of balance in our industry. Will it stay that way? Let's get a proper discussion going.
Why weren't you interested in getting a proper discussion going 5 years ago? You've started several threads here or dropped in and made one or two posts but you never seem to hang around. Over the years, it feels like you're only here when you're trying to get something from the forum and the rest of the time you ignore it. I'm sure you must of noticed the bad feeling a lot of us have towards Getty/istock. Then you do that quip about professionals dealing with professionals, so now is probably the worst time for you to expect to have a proper discussion here. Such a shame you didn't take much of an interest in a proper discussion in this forum before going exclusive when I'm sure you would have had a much more positive response.
I'm sure Sean is a nice person, so am I :)
-
If you've just tuned in folks here's a summary of Yuri's first public statement. :D
Officially. I would like to state that Sean L, is in fact a nice guy!
-
I find it all fascinating. Its great that someone has the power to perhaps change the direction of MS for good. Hopefully the non-Yuri shops will start competing for other superstars and we can get back to the competing on quality and content instead of "who has the lowest price". Maybe then the "agencies" can actually act like agencies and promote the photographers instead of price point.
I did find the typos and strange wording off putting. Yuri, you can afford a proofreader! Especially when dealing with publicly held companies, any public statement should go through filters.
-
You've started several threads here or dropped in and made one or two posts but you never seem to hang around. Over the years, it feels like you're only here when you're trying to get something from the forum and the rest of the time you ignore it.
And you didn't even bother to feed back from the specs issue you had last year, though as your models still wear specs, I suppose the company saw sense.
-
Two good things Yuri has done: 1. Not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model, true origin of many of our troubles. For me, subs it's not micro, but "nano-stock".
What do you mean Yuri is "not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model"?
In case you're not aware, right now he has over 35K images available to subscribers at DT __ that's 10x more than I do!
And still is selling on iStock's cheap subs partner program, e.g. 121353352 on Photos.com.
As a pseudo-exclusive, I presume he could have opted all of his images out of the PP had he wanted to.
-
There have been 2 occasions that I have changed job and very quickly wondering what . I was thinking when I made the decision to move - course I would never admit that. ;)
-
Hi, I have been a photographer before Microstock, I am still a photographer, and if Microstock dies soon I will be still photographer. At the beginning I was concerned about Microstock but then later, in 2006, I joined just to try it. I did make money through Microstock, and I am still making money although I am not making as much as I used to.
Cell phone stock, I don't know, too many people have cell phones and too many will get a share. As an individual I will be making so little that I don't think it is worth joining (my personal opinion), only the agency will make money. Of course if it gets going and I see I can make money with cell phone stock, I will join.
Somebody said that a 70 % share is good, however 70% of nothing is nothing.
I like this post by:
Gunter Nezhoda
I'm not sure what to think,
There's a guy who made it all the way to the top from scratch, produces the best "Merchandise" in our industry and everybody else is jealous and does not give credit were credit is due. This man became very successful with hard work and great strategies. What are we doing? - Checking his spelling? - very childish of us in my opinion.
I for my part would like to succeed and listen to people who have done it, not judge them.
There is no fairness in business and I don't expect it. I'm not waiting for Yuri to change my diapers.
I'm not hoping that successful people hold back, turn around and offer their hand to me, so I can have a piece of the pie too. That's not how it works.
Great going Yuri, it does suck that you car is nicer than mine, but I know why, and you deserve it. Get it while you can!
All the best
Kone
-
And he's gone in a puff of smoke...
Reading between the lines, watched his RPI decline in a chronically oversupplied market place, realised time was running out on returns for production costs, saw Getty on the back foot with Sean ruffling a few feathers over the Google backfire and negotiated a lucrative exit strategy.
That's how I read the slightly delirious holy crap I can't believe I got away with it blog post.
-
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS). That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."
Sean. You are not exclusive with IS any more. And please read the post I sent out about you actually being a good person later in this thread. :)
Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now [url=http://www.peopleimages.com]www.peopleimages.com[/url] ([url]http://www.peopleimages.com[/url]) is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?
the only thing we have a hard time is hearing your cheap talk, actually you are the one having a hard time understanding that we know who you are so please move along, I am so glad that you don't have much time for the forums, now we can see who is low here
guys please stop saying thanks to Yuri because he haven't done anything for the microstock community, unless mocking agencies and contributors count, so show respect for the ones that fought against Google deal and D-Day, not the ones that took advantage of it without doing jack (oh yes the private meeting we never knew the result but we had the announcement, also reminds me of the glasses trademark issue that again most members participated actively and helped for free but again there was no further explanation from the great Yuri)
-
who would have thunk...?
14 pages fueling one mans inflated ego.
-
who would have thunk...?
14 pages fueling one mans inflated ego.
Actually, it seems more like 14 pages of egotism; not limited to just one ego. :P
-
.
Actually, it seems more like 14 pages of egotism; not limited to just one ego. :P
There certainly is a hint of that... ;)
-
the innovation in lenses in the last 10-20 yrs has been minimal.
suffice to say a Leica Noctilux F1.0 from the '70s is still producing sharper images than any canon or nikon lens sold today !
Maybe, because there is not too much else left in lens innovation. I use several 30 year old primes and am perfectly happy with them.
However, most of the disk drives they sell today are slower then some drives I used 15 years ago.
-
Well, as they say:
there are some doers, many whiners and naysayers, and the rest of the crowd doesn't have a clue what's going on.
Yuri has accomplished a lot, made a few mistakes, and now with his latest adventure and investment, he must have more fun than most of the the people on this forum can dream or be envious of. Enjoy the journey, Yuri!
However, the assumption that SSTK stock dropped because of Yuri's departure from Shutterstock or corresponding press release, is a little bit naive. What's happening is simply a correction. The stock dropped, because it was ridiculously overvalued, and a sobering article named "Shutterstock Valuation Makes Me Shudder" was published on July 12th. SSTK has been steadily dropping since, but it still has a way to go before it stabilizes around $40 (coming down from lofty $60 peak). If the stock had more liquidity (actually, very thin trading volume since its IPO) and allowed short-selling, it would have never reached those heights.
-
Still can't figure out why Stocksy dose not get more hype here.
That's simple: They want a small crowd of elite photographers to work for them. Why should we want to hype up an outfit that just wants to freeze us out of the business?If you exclude 99.9% of the population from your club don't expect to be a hit with the masses.
It's rather like asking why microstockers didn't hype up Getty ten years ago when it paid "fair commissions".
-
Still can't figure out why Stocksy dose not get more hype here.
That's simple: They want a small crowd of elite photographers to work for them. Why should we want to hype up an outfit that just wants to freeze us out of the business?If you exclude 99.9% of the population from your club don't expect to be a hit with the masses.
It's rather like asking why microstockers didn't hype up Getty ten years ago when it paid "fair commissions".
The question is - do you need to hype up Stocksy itself - or maybe a business model like stocksy's. Sure, Stocksy is rather restrictive in the number (and type) of photographers it represents - it is designed for slow growth. On the other hand - why not hype the model - found another stock-coop that has another unique selling point, communicate fair pricing and fair commissions to contributors.
-
Yuri,
I looks like you are paying close attention to this thread and you are hoping to gain some insight through the discussions you have triggered. I cannot figure out what you are trying to learn from all this but if you have really have invested 1.4 million dollars in phone photography then good luck to you, if not and you are testing the market... don't do it!
-
Tons of good questions have been asked, but only a few easy ones were answered. And the majority of his comments were quotes of people that defended him.
If he wants a proper discussion he needs to at least answer the tough questions. But he wont and cant, because the answer will be that he cut a deal with Getty and has his own private TOS and RC schedule. And as soon as that is confirmed all hell will break loose.
DT is not playing ball, he could only delete 30% of his portfolio and has to wait 6 months before his staff can remove the other images. But IS/Getty didnt want to wait 6 months for him to join them, so they cut him some slack.
Playing a very dirty game, yet expects a nice dialogue. One place you WONT get that after pulling these stunts is MSG. LOL
-
DT is not playing ball, he could only delete 30% of his portfolio and has to wait 6 months before his staff can remove the other images. But IS/Getty didnt want to wait 6 months for him to join them, so they cut him some slack.
perhaps they are, looking at his account only about 1k files were uploaded close to 6 months ago, so we are talking about 34k files that should have been removed, again the distribution team has guilt not Yuri
You can disable all files approved more than six months ago at any time. You are allowed to disable 30% of files uploaded in the recent six months however 70% must be kept online for six months from their approval date.
-
Is anyone else wondering what time the call came from Getty's lawyers asking Mr Arcurs to put down his shovel and stop digging?
-
I see stocksy as a wake up call and encouragement to the community to focus more on self marketing, wether you do it alone or in a group. Doesn't Photoshelter allow virtual agencies, where people can pool their files together?
Of course all of these things take time to grow, but in the end this might be the only sustainable solution.
Yuri had the opportunity to start his own stocksy and with a sensible price model he could have attracted tons of high quality content from artists across the globe.
And with his brand name he could have also lobbied the big walled gardens - the Apple Store, Android, Microsoft, Amazon to open them up for regular artists, not just musicians and app writers. It is easy for them to expand their stores, the customers are already there and with 70% they could pick and choose from the best content available.
It would take him 2-3 years to build, but he would have made a lot more money and could have even gone public.
Which is probably why Getty paid him a handsome amount of money NOT to do it.
Obviously, his choice and depending on how much money was involved, who can blame him?
But the reason he is getting so much flak is because he decided to join Getty, a company that is simply not seen as a visionary and reliable partner for many after the google drive disaster etc...and for the exclusives the news and changes this year have all been bad.
If he had made the agreement with Alamy, Masterfile or Corbis - would he get the same amount of resentment? Probably not.
I don't really understand his investment in scoopshot or how it will make him a bigger return on his investment than if he had put all his energy into peopleimages.
The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks. And the photographers didn't have to go round begging the old boys network to be accepted in their supersecret societies. Microstock provided an open, transparent plattform for talent to grow, rise and shine.
Before, the agencies controlled the access to the customers.
it is very difficult for a single artist to reach customers worldwide if marketing and distribution relies on catalogues, print ads and slides that are physically sent.
With scooptshot maybe there is a niche market for company product placement. I saw a newspaper asking for images of holiday images with people reading their paper from across the globe. But these assignemnts can be fulfilled with any camera. And any agency can offer an additional area for assignment work...
Anyway, I am sure he has thought about it, but I simply don't see the market that he sees.
Am I worried of an army of mobile phone shooters taking away my downloads? No, I am not. The camera is just a tool. With a pen you can write your grocery list or the next Harry Potter, but the pen is not the one creating the content.
Will I use a mobile phone to shoot stock? Sure. Why not. But I won't sell more unless the image is good.
IMO, the companies that have the best potential for growth are the ones with strong online community skills. The ones, where the management gets personally involved, gets in here, throws out ideas to the community and carefully evaluates siggestions and criticism. There is a lot of business talent and entrepreneurship in the international community. The ones who can harvest the best of the commercial skills in the community, will be the ones that move forward successfully. I think if we look at how the agencies have been developping in the last 3 years, it is easy to see who knows how to do that and who doesn't.
-
Deleted. Luis was faster
-
I don't really understand his investment in scoopshot or how it will make him a bigger return on his investment than if he had put all his energy into peopleimages.
I don't think, we've seen the last stage of scoopshot. With a 1.4 million investment, one can presume an expansion and more development, and quite likely branching into other markets. In addition, there may be some synergy between Yuri's other companies and scoopshot that could bring other indirect benefits and improved economy scale for him.
-
Still can't figure out why Stocksy dose not get more hype here.
That's simple: They want a small crowd of elite photographers to work for them. Why should we want to hype up an outfit that just wants to freeze us out of the business?If you exclude 99.9% of the population from your club don't expect to be a hit with the masses.
It's rather like asking why microstockers didn't hype up Getty ten years ago when it paid "fair commissions".
The question is - do you need to hype up Stocksy itself - or maybe a business model like stocksy's. Sure, Stocksy is rather restrictive in the number (and type) of photographers it represents - it is designed for slow growth. On the other hand - why not hype the model - found another stock-coop that has another unique selling point, communicate fair pricing and fair commissions to contributors.
You mean something like the effort with symbiostock? There was another effort earlier to set up a co-op type effort but that didn't work out. The most original thing with Stocksy is that Bruce Livingstone has the money, the contacts and the experience to have a fair chance of making it work. Those are not resources that are readily available so the business model probably cannot be replicated.
-
True enough - on the other hand - does that mean Bruce is the only person to make such a model work?
-
...The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks....
That's a complete misunderstanding, the bigger names that actually made micro a serious competitor aren't using cheap dlsr's, they use high end equipment, many of them have been pro photographers who already had top-notch gear. It's so untrue, that sctually microstock started to burden photographers with the highest technical requirements ever, by far. The point that microstock made is that unless the competition starts eating your pie, selling at low prices doesn't reduce your income because the lower the price the huger and huger the customer base gets. Before the tiny minded start schreeching: yes sooner or later the competition will try, and probably will be eating your pie in an any open market. Be first , be smart, or cheat.
-
"That's a complete misunderstanding, the bigger names that actually made micro a serious competitor aren't using cheap dlsr's, they use high end equipment, many of them have been pro photographers who already had top-notch gear."
I bought a 6mp Rebel to start shooting for iStock in 2004.
-
DT is not playing ball, he could only delete 30% of his portfolio and has to wait 6 months before his staff can remove the other images. But IS/Getty didnt want to wait 6 months for him to join them, so they cut him some slack.
perhaps they are, looking at his account only about 1k files were uploaded close to 6 months ago, so we are talking about 34k files that should have been removed, again the distribution team has guilt not Yuri
You can disable all files approved more than six months ago at any time. You are allowed to disable 30% of files uploaded in the recent six months however 70% must be kept online for six months from their approval date.
What method do you use to analyze the age of yuri's content?
-
DT is not playing ball, he could only delete 30% of his portfolio and has to wait 6 months before his staff can remove the other images. But IS/Getty didnt want to wait 6 months for him to join them, so they cut him some slack.
perhaps they are, looking at his account only about 1k files were uploaded close to 6 months ago, so we are talking about 34k files that should have been removed, again the distribution team has guilt not Yuri
You can disable all files approved more than six months ago at any time. You are allowed to disable 30% of files uploaded in the recent six months however 70% must be kept online for six months from their approval date.
What method do you use to analyze the age of yuri's content?
ID number
-
...The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks....
That's a complete misunderstanding, the bigger names that actually made micro a serious competitor aren't using cheap dlsr's, they use high end equipment,
That's a misreading or misunderstanding of cobalt's link. She was saying that micro started based on many people buying basic dSLRs. I don't think many established stock photographers rushed into micro, though possibly a few did.
-
The way I see it, the Customers who purchase Stock Images are going to stick to buying the at the CHEAPEST PRICES they can.
Its just business, no matter what value anyone else perceives their images to be worth. They are only worth what someone will pay for them.
-
"That's a complete misunderstanding, the bigger names that actually made micro a serious competitor aren't using cheap dlsr's, they use high end equipment, many of them have been pro photographers who already had top-notch gear."
I bought a 6mp Rebel to start shooting for iStock in 2004.
..and what have you been using for years now?
-
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS). That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."
Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now [url=http://www.peopleimages.com]www.peopleimages.com[/url] ([url]http://www.peopleimages.com[/url]) is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?
"Early next week we will be removing the option for Exclusives to opt in to the Partner Program. "
Posted by Lobo on Jul 9 3:28PM http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354886&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354886&page=1)
So... ?
-
I don't really understand his investment in scoopshot or how it will make him a bigger return on his investment than if he had put all his energy into peopleimages.
I don't think, we've seen the last stage of scoopshot. With a 1.4 million investment, one can presume an expansion and more development, and quite likely branching into other markets. In addition, there may be some synergy between Yuri's other companies and scoopshot that could bring other indirect benefits and improved economy scale for him.
So if I'm reading the terms correctly, they sell the image for $5 and "reward" the photographer/seller with $2.50 and have the right to transfer all the copyrights to the buyer who then has the right to re-post and sell the image if they desire. They listed a few different license options but didn't give they pay scale so it wasn't clear if the full rights buyout pays more. I can't see any serious photographer transferring their copyright for $2.50. More likely a bunch of casual snappers that don't read the terms or pay attention to the rights they give away and the legal liabilities they've agreed to.
-
"Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now www.peopleimages.com (http://www.peopleimages.com) is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?"
And the PP is for everyone, generally speaking. The PP is not marketing-speak for 'you can run your own site with only your content and undercut our prices'. I'm not sure he understands what the PP is.
-
Yuri, I find many of your statements to be arrogant and self serving. The fact of the matter is you built a microstock brand. When you opened your own stock site, you found yourself competing with every other agency out there....only at microstock prices. Your comments tell me you realized your mistake and you are searching for a way to fix it. Yuri, you need to reinvent your brand...and by pulling out of all the micro agencies and bad mouthing them in your blog, you are shooting yourself in the foot. What you need to do is abandon the microstock collections (leave your images on the micros for supplementary income) and start a new brand. You need to cut the cord from the microstock business model. Forget the mobile phone upload revolution....Serban has been talking about this since at least 2006 that I know of - all of the agencies out there know about it but they aren't going to show their cards.
Try something new - a new pseudonym or you could even try using your real name. Whatever you do, you need to start fresh.
Good luck
-
Not sure why some folks think Yuri needs to justify himself.
If he got a better deal than anyone else its because he has more leverage than anyone else.
I'm sure he did the math before making his decision.
-----
Suggestion for Yuri: Please stop referring to peopleimages as PP. This is simply false (Unless I can Opt in to sell my images there as well). You simply got a good deal which no one else got, good for you.
-
True enough - on the other hand - does that mean Bruce is the only person to make such a model work?
I've no idea. In fact, I haven't even got an idea of whether or not he will really make it work.
-
The phone/dslr discussion is pointless.
Phones are already good enough for most internet uses and that is the future anyway.
If you rely on your superior camera equipment you have already lost, it's the person behind the camera/phone. His/Her effort,business sense, talent, knowledge and access makes the difference not the tool.
-
The phone/dslr discussion is pointless.
Phones are already good enough for most internet uses and that is the future anyway.
If you rely on your superior camera equipment you have already lost, it's the person behind the camera/phone. His/Her effort,business sense, talent, knowledge and access makes the difference not the tool.
Maybe there is room for both. I'm not understanding how food photography, for instance, would work with a phone?
ed: lights setup and triggering the lights for example. Will phones come with interchangeable lenses? Can you set them for manual controls?
Since I'm not a cell phone user my question may be a little out-dated. ???
-
The phone/dslr discussion is pointless.
Phones are already good enough for most internet uses and that is the future anyway.
If you rely on your superior camera equipment you have already lost, it's the person behind the camera/phone. His/Her effort,business sense, talent, knowledge and access makes the difference not the tool.
Maybe there is room for both. I'm not understanding how food photography, for instance, would work with a phone?
ed: lights setup and triggering the lights for example. Will phones come with interchangeable lenses? Can you set them for manual controls?
Since I'm not a cell phone user my question may be a little out-dated. ???
I watched a recent CreativeLIVE series on Food photography by Andrew Scrivani, http://www.andrewscrivani.com (http://www.andrewscrivani.com), and he uses natural light most of the time, unless he has to work out of his own studio in a place with poor or no natural light. One of his segments was to be about shooting with a phonecam, but I didn't see that one.
-
The phone/dslr discussion is pointless.
Phones are already good enough for most internet uses and that is the future anyway.
If you rely on your superior camera equipment you have already lost, it's the person behind the camera/phone. His/Her effort,business sense, talent, knowledge and access makes the difference not the tool.
How big are screens going to get and what resolution will people be satisfied with? Screens might end up the size of the biggest wall in the living room. I do laugh at people in a small room with a 50 inch TV but there doesn't seem to be any slow down in how big TV's are getting. HD is enough for most people now but you can get 4k and 8k screens, if you want to waste thousands on them. Will they start to show the flaws in the very small cell phone sensors? The best way to future proof is to stick with a high resolution large sensor. Might be why Yuri uses a hasselblad :) I also think that people like the shallow focus effect you can get with a large sensor and wide aperture lens. It can be replicated with a cell phone and an app but its not the same. So the DSLR isn't going to get killed off just yet.
-
The way I see it, Scoopshot is Yuri's hedge on his bet of putting all his eggs in the Getty basket.
Maybe he believes the hype he is drumming up for Scoop. Or maybe he is trying to generate buzz for his investment, getting it lots of links and SEO juice. Maybe a little of both.
I can't imagine mobile photography, at least in a model like this one, displacing my downloads. The content I create simply can't be done with a mobile phone, on demand and on a few hours' notice.
And I can't imagine the typical micro buyer wanting to wait up to a day for the perfect image. I'm a buyer myself, and I think microstock's biggest benefit (even bigger than price) is its vast supply of instantly available, searchable imagery. And the content I need isn't something that the average iPhone-wielding amateur could ever hope to create on the fly. (How many buyers could there possibly be for subjects like "what is your mood today?" or "funny street signs"?)
Is there a viable business model for mobile photography? Probably, but I'm convinced that it's not on a similar scale as microstock, and Scoopshot may not be the app/agency to make it work. To me, it's Yuri putting some money on the table and feverishly trying to convince us all (and maybe himself) that it was a wise bet.
And like I said, he wants us all talking about it to build buzz for it. And dumb me, I took the bait.
-
...The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks....
That's a complete misunderstanding, the bigger names that actually made micro a serious competitor aren't using cheap dlsr's, they use high end equipment,
That's a misreading or misunderstanding of cobalt's link. She was saying that micro started based on many people buying basic dSLRs. I don't think many established stock photographers rushed into micro, though possibly a few did.
i know very few who jumped into microstock, i sure didn't. it made no sense, and still doesn't make sense to sell your photos for a buck or two. my royalty now returns just shy of $10, and prices have gone up dramatically on IS over the years, when i started IS my average return was closer to $2.50, my royalty before the micros was closer to $100+, the volume of sales was roughly the same for the amount of images i had.
i always find it interesting to see the way the new micro crowd think about the industry versus the trad crowd version of it. the trads think the micros ruined the industry and the micros think they invented it. go figure?
"..The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks...."
cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."
-
Nope. Microstock would not have evolved but for the two.
-
Have you guys thought about that there might be something much more scary underway:
The whole advertising sector is moving from printed media to online.
And its not in form of online pictures, it is in form of links.
So if our images are not going to be printed anymore. What will happen? How does that influence size and quality?
We see the newspapers dying, photographers being fired, and we see a whole generation not ever reading letters on paper and certainly not commercials on printed paper.
Its all on blogs and apps.
Its going to be peer to peer news and peer to peer commercials.
... and no there is not a living for a photographer to be found in that. The net is totally overflooded with images, and scoopshot is bringing order to chaos, and strip copyright to be able to moneyterize.
No photographer will make a living on that, but the distributor might.
its crowdsourcing. Having enough of those .25 c to get rich like we did 5 years ago. Now it takes collections of pictures to do that, single ports are meaningless.
-
i know very few who jumped into microstock, i sure didn't. it made no sense, and still doesn't make sense to sell your photos for a buck or two. my royalty now returns just shy of $10, and prices have gone up dramatically on IS over the years, when i started IS my average return was closer to $2.50, my royalty before the micros was closer to $100+, the volume of sales was roughly the same for the amount of images i had.
i always find it interesting to see the way the new micro crowd think about the industry versus the trad crowd version of it. the trads think the micros ruined the industry and the micros think they invented it. go figure?
"..The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks...."
cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."
In contrast I know many "who jumped into microstock", some of whom have done very well, but far more who found it way more difficult than they expected. Once they were exposed to the full marketplace (and without the protection of macro's restrictive practices) a lot of them came up short.
You seem obsessed with RPD as a valuation of your work's 'worth'. I get the impression that you would much rather sell one license per month for $1000 than 3k licenses per month, at say SS, for $2400. All that really matters to me is how much my portfolio earns.
Cobalt is far from being 'misguided'. I wish I could say the same for you.
-
...The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks....
That's a complete misunderstanding, the bigger names that actually made micro a serious competitor aren't using cheap dlsr's, they use high end equipment,
That's a misreading or misunderstanding of cobalt's link. She was saying that micro started based on many people buying basic dSLRs. I don't think many established stock photographers rushed into micro, though possibly a few did.
i know very few who jumped into microstock, i sure didn't. it made no sense, and still doesn't make sense to sell your photos for a buck or two. my royalty now returns just shy of $10, and prices have gone up dramatically on IS over the years, when i started IS my average return was closer to $2.50, my royalty before the micros was closer to $100+, the volume of sales was roughly the same for the amount of images i had.
i always find it interesting to see the way the new micro crowd think about the industry versus the trad crowd version of it. the trads think the micros ruined the industry and the micros think they invented it. go figure?
"..The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks...."
cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."
Cobalt's analysis is correct. The advanced technology of the internet leveled the playing field. You can't turn back the clock. I was selling on Corbis and Getty for years when I happened to see Yuri Arcurs at a panel at the NYC photo show. I submitted my first shots to Istock the next day. Do i wish that micro stock didn't exist? Sure, I made more money before. But my costs were so much higher that it is actually a more profitable business now. I would only add one more part to Cobalt's list- photoshop. It makes photography so much easier.
-
I get the impression that you would much rather sell one license per month for $1000 than 3k licenses per month, at say SS, for $2400
no way, one license per month for $1000 over 3K licenses per month for $2400. or do you mean 3K licenses per month for a total of $2400. ;) it's volume as such that is killing this industry.
i am not obsessed with RPD at all, but i would not sell my work for SS rates. get over it.
the disruption to microstock is lack of editing, and a free flow of acceptance of everything that comes in the door at all skill levels of which a vast amount is not stock worthy at all, albeit some of it is very good work.
when i refer to "jumped in", i mean most pros did not do so for the first few years for the very reasons i mentioned earlier, and most pros did not jump in to this day on principle. after a lot of debate, i jumped in at the halfway point cause i could see the writing on the wall.
what is your background gostwyck? did you start shooting stock at the entry level of micros? or are you and have you been with multiple traditional agencies before this whole microstock craze?
-
the disruption to microstock is lack of editing, and a free flow of acceptance of everything that comes in the door at all skill levels of which a vast amount is not stock worthy at all, albeit some of it is very good work.
That's for the buyers to judge. If you're really a pro with the best stuff, then you don't have to worry about inferior content outselling yours. Buyers are smart enough to know which image they want. It's survival of the fittest.
And Yuri thinking his decision had anything to do with the price of Shutterstock's stock is beyond arrogance. There's tens of millions of images on that site, and many equal or surpass his in content and quality; 50,000 images or even 300,000 moved off the site wouldn't even be a speed bump.
-
the disruption to microstock is lack of editing, and a free flow of acceptance of everything that comes in the door at all skill levels of which a vast amount is not stock worthy at all, albeit some of it is very good work.
That's for the buyers to judge. If you're really a pro with the best stuff, then you don't have to worry about inferior content outselling yours. Buyers are smart enough to know which image they want. It's survival of the fittest.
you are correct and i agree, if your work really is the best stuff, you don't have to worry, good to great images always sell.
my point being that buyers have a restriction called time, and if a buyer has to wade through thousands upon thousands of sub par images to find the gems, then yes it affects the shooters who are shooting the best stuff.
for example, i just searched for a certain temple in bangkok and IS for example has 2500+ images, SS has 3900+ and Getty has 1100+ images in both RF and RM.
all three sites have some great images, all three sites have more or less the same images with the exception of Getty not having lots of mediocre to really bad images, hence they have been edited. now due to the fact that editing is not happening per se at either SS or IS, this means there are too many similar images which totally dilutes things, now take into consideration that their is not any shred of editing most of those images were shot on cloudy days, most are shot at the wrong time of day etc.
now lets back up the truck, if i was a buyer with time restrictions, i would go to the site that offers me the best edit of the subject i am after without wading through tons of sh!t.
this form of taking every image that comes in the front door is doomed, it also makes fining the great stuff that is what buyers want. there is lots of quality on microstock sites, but it is diluted with lots of crap. and buyers are starting to figure this out.
the current model of microstocks and lack of editing is what is slowly diminishing returns for contributors.
-
Tell me if I understood right, the new Nokia 41 mpx phone will automatically assign 30-50 keywords for every shot I take with it?
-
the disruption to microstock is lack of editing, and a free flow of acceptance of everything that comes in the door at all skill levels of which a vast amount is not stock worthy at all, albeit some of it is very good work.
That's for the buyers to judge. If you're really a pro with the best stuff, then you don't have to worry about inferior content outselling yours. Buyers are smart enough to know which image they want. It's survival of the fittest.
you are correct and i agree, if your work really is the best stuff, you don't have to worry, good to great images always sell.
my point being that buyers have a restriction called time, and if a buyer has to wade through thousands upon thousands of sub par images to find the gems, then yes it affects the shooters who are shooting the best stuff.
for example, i just searched for a certain temple in bangkok and IS for example has 2500+ images, SS has 3900+ and Getty has 1100+ images in both RF and RM.
all three sites have some great images, all three sites have more or less the same images with the exception of Getty not having lots of mediocre to really bad images, hence they have been edited. now due to the fact that editing is not happening per se at either SS or IS, this means there are too many similar images which totally dilutes things, now take into consideration that their is not any shred of editing most of those images were shot on cloudy days, most are shot at the wrong time of day etc.
now lets back up the truck, if i was a buyer with time restrictions, i would go to the site that offers me the best edit of the subject i am after without wading through tons of sh!t.
this form of taking every image that comes in the front door is doomed, it also makes fining the great stuff that is what buyers want. there is lots of quality on microstock sites, but it is diluted with lots of crap. and buyers are starting to figure this out.
the current model of microstocks and lack of editing is what is slowly diminishing returns for contributors.
This does make a lot of sense but why is SS doing so well then? istock used to have a very high acceptance rate which would work in the favour of the buyer.... as per your above theory but they have thrown that aproach out the window and now accept anything and everything!? diluting all the good images and making it harder for buyers to find the good ones? I don't get it?
-
The phone/dslr discussion is pointless.
Phones are already good enough for most internet uses and that is the future anyway.
If you rely on your superior camera equipment you have already lost, it's the person behind the camera/phone. His/Her effort,business sense, talent, knowledge and access makes the difference not the tool.
How big are screens going to get and what resolution will people be satisfied with? Screens might end up the size of the biggest wall in the living room. I do laugh at people in a small room with a 50 inch TV but there doesn't seem to be any slow down in how big TV's are getting. HD is enough for most people now but you can get 4k and 8k screens, if you want to waste thousands on them. Will they start to show the flaws in the very small cell phone sensors? The best way to future proof is to stick with a high resolution large sensor. Might be why Yuri uses a hasselblad :) I also think that people like the shallow focus effect you can get with a large sensor and wide aperture lens. It can be replicated with a cell phone and an app but its not the same. So the DSLR isn't going to get killed off just yet.
My Nokia 808 has already more resolution than my DSLR. But it's just a matter of taste I'm hardly using my Nokia or my DSLR most of the time I'm using my MFT which has even lower resolution than my DSLR.
I'm sharing rooms with designers and writers no one looks at pictures as we photographers do all they care is emotion and usefulness, technical perfection is just for us the rest of the world doesn't care but we don't buy our pictures it's the rest who brings us some money.
-
The phone/dslr discussion is pointless.
Phones are already good enough for most internet uses and that is the future anyway.
If you rely on your superior camera equipment you have already lost, it's the person behind the camera/phone. His/Her effort,business sense, talent, knowledge and access makes the difference not the tool.
Maybe there is room for both. I'm not understanding how food photography, for instance, would work with a phone?
ed: lights setup and triggering the lights for example. Will phones come with interchangeable lenses? Can you set them for manual controls?
Since I'm not a cell phone user my question may be a little out-dated. ???
I watched a recent CreativeLIVE series on Food photography by Andrew Scrivani, [url]http://www.andrewscrivani.com[/url] ([url]http://www.andrewscrivani.com[/url]), and he uses natural light most of the time, unless he has to work out of his own studio in a place with poor or no natural light. One of his segments was to be about shooting with a phonecam, but I didn't see that one.
Natural light seems to be a bit of a cult with food photographers. You'll see claims that food never looks right with flash and I've even seen it said by a well respectedl old pro in the genre that flash will always make food look greasy.
I'm pretty sure that what this really means is that they have failed to learn how to control flash lighting. Light is just light and properly controlled flash mimics that natural light we are used to seeing things in. If you don't know what you are doing with flash, it is awfully easy to mess up with food, in fact, if you don't know what you are doing it is almost impossible to avoid. Daylight makes things easy.
With camera phones, it is possible to get some sort of job done, but a lot of your options go out of the window and creativity is stifled.
On the TV news you see what I presume is mobile phone footage all the time. It started off coming from places where proper TV equipment, or even consumer video cams would not be usable and something was better than nothing. Recently, I seem to have seen it spreading into situations where I would have thought it was perfectly simple to position a TV camera crew, but I'm sure a reporter and his mobile phone are cheaper options and the TV companies have probably hit on the realisation that if that is all the public get, that is what they will have to put up with.
BTW, I got some samples of the stuff Yuri was talking about sent to me, downsized to 5MP. They were all shot in undemanding conditions. The resolution seemed really good and I'm sure the average snapper would think it was fabulous. Of the three, one showed very obvious wide-angle distortion (the thing has an 8mm lens), one had visible if minor CA, the other had obvious vignetting. In each case, the images seemed to have almost infinite DoF, even though the aperture was recorded as f2.4 or thereabouts - something to do with having such a short focal length, perhaps. They looked a bit flat to me and didn't seem to handle fairly ordinary contrast very well, maybe the dynamic range is poor (I'm not expert at analysing the technical stuff). Keystoning seemed to be a big issue, probably the field of view of the lens makes it natural to tip the phone to avoid having masses of foreground in the picture. They were certainly remarkable for something out titchy phone but no way did they compare with the image richness of a top dslr and the apparent lack of control over DoF, shutter speed etc. means the system is severely crippled. I also wondered if they had been fitted to some sort of support to avoid blurring - as far as I know phones don't come with a tripod socket and when I tried to shoot hand-held in an office environment with my own mobile (not a nokia and no flash) yesterday it was just a blur.
-
cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."
Very true. It was almost as bad as the disruption of the transport industry that was caused by the introduction of the infernal combustion engine. Now a bunch of so-called "drivers" are transporting people in motorised carriages and they scarcely know how to harness a pony to a trap!
-
[…] Of the three, one showed very obvious wide-angle distortion (the thing has an 8mm lens), one had visible if minor CA, the other had obvious vignetting.
If you consider the success of "things" like instagram you can easily imagine that these kinds of "defects" can very quickly become fashion, and so become very fast a must for some customers…
-
cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."
Very true. It was almost as bad as the disruption of the transport industry that was caused by the introduction of the infernal combustion engine. Now a bunch of so-called "drivers" are transporting people in motorised carriages and they scarcely know how to harness a pony to a trap!
your analogy is very cute. but what does comparing a 4X5 bellows camera have to do with shooting with an DSLR? or are you one of those chaps who can only drive an automatic? ;)
-
...The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks....
That's a complete misunderstanding, the bigger names that actually made micro a serious competitor aren't using cheap dlsr's, they use high end equipment,
That's a misreading or misunderstanding of cobalt's link. She was saying that micro started based on many people buying basic dSLRs. I don't think many established stock photographers rushed into micro, though possibly a few did.
Nope, that's the start not the disruption / big business. If it got stuck there most of you wouldn't even know about it. The business that reached disruptive leve wasn't building on cheap equip. I came to micro from hobby leve a bit late, and I had to buy new everything.
-
cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."
Very true. It was almost as bad as the disruption of the transport industry that was caused by the introduction of the infernal combustion engine. Now a bunch of so-called "drivers" are transporting people in motorised carriages and they scarcely know how to harness a pony to a trap!
your analogy is very cute. but what does comparing a 4X5 bellows camera have to do with shooting with an DSLR? or are you one of those chaps who can only drive an automatic? ;)
I knew it didn't work perfectly but I liked it so I wrote it anyway. But the whole thing was triggered by the emergence of the digital era, with cheap computers, cheap dSLRs and the explosion in popularity of the Internet after Windows 95 came out.
The thing that pulled all the potential together was the Digital Rebel, which came out in 03 and was a massive hit. I bought one for hobby purposes as my last camera, the Pentax ME Super that I bought in about 1982, was getting a bit battered. I messed around with the Rebel for about six months before stumbling on the existence of iStock and signing up. The rebel, or EOS300D as mine was, was the leading microstock camera of 2004, which is the year that saw iS really start to take off and the effective launch of SS, DT and Canstock.
-
Many microstock contributors have more talent than Yuri, they take the same subject and same quality of photos and their subjects are more diversified ( like real world, fashion, food, landscape or artistic commercial value ...etc ).
FORGOT YURI,Yuri is not important in the microstock market now.
He's dead in the Microstock, when he is against microstock. Yuri Arcus loses his leader place in stock History.
Think deeper.
-
cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."
Very true. It was almost as bad as the disruption of the transport industry that was caused by the introduction of the infernal combustion engine. Now a bunch of so-called "drivers" are transporting people in motorised carriages and they scarcely know how to harness a pony to a trap!
your analogy is very cute. but what does comparing a 4X5 bellows camera have to do with shooting with an DSLR? or are you one of those chaps who can only drive an automatic? ;)
I knew it didn't work perfectly but I liked it so I wrote it anyway. But the whole thing was triggered by the emergence of the digital era, with cheap computers, cheap dSLRs and the explosion in popularity of the Internet after Windows 95 came out.
The thing that pulled all the potential together was the Digital Rebel, which came out in 03 and was a massive hit. I bought one for hobby purposes as my last camera, the Pentax ME Super that I bought in about 1982, was getting a bit battered. I messed around with the Rebel for about six months before stumbling on the existence of iStock and signing up. The rebel, or EOS300D as mine was, was the leading microstock camera of 2004, which is the year that saw iS really start to take off and the effective launch of SS, DT and Canstock.
Frictionless digital ecnomy made it, virtual copies with almost expense. No cheap dslr needed for that, it distributes copies from a hassy just a as well :) If there were no cheap dslrs the only consequence to micro sites would be having less junk files of pigeons, backyard dogs, and awfully lit "portrait professional" portraits. The main core that makes up the sales would be the same.
-
"Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now [url=http://www.peopleimages.com]www.peopleimages.com[/url] ([url]http://www.peopleimages.com[/url]) is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?"
And the PP is for everyone, generally speaking. The PP is not marketing-speak for 'you can run your own site with only your content and undercut our prices'. I'm not sure he understands what the PP is.
I think IS/GI bought peopleimages if Yuri is saying what I think he is saying. If this is understood already sorry. But I bet in the exclusive deal with lS Yuri probably had a Brinks truck back up to his door and drop of a lot of cash as he sold the site. It's the only way he can call it a partner site.
-
I think IS/GI bought peopleimages if Yuri is saying what I think he is saying. If this is understood already sorry. But I bet in the exclusive deal with lS Yuri probably had a Brinks truck back up to his door and drop of a lot of cash as he sold the site. It's the only way he can call it a partner site.
I'm sure you're right, but shouldn't it say 'part of Getty Images' or something on the About page of PeopleImages, if that's the case?
-
cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."
Very true. It was almost as bad as the disruption of the transport industry that was caused by the introduction of the infernal combustion engine. Now a bunch of so-called "drivers" are transporting people in motorised carriages and they scarcely know how to harness a pony to a trap!
your analogy is very cute. but what does comparing a 4X5 bellows camera have to do with shooting with an DSLR? or are you one of those chaps who can only drive an automatic? ;)
I knew it didn't work perfectly but I liked it so I wrote it anyway. But the whole thing was triggered by the emergence of the digital era, with cheap computers, cheap dSLRs and the explosion in popularity of the Internet after Windows 95 came out.
The thing that pulled all the potential together was the Digital Rebel, which came out in 03 and was a massive hit. I bought one for hobby purposes as my last camera, the Pentax ME Super that I bought in about 1982, was getting a bit battered. I messed around with the Rebel for about six months before stumbling on the existence of iStock and signing up. The rebel, or EOS300D as mine was, was the leading microstock camera of 2004, which is the year that saw iS really start to take off and the effective launch of SS, DT and Canstock.
Frictionless digital ecnomy made it, virtual copies with almost expense. No cheap dslr needed for that, it distributes copies from a hassy just a as well :) If there were no cheap dslrs the only consequence to micro sites would be having less junk files of pigeons, backyard dogs, and awfully lit "portrait professional" portraits. The main core that makes up the sales would be the same.
Without cheap dslrs the content would have to come from cheap P&S or cheap camera phones or cheap SLRs and scanned film. People with Blads would never has supported the creation of microstock, so where would Bruce have been able to source his material from? Camera phones weren't common a decade ago, and the quality would never have caught on with buyers that were anything less than desperate. Not many people were scanning their negs then, so that would have been a feeble source, but maybe some of the better P&S cameras could have done the job. Probably the explosion in microstock would have been delayed for a few years. The sub-$1,000 DSLR package was crucial. At the very least, a large minority of microstockers were using them by mid-2004, if not a majority. At one point, a single contributor with a Digital Rebel (me) had 1.24% of the entire Dreamstime library. You wouldn't need more than a few hundred leading contributers with that kit back then to dominate the industry, and I really think we did dominate it - and 18 months later, half of us had a 5D and a handful had a 1Ds Mk2.
-
It's Sean who can be the next Yuri for us ! He has contacts, resources and sense of social responsibility.
Sean, do start a new agency, hundreds will join ! ;)
-
...all yuri wanted to do... is ... to push as in to discussion about phone vs dslr - because it is his business interest in this moment - please - ignore this - business should include minimum of moral...
-
"Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now [url=http://www.peopleimages.com]www.peopleimages.com[/url] ([url]http://www.peopleimages.com[/url]) is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?"
And the PP is for everyone, generally speaking. The PP is not marketing-speak for 'you can run your own site with only your content and undercut our prices'. I'm not sure he understands what the PP is.
I think IS/GI bought peopleimages if Yuri is saying what I think he is saying. If this is understood already sorry. But I bet in the exclusive deal with lS Yuri probably had a Brinks truck back up to his door and drop of a lot of cash as he sold the site. It's the only way he can call it a partner site.
Well, he told me, when he rang me up to say that I was painting an unfair picture of him, that he had managed to keep it. So I suppose it is some novel kind of "getty partner site" definition.
-
For some reason, iStock have just announced that Yuri is a new contributor:
ICYMI, we added a new contributor. Get creating with @yuriarcurs' collection of work http://istockpho.to/18lquTt (http://istockpho.to/18lquTt) #forcreativesbycreatives
What do they mean 'in case we missed it'? He's been around longer than I have.
-
"Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now [url=http://www.peopleimages.com]www.peopleimages.com[/url] ([url]http://www.peopleimages.com[/url]) is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?"
And the PP is for everyone, generally speaking. The PP is not marketing-speak for 'you can run your own site with only your content and undercut our prices'. I'm not sure he understands what the PP is.
I think IS/GI bought peopleimages if Yuri is saying what I think he is saying. If this is understood already sorry. But I bet in the exclusive deal with lS Yuri probably had a Brinks truck back up to his door and drop of a lot of cash as he sold the site. It's the only way he can call it a partner site.
Well, he told me, when he rang me up to say that I was painting an unfair picture of him, that he had managed to keep it. So I suppose it is some novel kind of "getty partner site" definition.
It's true, there are different sorts of partner sites.
When I wrote to CR about my pics being used without watermarks on pinterest, they responded that I should know (but didn't explain how I should know) that pinterest is an iStock partner site. If they could be of any further help to let them know.
So I asked them how it could be in their interest or mine to have non-accredited, non-watermarked images up there for the stealing, my question eventually dropped off the open tickets list and was never answered.
So, who knows?
Maybe it's like that old joke:
Q: How many microstock engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None, they just declare 'dark' as standard.
Maybe iS have just declared PeopleImages (and Dreamstime) as 'partners', which somehow gets them off with tagging Yuri's images with the 'only from iStock' claim. ::)
-
It's Sean who can be the next Yuri for us ! He has contacts, resources and sense of social responsibility.
Sean, do start a new agency, hundreds will join ! ;)
Personally, I prefer Sean as the old Sean, not the next Yuri.
I suspect that when it comes to business acumen Sean would turn out to have the old-school, 1960s type. Hershey's rather than Microsoft. And I'm afraid the days when that led to corporate success are long gone. Backing Sean against Getty, Corbis, SS et. al. would be like backing a seal to defeat a pod of killer whales. Lots of us would support him, but we wouldn't let go of our current earnings source and there would be a very high probability of it ending up costing him a fortune.
-
Many microstock contributors have more talent than Yuri, they take the same subject and same quality of photos and their subjects are more diversified ( like real world, fashion, food, landscape or artistic commercial value ...etc ).
FORGOT YURI,Yuri is not important in the microstock market now.
He's dead in the Microstock, when he is against microstock. Yuri Arcus loses his leader place in stock History.
Think deeper.
I had the feeling that iStock was still microstock ::)
-
So, who knows?
Maybe it's like that old joke:
Q: How many microstock engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None, they just declare 'dark' as standard.
Three, one climbs on the table and take the bulb in the hand, the other two rotate the table…
-
Yuri, klein will use you and abuse you. And remember this, you will never replace him, he will destroy you before.
-
"Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now [url=http://www.peopleimages.com]www.peopleimages.com[/url] ([url]http://www.peopleimages.com[/url]) is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?"
And the PP is for everyone, generally speaking. The PP is not marketing-speak for 'you can run your own site with only your content and undercut our prices'. I'm not sure he understands what the PP is.
I think IS/GI bought peopleimages if Yuri is saying what I think he is saying. If this is understood already sorry. But I bet in the exclusive deal with lS Yuri probably had a Brinks truck back up to his door and drop of a lot of cash as he sold the site. It's the only way he can call it a partner site.
Well, he told me, when he rang me up to say that I was painting an unfair picture of him, that he had managed to keep it. So I suppose it is some novel kind of "getty partner site" definition.
Maybe they bought a non-controlling interest and when he said he kept it was a majority. I know nothing about the deal but non billion dollar american corporation lets it "i's" and "t's" without the dots and crosses. If they bought into it they can call it a partner site.
When Yuri says GI/IS have this business wrapped up with do you think he means. I always thought he was wrong in not going exclusive at the start. But now it looks like he was chased by GI/IS and it has paid handsomely for him.
-
By the way, in case Yuri is still reading this, it occured to me after we spoke that the reason he cannot recognise himself from the statements I made is that while I might be more aggressive writing here than I would be to his face (or on the phone, come to that), he posts not as Yuri the human being with feelings but as Yuri the marketing machine and corporate money-spinning entity.
So it is the way he projects his business image that I have been critical over, since that is all I see and all I can judge. It is his choice to project his corporate image in the way he does but, of course, that is a business decision and is not the essence of Yuri the person. He has chosen to position himself as a stock image guru and to sign promotional deals on that basis. Those of us who are unimpressed by "hype" and see his name linked with promotional statements (camera phones beating DSLRs for example, which he continued to advocate quite passionately on the phone) can't really be expected to unravel the invisible real Yuri from the business persona he presents.
And then he comes up with the announcement that Sean Locke is "officially" a nice guy. The corporate Yuri-image that markets things seems to creep into personal statements. Come on, Yuri, you tell us you are a psychology graduate, surely with your talents you would see where that takes you? Nobody has the authority to state "officially" whether someone is a nice person or not - unfortunate choice of words, perhaps, but don't you see how the perception that you are arrogant gets fired by such things?
Perhaps you should separate your own name from your business activities. How about Y?Images as a business name?
Deep psychology, there! Maybe. Or not.
But at least I did think about what we discussed, so you can mark that down as a success.
@ Prostock - that sounds feasible to me but, of course, it is sleight of hand. As I wrote above, Yuri is a marketing machine, he assured me that GI is the only outfit that really understands stock photography, SS understands computers rather than the photography side, he suggested. He also assured me that people who miss the enormous potential of the Nokia phones (one of which I should, apparently, buy for my own good) are going to miss the boat. Maybe it's some strange sort of Stockholm Syndrome where he identifies entirely with his current partners and rejects former partners.
-
It's Sean who can be the next Yuri for us ! He has contacts, resources and sense of social responsibility.
Sean, do start a new agency, hundreds will join ! ;)
Forget new agencies, just in terms of microstock success I've always regarded people like Sean, Andres, etc as being the most successful. They've done it without the armies of assistants and employees, without the big expensive studios and huge overhead.
I never thought this was a "whoever has the most employees wins" kind of deal. Nor did I ever think that Yuri was the guy to talk to if you wanted some insight into how to be successful. Yuri has a great story, for sure. But there are great stories of entrepreneurial achievement and then there are stories of great personal successes, and I'd prefer to hear more about the great successes from other people who are doing this the way that I'd want to do it, which is mostly on my own.
-
Good luck to anyone in business nowadays. What strikes me odd is someone with a portfolio of so few images having so much perceived influence. Few? Yes relative to a lot of agencies and collections out there; hardly enough to exert the amount of leverage he does.
Something irritates about his manner at the moment, which is a shame because he can still be successful and treat fellow photographers and agencies who have helped him over recent years with respect.
-
Many microstock contributors have more talent than Yuri, they take the same subject and same quality of photos and their subjects are more diversified ( like real world, fashion, food, landscape or artistic commercial value ...etc ).
FORGOT YURI,Yuri is not important in the microstock market now.
He's dead in the Microstock, when he is against microstock. Yuri Arcus loses his leader place in stock History.
Think deeper.
This is bit unfair. Yuri deserves his place in stock history - no matter if you love him or hate him. He significantly helped microstock to get where it is now - with both all its advantages and pluses and current problems.
Even though we are able to agree on action in cases like Getty/Google deal - and I really appreciate it - we all do what we feel is best for us as we have to feed our families first. Yuri decided to leave the world that he helped to create. He thinks that he can't get more from MS so he decided to leave. It's business decision, there's no reason for personal attacks of jilted lover. Neither microstock nor me won't die because of it.
I must say that unhealthy relationship of many contributors to Yuri often reminded me of Life of Brian: "Tell us, Master!" "It is his gourd! We will carry it for you, Master!" and topical - "Come on master, tell us before you go!"
I would like to say "Good luck Yuri", but it would be hypocritical . His luck would mean that iStock's position is stronger that most of us hope and that future of mobile phone photography is bright while DSLRs would end up in museums. So I'd better say "Good luck Yuri - if you decide to come back".
-
Yuri decided to leave the world that he helped to create.
Sorry, while I agree with most of your post that line just stands out as completely untrue. He climbed on board a rolling bandwagon. His only contribution was to copy what other extremely successful people were doing and do it even more effectively. Can anyone actually show one Yuri Arcurs image that doesn't have a predecessor from another source? And there are lots of other "stars" I could ask the same thing of.
-
Here is a nice article showing the connection between product placement, instagram artists and social media. This is indeed a very interesting new market that I am sure many companies will be ready to pay a lot of money for.
But it is a different market to normal stock and I don't see it replacing regular stock agencies.
But I guess a few ad agencies amd their photographers might either lose a few assignemnts or get asked to design a strategy that includes crowd sourcing and social media.
http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/26/how-instagram-turned-these-people-into-entrepreneurs/ (http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/26/how-instagram-turned-these-people-into-entrepreneurs/)
-
For those who bizarrely imagine that Yuri has left microstock, au contraire.
He himself, on his own, is "the world's best selling microstock."
(http://www.lizworld.com/yuri.jpg)
Hmmm.
Is that statement all of 'legal, decent, honest and truthful'?
http://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/Our-mission.aspx (http://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/Our-mission.aspx)
Do they keep him in the broom cupboard? Has he really not been seen in public since last May?
-
I don't know why the article was hidden:
http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why/ (http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why/)
-
Yuri the legend, in his own mind at least
-
For some reason, iStock have just announced that Yuri is a new contributor:
ICYMI, we added a new contributor. Get creating with @yuriarcurs' collection of work [url]http://istockpho.to/18lquTt[/url] ([url]http://istockpho.to/18lquTt[/url]) #forcreativesbycreatives
What do they mean 'in case we missed it'? He's been around longer than I have.
More damned lies ;) .
Still don't know why they would let him undercut their own site by %85.
-
For some reason, iStock have just announced that Yuri is a new contributor:
ICYMI, we added a new contributor. Get creating with @yuriarcurs' collection of work [url]http://istockpho.to/18lquTt[/url] ([url]http://istockpho.to/18lquTt[/url]) #forcreativesbycreatives
What do they mean 'in case we missed it'? He's been around longer than I have.
More damned lies ;) .
Still don't know why they would let him undercut their own site by %85.
Pinnochio springs to mind!
-
More damned lies ;) .
I see them as kindred spirits.
-
If I were in Yuri's position I would have done the same thing. It's easy for everyone to say that he should've done it this way or that way but you aren't in his shoes so you have nothing to base your speculations on. Sure, I admit he should have chose his words more carefully but it is what it is. However, I am seeing merit in his words "professionals dealing with professionals" after all the mud slinging envious comments, and attacks on his English. I see a lot of native speakers of English making mistakes all the time, myself included. He was here offering time out of his schedule for discussion and it was pissed away. I am not a major player in the microstock industry by far but I too am sick and tired of seeing images that I put a lot of physical (I'm not a studio photographer), mental, and technical effort into, to be in my opinion, stolen for mere pennies. That definitely is not professional on the agency's part. I have had it with micro(crap)stock. Good for you Yuri. Move on to bigger and better things. I'm following my own fork in the trail and leaving microstock to flounder through the blood su(c)king (really? the word * is censored?) mosquito ridden bog.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Flock_of_sheep.jpg/250px-Flock_of_sheep.jpg)
-
([url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Flock_of_sheep.jpg/250px-Flock_of_sheep.jpg[/url])
BNow what is that supposed to mean? Are people sheep?
A flock of sheep? If so, you are arrogant. Is that how you think about people, or is it just "humour"?
-
([url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Flock_of_sheep.jpg/250px-Flock_of_sheep.jpg[/url])
BNow what is that supposed to mean? Are people sheep?
A flock of sheep? If so, you are arrogant. Is that how you think about people, or is it just "humour"?
Its just humour, and yes i can understand that if you are a foreigner you may not understand the sense of humour.
-
Sheeple its true though...
Have you ever watched people in a gate waiting for their flight? Just watch people if you get to an airport. Its fascinating.
Everybody sits to wait for the gate to open, yet when the first people get of their seats and go stand in line, everybody gets up off their seat and goes to stand in line as well. And then you have almost everybody standing in line for 30 or 40 minutes while I sit down watching them till the gate opens and half the line is through.
Why doesnt everybody sit down till the gate opens? Because the first people got up to the gate and the rest just follows as sheep.
Just watch crowds at a festival, or a concert, or sport match, or where ever people gather, and see how they behave, its sheep. Its like they are connected with one brain and follow each other blindly. Fascinating.
-
Everybody sits to wait for the gate to open, yet when the first people get of their seats and go stand in line, everybody gets up off their seat and goes to stand in line as well. And then you have almost everybody standing in line for 30 or 40 minutes while I sit down watching them till the gate opens and half the line is through.
This remind me a story…
I am the one that generally enter the last in the plane because I never go in queue till the queue is longer that 3 persons…
So one time I did like always…
People begun to move in queue…
I continued to read my book…… and I forgot the queue…
After a while a gentle hostess comes to me and asks me: "Are you Mr. XXX?"
I answer: "Yes I am…"
The hostess, a little angry: "There is 5 minutes that we call you, the plane is waiting for you to take-off…"
So, sometime maybe it is better to be part of the sheep… ;)
-
([url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Flock_of_sheep.jpg/250px-Flock_of_sheep.jpg[/url])
BNow what is that supposed to mean? Are people sheep?
A flock of sheep? If so, you are arrogant. Is that how you think about people, or is it just "humour"?
Well if something is actually arrogant than it is to come to an open forum announce something and saying I'm so generous and will answer questions for the next two hours, after all a forum is a place to discuss!
-
([url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Flock_of_sheep.jpg/250px-Flock_of_sheep.jpg[/url])
BNow what is that supposed to mean? Are people sheep?
A flock of sheep? If so, you are arrogant. Is that how you think about people, or is it just "humour"?
It was just a random public domain image. I did not mean to come across as arrogant or offend sheep.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8335465/Sheep-are-far-smarter-than-previously-thought.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8335465/Sheep-are-far-smarter-than-previously-thought.html)
There is the one, though - had downloaded the same one off of a google app some time ago. It had no meta data or attribution, so I forget who the author is :D
Your welcome to use this and distribute it freely for any purpose. Its worthless now. Regardless of the author's supposed arrogance. Sometimes people just forget quickly. Sheep do not.
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2839/9389103113_f0ab343740_o.jpg)
-
Yuri.... i have a straight question for you:
Are you considering to create a PUBLIC micro/mid stock agency, a direct competitor for SS, FT,DT and others ???
Certainly you have the name and resources to create such a agency with a huge chance of success.
-
Yuri.... i have a straight question for you:
Are you considering to create a PUBLIC micro/mid stock agency, a direct competitor for SS, FT,DT and others ???
Certainly you have the name and resources to create such a agency with a huge chance of success.
did you not notice the photo above that spoke a thousand words?
-
Yuri.... i have a straight question for you:
Are you considering to create a PUBLIC micro/mid stock agency, a direct competitor for SS, FT,DT and others ???
Certainly you have the name and resources to create such a agency with a huge chance of success.
did you not notice the photo above that spoke a thousand words?
????
-
I went to the 02 in London recently and there was a huge queue. I sat to one side. Couldn't see any point queuing when I had a ticket with the seat number. Spoke to someone afterwards who was complaining that they had queued for 2 hours and had been sent to the wrong part of the stadium. They then had to join the back of the queue again. I just walked in, only queued for a few seconds.
The British are great at queuing but I've never been good at it :)
-
I went to the 02 in London recently and there was a huge queue. I sat to one side. Couldn't see any point queuing when I had a ticket with the seat number. Spoke to someone afterwards who was complaining that they had queued for 2 hours and had been sent to the wrong part of the stadium. They then had to join the back of the queue again. I just walked in, only queued for a few seconds.
The British are great at queuing but I've never been good at it :)
Exactly. Check this, if you go to the cinema, supermarket or Mcdonalds etc, There is always a register with a small or no queue. You see people walking up and just join the queues, the empty register is not seen or ignored. I always check for them and most of the time end up saving time, just by not being a sheep.
-
Sheeple its true though...
Have you ever watched people in a gate waiting for their flight? Just watch people if you get to an airport. Its fascinating.
Everybody sits to wait for the gate to open, yet when the first people get of their seats and go stand in line, everybody gets up off their seat and goes to stand in line as well. And then you have almost everybody standing in line for 30 or 40 minutes while I sit down watching them till the gate opens and half the line is through.
Why doesnt everybody sit down till the gate opens? Because the first people got up to the gate and the rest just follows as sheep.
I used to think and do like you, and wait seated - until the time I left it until late to join the queue and by the time I got onto the plane there was no overhead locker space and I had a long haul flight with my maximum-size-for-handluggage camera bag and my smaller bag in my feet area. That was unpleasant! If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Besides, nowadays when they're telling us how unhealthy it is to be sitting all the time, I think as I'm going to be sitting in a confined area for 8 or 10 hours, or whatever, I might as well stand for half an hour.
-
Its just humour, and yes i can understand that if you are a foreigner you may not understand the sense of humour.
What's a 'foreigner' on msg?
-
Sheeple its true though...
Have you ever watched people in a gate waiting for their flight? Just watch people if you get to an airport. Its fascinating.
Everybody sits to wait for the gate to open, yet when the first people get of their seats and go stand in line, everybody gets up off their seat and goes to stand in line as well. And then you have almost everybody standing in line for 30 or 40 minutes while I sit down watching them till the gate opens and half the line is through.
Why doesnt everybody sit down till the gate opens? Because the first people got up to the gate and the rest just follows as sheep.
I used tho think and do like you, and wait seated - until the time I left it until late to join the queue and by the time I got onto the plane there was no overhead locker space and I had a long haul flight with my maximum-size-for-handluggage camera bag and my smaller bag in my feet area. That was unpleasant! If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Besides, nowadays when they're telling us how unhealthy it is to be sitting all the time, I think as I'm going to be sitting in a confined area for 8 or 10 hours, or whatever, I might as well stand for half an hour.
Never had any issues with the overhead locker and always have an isle seat on short flights, because I travel alone most of the time. When I fly long haul, it no issue either as I have a reserved isle seat and baggage checked in and walk around the plane for exercise and prevent thromboses . :)
-
Never had any issues with the overhead locker and always have an isle seat on short flights, because I travel alone most of the time. When I fly long haul, it no issue either as I have a reserved isle seat and baggage checked in and walk around the plane for exercise and prevent thromboses . :)
You check in your camera bag?!
I've only had that experience once but once was enough.
Another one time experience was being on an American plane (can't remember it it was actually AA) where they announced that as it was a full plane (as they often are, IME), people were not to walk around the cabin.
I wondered if maybe Americans weren't being advised about DVT, but the advisory, including the recommendation to walk around the cabin regularly, was in the inflight magazine.
-
Sheeple its true though...
Have you ever watched people in a gate waiting for their flight? Just watch people if you get to an airport. Its fascinating.
Everybody sits to wait for the gate to open, yet when the first people get of their seats and go stand in line, everybody gets up off their seat and goes to stand in line as well. And then you have almost everybody standing in line for 30 or 40 minutes while I sit down watching them till the gate opens and half the line is through.
Why doesnt everybody sit down till the gate opens? Because the first people got up to the gate and the rest just follows as sheep.
I used tho think and do like you, and wait seated - until the time I left it until late to join the queue and by the time I got onto the plane there was no overhead locker space and I had a long haul flight with my maximum-size-for-handluggage camera bag and my smaller bag in my feet area. That was unpleasant! If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Besides, nowadays when they're telling us how unhealthy it is to be sitting all the time, I think as I'm going to be sitting in a confined area for 8 or 10 hours, or whatever, I might as well stand for half an hour.
Never had any issues with the overhead locker and always have an isle seat on short flights, because I travel alone most of the time. When I fly long haul, it no issue either as I have a reserved isle seat and baggage checked in and walk around the plane for exercise and prevent thromboses . :)
Don't know if its true but they said on QI that its the air quality that causes DVT, not the amount of time you're sat still. The air quality used to be better when people smoked. So all the people walking around and exercising their legs might just be using up more oxygen and making it worse?
-
On a long haul flight I have only ever see a few people walk around and do a bit of leg exercises. I just do it because it feels good and I always been told its good for preventing DVT.
-
On a long haul flight I have only ever see a few people walk around and do a bit of leg exercises. I just do it because it feels good and I always been told its good for preventing DVT.
The airlines do all they can to stop you wandering around, with trolleys going up and down, meals left uncollected etc. so you are trapped behind your little table. I strongly suspect that preventing passengers from moving is one of a flight attendant's main aims. Imagine the chaos if half the passengers were trying to walk about at the same time.
-
I dont know, you seem to know everything about everything, all I know is that I walk around and I have never been stopped, or asked to sit down, only been smiled at by the friendly crews. On a 13 hour flight they are not hauling around trolleys for 13 hours.
-
I dont know, you seem to know everything about everything, all I know is that I walk around and I have never been stopped, or asked to sit down, only been smiled at by the friendly crews. On a 13 hour flight they are not hauling around trolleys for 13 hours.
It's never prevented but by accident or design it is inconvenient. There's the psychological pressure not to inconvenience other passengers as well as everything else and often enough grumbling if you do make them move. The aisles are so narrow that two people passing in them involves performing a sort of disco dance routine. I do walk myself sometimes - and certainly would on a 13 hour flight - but my usual maximum is six hours.
20 years ago there used to be a lot more room on the average flight due to the seat configuration but that meant fewer passengers, of course.
I can assure you that I know very little about anything but I do keep trying to learn.
-
I dont know, you seem to know everything about everything, all I know is that I walk around and I have never been stopped, or asked to sit down, only been smiled at by the friendly crews. On a 13 hour flight they are not hauling around trolleys for 13 hours.
alas, he does know everything about everything, this is part of his charm. don't let him get under your skin cause he will burrow in like a tick. ;D
-
^ Yuri will have not longer this problem, with all the money he will earn with "iStock only" soon he will have his own private plane…
-
^ Yuri will have not longer this problem, with all the money he will earn with "iStock only" soon he will have his own private plane…
http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/ (http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/)
-
“A critic is a man created to praise greater men than himself, but he is never able to find them.”
― Richard Le Gallienne
-
^ Yuri will have not longer this problem, with all the money he will earn with "iStock only" soon he will have his own private plane…
... with his own private gym and olympic sized swimming pool.
-
“A critic is a man created to praise greater men than himself, but he is never able to find them.”
― Richard Le Gallienne
When you have failed to become a painter, a musician, an actor, an artist… you become a critic
-
I dont know, you seem to know everything about everything, all I know is that I walk around and I have never been stopped, or asked to sit down, only been smiled at by the friendly crews. On a 13 hour flight they are not hauling around trolleys for 13 hours.
alas, he does know everything about everything, this is part of his charm. don't let him get under your skin cause he will burrow in like a tick. ;D
Hmmm..... your blood group tastes like A+ :)
-
I can't believe, 18 pages and counting and the topic is "Yuri Arcurs First Public Statement" SO WHAT. I can understand if the topic was Anton Corbijn's or Jan Saudek's photography but this is ridiculous. Honestly!
-
^ Yuri will have not longer this problem, with all the money he will earn with "iStock only" soon he will have his own private plane…
[url]http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/[/url] ([url]http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/[/url])
He has 100 people on salary and the whole company brings in less than $10 million. Even considering that those 100 people probably make varying amounts of money in salary, from low to high numbers, it's still amazing that there is anything left over for Yuri.
-
I dont know, you seem to know everything about everything, all I know is that I walk around and I have never been stopped, or asked to sit down, only been smiled at by the friendly crews. On a 13 hour flight they are not hauling around trolleys for 13 hours.
alas, he does know everything about everything, this is part of his charm. don't let him get under your skin cause he will burrow in like a tick. ;D
Hmmm..... your blood group tastes like A+ :)
jiminy cricket, that's better than a moody's rating :)
-
I can't believe, 18 pages and counting and the topic is "Yuri Arcurs First Public Statement" SO WHAT. I can understand if the topic was Anton Corbijn's or Jan Saudek's photography but this is ridiculous. Honestly!
while the title may suggest that this is all about Y. - it is not - there are some interesting reads in the whole thread - i.e. on behaving in planes and the permission to walk around. ;)
Also, to expect a discussion on Corbijn and Saudek at this forum which is primarily on microstock photography (as the name suggests) is a bit misplaced (though the work of both are well worth discussing...). ;)
-
I can't believe, 18 pages and counting and the topic is "Yuri Arcurs First Public Statement" SO WHAT. I can understand if the topic was Anton Corbijn's or Jan Saudek's photography but this is ridiculous. Honestly!
while the title may suggest that this is all about Y. - it is not - there are some interesting reads in the whole thread - i.e. on behaving in planes and the permission to walk around. ;)
And please don't forget the sheep. They've been puzzling me. it's a long time since I kept sheep but I have a feeling they are Texels. Is that right?
-
I can't believe, 18 pages and counting and the topic is "Yuri Arcurs First Public Statement" SO WHAT. I can understand if the topic was Anton Corbijn's or Jan Saudek's photography but this is ridiculous. Honestly!
while the title may suggest that this is all about Y. - it is not - there are some interesting reads in the whole thread - i.e. on behaving in planes and the permission to walk around. ;)
Also, to expect a discussion on Corbijn and Saudek at this forum which is primarily on microstock photography (as the name suggests) is a bit misplaced (though the work of both are well worth discussing...). ;)
You miss the point but nevermind..... Enjoy the topic :) I have a smarter job to do.
-
I am reminded of a certain Mr Bruce J Ismay.
He persuaded thousands of people that his ship was a great ship, a ship that was changing the way people would travel, a ship of the future, unsinkable.
Many, many people listened to him and bought tickets to sail on his ship.
During the voyage the ship got into trouble and started to sink, Mr Ismay got off the ship that he said was great, the ship of the future, the ship that was unsinkable, and headed over to another ship, a ship of the type he had previously criticised and said was a ship of the past.
Many of the other people he had persuaded to get on his ship were unable to leave like he had and were left to their fate.
When he arrived at the other ship the people in charge gave him opiates so that he didn't have to face up to the reality of the situation, he was reviled (I do mean reviled) as a coward for the rest of his life and his reputation never recovered.
Anyway, I must go I have some deck chairs to arrange, a band is playing and I believe there may even be some ice for my gin and tonic.
-
Yuri featured on PetaPixel as "microstock King" :
http://petapixel.com/2013/07/26/microstock-king-yuri-arcurs-says-mobile-is-the-next-big-disrupter/ (http://petapixel.com/2013/07/26/microstock-king-yuri-arcurs-says-mobile-is-the-next-big-disrupter/)
-
I have spent the last 30min reading through this thread. Hmm...
It seems this post has become more about mocking me for taking the right business decisions and desperately trying to hold on to ones own wrong ones. When arguments stop making sense, mocking helpfully steps in. :)
Have a good one.
Y
-
I have spent the last 30min reading through this thread. Hmm...
It seems this post has become more about mocking me for taking the right business decisions and desperately trying to hold on to ones own wrong ones. When arguments stop making sense, mocking helpfully steps in. :)
Have a good one.
Y
Quoting this and putting this link in my agenda at exactly one year from now. Then we know.
-
Yes time will tell
-
I have spent the last 30min reading through this thread. Hmm...
It seems this post has become more about mocking me for taking the right business decisions and desperately trying to hold on to ones own wrong ones. When arguments stop making sense, mocking helpfully steps in. :)
Have a good one.
Y
You don't seem to mind doing a bit of mocking. Even in this post complaining about others doing it, you appear to be mocking people that haven't followed you in to exclusivity. So I have no sympathy.
-
I have spent the last 30min reading through this thread. Hmm...
It seems this post has become more about mocking me for taking the right business decisions and desperately trying to hold on to ones own wrong ones. When arguments stop making sense, mocking helpfully steps in. :)
You don't seem to mind doing a bit of mocking. Even in this post complaining about others doing it, you appear to be mocking people that haven't followed you in to exclusivity. So I have no sympathy.
Agreed. Yuri, you don't even notice the mocking tone you've taken with all of us. Frankly if you feel like you're on the receiving end of undue criticism, it is only because that's what you put out there as well.
I feel like this latest post is more of the same from you. You don't even see the mockery in suggesting that you made the right choice and everyone else is wrong. I hope it's just a matter of you being far more tactful with a camera in your hands than a keyboard.
-
I have spent the last 30min reading through this thread. Hmm...
It seems this post has become more about mocking me for taking the right business decisions and desperately trying to hold on to ones own wrong ones. When arguments stop making sense, mocking helpfully steps in. :)
Have a good one.
Y
This post just leaves me gobsmacked. You're hurt and can't recognise yourself when you are accused of arrogance and narcissism. Such things are cruel parodies of you. But then you write this.
OK, whatever.
-
I have spent the last 30min reading through this thread. Hmm...
It seems this post has become more about mocking me for taking the right business decisions and desperately trying to hold on to ones own wrong ones. When arguments stop making sense, mocking helpfully steps in. :)
Have a good one.
Y
when arrogance and self promotion is so blatant one invites criticism. And when did you become the king of business?
-
Yuri - why did you post?
Given all the lies about your photos being exclusively at iStock, you must understand the cynicism.
-
"An extraordinary amount of arrogance is present in any claim of having been the first in inventing something"
[Benoit Mandelbrot]
-
"An extraordinary amount of arrogance is present in any claim of having been the first in inventing something"
[Benoit Mandelbrot]
But, Benoit, how could anybody ever claim to be second in inventing something?
-
"An extraordinary amount of arrogance is present in any claim of having been the first in inventing something"
[Benoit Mandelbrot]
But, Benoit, how could anybody ever claim to be second in inventing something?
Ask edison about that
-
"An extraordinary amount of arrogance is present in any claim of having been the first in inventing something"
[Benoit Mandelbrot]
But, Benoit, how could anybody ever claim to be second in inventing something?
Ask edison about that
LOL ... but I don't think he said he was second, did he?
(And I think I've sussed the sheep - they're Merinos, aren't they?)
-
I can't help but think that with Yuri's background in psychology, he's playing a game with us here. This forum has an anti Getty/istock bias and Yuri going exclusive was never going to make him more popular. Then he invests in a site that could potentially damage microstock. So now he can play games, as he's no longer the independent microstockers hero. I find it hard to believe he wouldn't of been aware of the reaction he would get to his statement and some of his recent posts here.
-
---
-
Good post with thought behind it Leo... so different than the non stop micro background buzz.
Who can blame Jacob for parking his images where he feels they will hold their value best. He worked hard and non stop to build his brand. It is pretty clear that the sites have no interest in protecting the value of our assets. In their race for market share, they are perfectly willing to drive the value of our hard work down to quickly fill their pockets. They do not want to wait the 20 or 50 years that companies did in the past to build net worth. They are perfectly willing to take it out of our own hides in the short term.
I think people are so quick to find fault with Yuri that they take his comment's out of context. For instance I suspect that this comment was NOT an insult to other microstockers but a reference to his own decisions over the last few years. "and desperately trying to hold on to ones own wrong ones"
The marketing hype does get old and is offensive considering the state of the market. In any case I am finding the non stop snooping into other peoples ports and business counter productive. Minding everyone else's business has become a trend here and on other micro sites. The fork in the road is getting closer and we should be taking Leo's and Jacob's lead of focusing on our backup plan; what ever we individually decide that should be.
-
---
-
c'mon guys, Yuri's press release if of course a funny PR stunt but i've seen a lot worse in other industries.
i don't have the feeling Yuri reached the point where he's believing his own sh-it, he's just having a laugh on micro agencies and SS in particular, guess he still has a chip on the shoulder with them ?
you're all angry because Yuri was the living proof it was possible to make a living with microstock alone and now you're shocked and despaired to be told by the king himself that you better go back to macro agencies as micro is financially unsustainable as it is today.
so you feel betrayed and rejected by the guy you idolized for so long but seriously i can't see any mind control tricks in his statements, just common marketing BS you can read in any other press release, i think he was just in a happy mood drinking a couple beers and wanting to have fun on you guys.
-
Seriously I didn't know Yuri except for it was a cool keywording tool...until recently. :D
I find it interesting because when he posts a thread it causes a nuclear explosion, and I just want to see whats going on.
But yeah, what you said. (edit %80 or so :D) I don't feel betrayed just tired and overworked shoveling images into a black hole trying to work faster than its rate of collapse.
-
"An extraordinary amount of arrogance is present in any claim of having been the first in inventing something"
[Benoit Mandelbrot]
But, Benoit, how could anybody ever claim to be second in inventing something?
Bien vu! :)
-
I'll say it again, factories are running into problems now, not the individual. Seriously, I wish everyone would jump ship. And then I will be laughing all the way to the bank. :)
-
c'mon guys, Yuri's press release if of course a funny PR stunt but i've seen a lot worse in other industries.
i don't have the feeling Yuri reached the point where he's believing his own sh-it, he's just having a laugh on micro agencies and SS in particular, guess he still has a chip on the shoulder with them ?
you're all angry because Yuri was the living proof it was possible to make a living with microstock alone and now you're shocked and despaired to be told by the king himself that you better go back to macro agencies as micro is financially unsustainable as it is today.
so you feel betrayed and rejected by the guy you idolized for so long but seriously i can't see any mind control tricks in his statements, just common marketing BS you can read in any other press release, i think he was just in a happy mood drinking a couple beers and wanting to have fun on you guys.
He's having a laugh and you're having a laugh but it doesn't make me angry, I find it funny. Yuri is a factory, has nothing at all in common with the cheap way the vast majority of microstockers work. It looks like he's been paid off by Getty, good for him. I'll carry on doing what I want to do and not taking advice from people that know nothing about working with very low expenses. I don't want to be the owner of a big business or have to work only with Getty. I'm quite happy as a sole trader. There's problems with microstock but there's also problems with the traditional sites and we all have to deal with them in our own way.
It's a shame we can't all get together and work on the real problem, sites that are making huge profits while reducing the commission they pay us. They always seem to get the last laugh. Imagine how funny they find these threads with stock contributors bickering when it takes the attention away from what they're doing.
-
I can't help but think that with Yuri's background in psychology, he's playing a game with us here. This forum has an anti Getty/istock bias and Yuri going exclusive was never going to make him more popular. Then he invests in a site that could potentially damage microstock. So now he can play games, as he's no longer the independent microstockers hero. I find it hard to believe he wouldn't of been aware of the reaction he would get to his statement and some of his recent posts here.
With all due respect I would not consider BA in psychology in some Danish school a <<psychology background>>
-
nobody is forcing us to do stock forever, i'm actively studying the art market for instance and if possible one day i see myself doing exhibitions and selling prints at 1000$ a pop, maybe i'm wrong but from what i've seen fine-art photography is 70% mumbo jumbo and marketing BS, 20% photoshop, and 10% creativity, if those punks can do it, i will do it and while i'm at it i should start painting and drawing again too, my biggest mistake was to give up art for high-tech jobs years ago.
-
as for Yuri, what the F guys ... he got the foot in the door with IS at the right time and at the right place, found his own "gold mine" and executed his business plan better than all the other players, when the sh-it hit the fan instead of whining too much he started his own agency and now he took the right move joining Getty.
so why all this criticism ? business is business, and his next move will be probably in cofounding a micro agency with some rich investors or acting as small VC for startups involved in photography .. it all makes sense from a business perspective, and one day he could also sell the whole biz and retire or becoming a full time VC .. i mean the sky is the limit when you have a business sense and you've millions in the bank.
ironically for photographers, your limit is not seeing the whole picture ... :)
-
If you are seeing the full picture, why are you not the next Yuri then?
-
Yuri got outcompeted, so he blamed it on the business model and escaped into a special deal. The macro agencies basically did / doing the same thing, didn't help them either.
-
ironically for photographers, your limit is not seeing the whole picture ... :)
I expect we can all see that Yuri is doing what he expects to be good for Yuri to the best of his ability. Isn't that the whole picture? But when he comes to say he's right and everyone else is wrong, he is the one missing the whole picture. We all have our own strategies and if they work for us then we are right, too.
As for people saying he is abandoning microstock for traditional agencies, he hasn't demanded that Getty take his stuff off iStock. His real message seems to be that iStock exclusivity can be more lucrative for top-level contributors than independence, especially if Getty and running your own "partner" microstock agency is thrown into the mix. Is that really a surprise?
-
I can't help but think that with Yuri's background in psychology, he's playing a game with us here. This forum has an anti Getty/istock bias and Yuri going exclusive was never going to make him more popular. Then he invests in a site that could potentially damage microstock. So now he can play games, as he's no longer the independent microstockers hero. I find it hard to believe he wouldn't of been aware of the reaction he would get to his statement and some of his recent posts here.
With all due respect I would not consider BA in psychology in some Danish school a <<psychology background>>
It isn't just the BA that I was thinking of. From wikipedia, so it might all be made up.
"Yuri is currently living in Cape Town, South Africa with his Norwegian fiancée Cecilie Skjold Johansen who maintains a job as a corporate psychologist. His father, Steen Wackerhausen, is a professor of Philosophy at Aarhus University and holds a dual doctoral degree in both psychology and philosophy. [15] Yuri's mother, Birgitte Krogh Wackerhausen, is a teacher with several courses completed in the field of Psychology."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Arcurs#Personal_life
-
As for people saying he is abandoning microstock for traditional agencies, he hasn't demanded that Getty take his stuff off iStock.
Nor even asked for all of his images to be removed from the low-subs-model PP.
-
I can't help but think that with Yuri's background in psychology, he's playing a game with us here. This forum has an anti Getty/istock bias and Yuri going exclusive was never going to make him more popular. Then he invests in a site that could potentially damage microstock. So now he can play games, as he's no longer the independent microstockers hero. I find it hard to believe he wouldn't of been aware of the reaction he would get to his statement and some of his recent posts here.
With all due respect I would not consider BA in psychology in some Danish school a <<psychology background>>
Utterly disrespectful.
-
Yuri got outcompeted, so he blamed it on the business model and escaped into a special deal. The macro agencies basically did / doing the same thing, didn't help them either.
He "escaped" into a special deal, I like that. My friend was unemployed so he escaped into a high paying job with good benefits. Something about that just doesn't sound right though.
-
you're all angry because Yuri was the living proof it was possible to make a living with microstock alone and now you're shocked and despaired to be told by the king himself that you better go back to macro agencies as micro is financially unsustainable as it is today.
There's plenty other living proof, most of whom keep quiet and don't need to draw attention to themselves.
-
as for Yuri, what the F guys ... he got the foot in the door with IS at the right time and at the right place, found his own "gold mine" and executed his business plan better than all the other players, when the sh-it hit the fan instead of whining too much he started his own agency and now he took the right move joining Getty.
How is this "with IS at the right time"? I'd have thought that after 2 years of contributors reporting falling sales at IS, who are now on their 3rd boss in two years and with IS being forced, by market pressures, to reduce prices massively for about 80% of their collection ... this is anything but 'the right time'.
Do you remember 'old-and-bold' stock photographer Ron Chapple dipping a toe into microstock back in 2007? Reportedly he spent $600K generating about 15,000 new images for microstock. Although his stuff sold very well he rapidly came to the conclusion that the returns simply weren't there in microstock and, much worse, the barriers to entry for competitors were too low for future income to be reliable. Instead, after 20-odd years producing stock, he gave it up and started Aerial Filmworks instead, doing custom shoots for major clients from helicopters. Now that's a businessman.
Seems odd for Yuri to have spent all that time and all that money starting his own agency ... only to end up exclusive with IS a few months later? It strikes me as a sudden change of direction rather than following a carefully crafted masterplan, although granted, having his own site might have strengthened his hand in negotiations.
It's still too soon to tell whether Yuri's move has been a good one or not. Personally I think IS are now in full retreat from the threat of SS. As well as the new boss and reduced prices we've also had the unlimited uploads and reduced quality thresholds (as many are reporting). What next for IS? Their own subscription plan perhaps?
-
... he got the foot in the door with IS at the right time and at the right place, found his own "gold mine" and executed his business plan better than all the other players...
Did he? Really? I think that's a highly debatable point.
I'd argue that other people are far more successful than Yuri, people who are making good money without all of the overhead he has. Honestly I cant imagine how he makes any money when he has 100 employees to pay and his whole business brings in less than $10 million. Sounds like a lot of money but it doesn't go far when you've got so many mouths to feed.
ironically for photographers, your limit is not seeing the whole picture ...
Could say the same for you, ignoring the big part of the picture where Yuri not only has a ton of money coming in but also has a ton going out the door also.
-
as for Yuri, what the F guys ... he got the foot in the door with IS at the right time and at the right place, found his own "gold mine" and executed his business plan better than all the other players, when the sh-it hit the fan instead of whining too much he started his own agency and now he took the right move joining Getty.
How is this "with IS at the right time"? I'd have thought that after 2 years of contributors reporting falling sales at IS, who are now on their 3rd boss in two years and with IS being forced, by market pressures, to reduce prices massively for about 80% of their collection ... this is anything but 'the right time'.
Do you remember 'old-and-bold' stock photographer Ron Chapple dipping a toe into microstock back in 2007? Reportedly he spent $600K generating about 15,000 new images for microstock. Although his stuff sold very well he rapidly came to the conclusion that the returns simply weren't there in microstock and, much worse, the barriers to entry for competitors were too low for future income to be reliable. Instead, after 20-odd years producing stock, he gave it up and started Aerial Filmworks instead, doing custom shoots for major clients from helicopters. Now that's a businessman.
Seems odd for Yuri to have spent all that time and all that money starting his own agency ... only to end up exclusive with IS a few months later? It strikes me as a sudden change of direction rather than following a carefully crafted masterplan, although granted, having his own site might have strengthened his hand in negotiations.
It's still too soon to tell whether Yuri's move has been a good one or not. Personally I think IS are now in full retreat from the threat of SS. As well as the new boss and reduced prices we've also had the unlimited uploads and reduced quality thresholds (as many are reporting). What next for IS? Their own subscription plan perhaps?
The fact that he developed a highly functional site was key
Stocksy Co-op Thread
http://www.microstockgroup.com/stocksy/bruce-our-night-in-shining-armor-stocksy-co-op/msg297789/#msg297789 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/stocksy/bruce-our-night-in-shining-armor-stocksy-co-op/msg297789/#msg297789)
Snip
I love the idea and It is strikingly similar to something I discussed with IS management back 4 years ago and strikingly similar to a business model we have been developing for www.peopleimages.com (http://www.peopleimages.com). hmmm...
Our only problem and something that have caused almost a full-stop actually and that we have been trying to solve for the interim is: how do you market, promote and service a platform for which you are not making any money? With a Co-Op owned site you can't even get VC investment.
This site will portray Bruce as a gregarious individual and a community supporter, but that might just be the primary outcome. Sales don't just "appear".
It was Getty's team that drove Istock to the success it is today. Istock had a revenue of 10mil USD when sold to Getty despite being a first mover in microstock and having been around for 5 years.
-
Hi Guys. Im here. I have the next 1-2h. Send me some proper questions
Why will Scoopshot.com be different from any of the past and current citizen journalist / camera phone photo sites?
Why do you feel it's good enough long term to make the major investment in Scoopshot.com for the future?
Thanks
-
The fact that he developed a highly functional site was key
Stocksy Co-op Thread
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/stocksy/bruce-our-night-in-shining-armor-stocksy-co-op/msg297789/#msg297789[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/stocksy/bruce-our-night-in-shining-armor-stocksy-co-op/msg297789/#msg297789[/url])
Snip
I love the idea and It is strikingly similar to something I discussed with IS management back 4 years ago and strikingly similar to a business model we have been developing for [url=http://www.peopleimages.com]www.peopleimages.com[/url] ([url]http://www.peopleimages.com[/url]). hmmm...
Our only problem and something that have caused almost a full-stop actually and that we have been trying to solve for the interim is: how do you market, promote and service a platform for which you are not making any money? With a Co-Op owned site you can't even get VC investment.
This site will portray Bruce as a gregarious individual and a community supporter, but that might just be the primary outcome. Sales don't just "appear".
It was Getty's team that drove Istock to the success it is today. Istock had a revenue of 10mil USD when sold to Getty despite being a first mover in microstock and having been around for 5 years.
It's quite interesting to read Yuri's post now in the light of recent happenings. Note how fulsome he was in praise of Getty. I'm almost surprised that he didn't credit 'Getty's team' for the success of SS as well. Oops __ of course the success of SS is a most inconvenient fact for Yuri's version of events.
-
What next for IS? Their own subscription plan perhaps?
They have one, but it's not low enough priced to compete with SS, which is why Getty took over TS and Photos.com and sent most iS files there.
If they went to low cost subs, that would probably be the absolute last straw for many.
-
I’m late to this party, but I love playing the speculation game. Here’s my uneducated guess.
First, go back to what happened after the Getty Images/istock fiasco with Google Drive. Contributors pulled their images (some their entire portfolios), and it raised so much of a stink that the Carlyle Group suddenly took notice. In a single day istock lost thousands of images and each of those images has a value on the istock books. My rough guess is about $700,000 worth. And suddenly with blogs, articles and voices talking about “istock and Google Drive” it was one ugly mark that was raised. Not to mention Mr. Sean Locke was forced out of istock as a result, which I’m guessing was a Carlyle decision. (and a dumb one at that) Um, did I mention the creation of Stocksy by former istock founder Bruce? He’s appearing with open arms to exiting contributors. Now people from the Carlyle Group are taking a closer look at things, istock has fallen to number two compared to Shutterstock, and Shutterstock has many more images in it’s inventory - 25 million compared to 13 million. Since Shutterstock has placed a value of about $18 per image, you can all do the math. For the spring of 2013 was a swift kick to the nads for istock.
And Yuri was also making news, creating his own website, peopleimages.com. It takes millions of dollars to get that up and running, dedicate people full time to the enterprise, not to mention marketing dollars. Unfortunately, Yuri was now between a rock and a hard place - devote yourself full-time to your own website and make 100% royalties? Or continue to supply the mircostock sites who in the long run are eroding your industry with the sub model? What Yuri needs now is “insurance”, a way to get a special locked in royalty rate from one or more mirocstock sites. I’m sure several one on one meetings took place with all the CEO’s/owners of the micro sites. There was no way Shutterstock could do any deals, their margins are too tight and they’d have to make the details public to shareholders. But Getty? Oh yes, they were interested.... madam, may I have this dance?
Remember, after the spring of 2013, istockphoto lost value by losing those images. Which is why upload limits were removed as well as restrictions. They needed contributors to submit more and lots. As well as Getty Images importing more content. Sales might be falling but if you can get more images added to your books (value) it will please your corporate owners. So Getty made Yuri “a deal he couldn’t refuse.” Yuri would become an istock exclusive in exchange for: A lump sum cash payment (well over six figures) as a “signing bonus”, a locked in royalty rate, a preferred “bump up” in search engine results, and many promotional deals with istock in the future. (look for articles on Yuri in the istock website as well as see his images on every istock homepage and promotions-use CSA images as your clue)
For istock, it means they acquire one of the leaders of microstock and guarantee of more new content. What istock has been loosing in sales they can make up with adding more images (and value) to the website. I wouldn’t be surprised if Getty uses a baseball reference when doing the annual report with Carlyle “We just signed the Mickey Mantel of microstock!” Cheers all around.
And Yuri gets a nice cash infusion, keeps his website (and his images) to himself and has a dedicated worldwide distributor of those images at a set royalty rate. That’s market insurance right there. As well as promise not to raise a stink about the Google Drive deal. For him it’s the best of both worlds. Apparently, Yuri is now invested a million+ in Scoopshot.com. And why not? If you had the ability to get in on the ground floor of an “instangram” start-up business, it would make sense to do a little gambling. Congrats to you sir!
Unfortunately Yuri’s public statement does have a lot of spin to it. To state that the fall in Shutterstock’s share price occurred on July 16 because of Yuri’s decisions is just silly. Adobe and IMAX also have some big dips on July 16, I guess Yuri had a big impact on the world market that day. It’s just spin folks, and there’s more to come...
sit n spin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Okd7CsytE#)
-
^^Excellent assessment of the situation. Well worth the read. :)
-
Isn't it enough to say that Yuri thought he would be better off with Getty and Getty thought they would be better off with Yuri? They worked out a deal that was beneficial to both parties and that's it. About the analysis, I think Istock only lost only a few thousand images during the D day thing. A lot of those images were ones that weren't selling anyways so they probably overall had little value. The exclusives that left have pretty much all kept their images with Istock. Sean was a separate issue. I think these changes to add a lot of files to the Partner Program have been in the works for a long time and had nothing to do with D-day. In one week they replaced more than all the files that were taken down.
-
What are all the 24 cent sales I'm getting for the last two months? I assumed, some kind of low cost subs? I can't even figure out how to see what's being licensed. Just shows up a month later as GI.
What next for IS? Their own subscription plan perhaps?
They have one, but it's not low enough priced to compete with SS, which is why Getty took over TS and Photos.com and sent most iS files there.
If they went to low cost subs, that would probably be the absolute last straw for many.
-
What are all the 24 cent sales I'm getting for the last two months? I assumed, some kind of low cost subs? I can't even figure out how to see what's being licensed. Just shows up a month later as GI.
What next for IS? Their own subscription plan perhaps?
They have one, but it's not low enough priced to compete with SS, which is why Getty took over TS and Photos.com and sent most iS files there.
If they went to low cost subs, that would probably be the absolute last straw for many.
You are getting GI sales? Do they show up purple on the graph?
-
There have been other reports of indies having GI sales.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355278&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355278&page=1)
Good luck getting a CR person who clicks the right auto-response button.
-
There have been other reports of indies having GI sales.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355278&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355278&page=1[/url])
Good luck getting a CR person who clicks the right auto-response button.
In that link he says they show up as partner program sales in green and the details say from Getty Images. GI sales show up purple and Connect show up as black.
-
There have been other reports of indies having GI sales.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355278&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355278&page=1[/url])
Good luck getting a CR person who clicks the right auto-response button.
In that link he says they show up as partner program sales in green and the details say from Getty Images. GI sales show up purple and Connect show up as black.
But green represents the PP, and his GI sale was 12c, but his PP rate is 28c.
Maybe (idle speculation) Getty has just got into another nanopaying deal without telling TPTB at iS.
-
There have been other reports of indies having GI sales.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355278&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355278&page=1[/url])
Good luck getting a CR person who clicks the right auto-response button.
In that link he says they show up as partner program sales in green and the details say from Getty Images. GI sales show up purple and Connect show up as black.
But green represents the PP, and his GI sale was 12c, but his PP rate is 28c.
Maybe (idle speculation) Getty has just got into another nanopaying deal without telling TPTB at iS.
I'm saying it wasn't a GI sale, it was a Partner Program sale from Getty Images. At least that's how it was listed. GI sales are a different thing, they are from mirrored content on Getty Images. Just trying to keep things clear, it gets confusing if you call things by the wrong name. Pete may actually have GI sales which would be a different issue.
-
I'm saying it wasn't a GI sale, it was a Partner Program sale from Getty Images. At least that's how it was listed.
Fair enough.
Have we had any intimation/explanation of such a possibility for indies?
What does it mean?
Or it may just be an accounting mistake.
-
I still cringe when I read the way some people speak to others here, including many of the comments made to Yuri. yikes. anyways, have read through most of this thread and my two cents.
flooded microstock libraries with factory-produced images; that is what I have known of Yuri for the last eight years. I don't know you Yuri. I'm sure all in all you're a nice person. but you have stated that your 'exit' from subs microstock to higher ground is some sort of epiphany. that statement can only be interpreted as egotistical and hypocritical. I'm not begrudging you success; you're arguably the most prolific and highest paid microstock photographer in the world, however, slamming the door on the microstock models that you helped build claiming their detrimental affect on the fair pricing of images, well, I can't believe that is coming from you given your longstanding contribution to those very models. You're looking for better prices, but pushing phone camera image sales. Again, that leaves me confused.
You've gotten into bed with Getty at a moment when the chasm between Getty and contributors has never been deeper or wider. you're not in the trenches with us Yuri. You have made decisions that benefit you, that's your prerogative, but with respect I doubt you know what it is to be a 'normal' contributor, a regular photographer who is not privy to special exclusivity and deals with companies that are disrespectful to their suppliers. If I were in a position of influence such that you are, I hope I would use it to do some good in the industry along with achieving success for myself. I'd like to think those two things can be achieved simultaneously. cheers.
-
I'm saying it wasn't a GI sale, it was a Partner Program sale from Getty Images. At least that's how it was listed.
Fair enough.
Have we had any intimation/explanation of such a possibility for indies?
What does it mean?
Or it may just be an accounting mistake.
It is probably "just" an accounting mistake - but one that happens to stand out because it is impossible. I had a black line Getty PP sale show up, when I questioned it it soon disappeared and I was told a) it would be a connect sale so that's OK (lobo) b) there was a mistake that had made some Getty PP images appear as connect images; and when I asked if I should be getting Getty PP sales, however they turn up, I was told that it was a mistake that had been corrected.
Now, when Getty took over another agency they found that some years earlier there had been a cheque payment that had been lost in the post and they contacted me and asked if I wanted the money (yes, actually!) and then sent it to me. That was their initiative, with no prompting from me, which is why I continue to trust them to try to be completely honest in their accounting. My problem with my vanishing black line is that it shows that some errors happen in recording sales or assigning payment and I have no way at all of knowing about it unless something theoretically impossible crops up - like a black line that later vanishes.
-
I still cringe when I read the way some people speak to others here, including many of the comments made to Yuri. yikes. anyways, have read through most of this thread and my two cents.
flooded microstock libraries with factory-produced images; that is what I have known of Yuri for the last eight years. I don't know you Yuri. I'm sure all in all you're a nice person. but you have stated that your 'exit' from subs microstock to higher ground is some sort of epiphany. that statement can only be interpreted as egotistical and hypocritical. I'm not begrudging you success; you're arguably the most prolific and highest paid microstock photographer in the world, however, slamming the door on the microstock models that you helped build claiming their detrimental affect on the fair pricing of images, well, I can't believe that is coming from you given your longstanding contribution to those very models. You're looking for better prices, but pushing phone camera image sales. Again, that leaves me confused.
You've gotten into bed with Getty at a moment when the chasm between Getty and contributors has never been deeper or wider. you're not in the trenches with us Yuri. You have made decisions that benefit you, that's your prerogative, but with respect I doubt you know what it is to be a 'normal' contributor, a regular photographer who is not privy to special exclusivity and deals with companies that are disrespectful to their suppliers. If I were in a position of influence such that you are, I hope I would use it to do some good in the industry along with achieving success for myself. I'd like to think those two things can be achieved simultaneously. cheers.
My part in bold and then you go on saying you dont know him and call him egotistical and hypocritical. And that makes you what?
-
.....
-
........
-
I really don't care what Yuri do with his images, good or bad it's his decision. But, I must say that Yuri's word's here allways sound like some strategic/marketing/psycology plan.
Other thing ... Yuri's images are not only available at istockphoto and his partners, look here:
http://www.superstock.com/preview.asp?image=4197R-14057&imagex=undefined&enableCDLink=1 (http://www.superstock.com/preview.asp?image=4197R-14057&imagex=undefined&enableCDLink=1)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9239146-couple-resting-on-deckchairs-at-beach-in-sunset.php?st=56e6dbf (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9239146-couple-resting-on-deckchairs-at-beach-in-sunset.php?st=56e6dbf)
Maybe this is some special exclusive contract with IS :-)
Yuri, good luck to you ;-)
-
I put this in the Superstock forum but maybe it belongs here -
... but it looks like Yuri has 45,702 images here today, August 1st, 2013 (credit not mine but discovered by other MSG member). I thought he was "exclusive" at istock? Yeah, right.
http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_4197 (http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_4197)
-
1 week after and Yuri's distribution team is still having trouble removing pictures from DT ;D
-
Moved my information and more discoveries to an appropriate new Subject on the IS area. Please go view there to continue.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/24-cent-gi-sales-%28moved-to-it%27s-own-from-another-topic%29/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/24-cent-gi-sales-%28moved-to-it%27s-own-from-another-topic%29/)
I'm saying it wasn't a GI sale, it was a Partner Program sale from Getty Images. At least that's how it was listed.
Fair enough.
Have we had any intimation/explanation of such a possibility for indies?
What does it mean?
Or it may just be an accounting mistake.
-
1 week after and Yuri's distribution team is still having trouble removing pictures from DT ;D
Probaly busy with the 82k images still up on Mostphotos ;)
-
1 week after and Yuri's distribution team is still having trouble removing pictures from DT ;D
Probaly busy with the 82k images still up on Mostphotos ;)
sweet :D
-
You've gotten into bed with Getty at a moment when the chasm between Getty and contributors has never been deeper or wider.
Like my Mum says, "As He made them, so He matched them".
A saying which generally refers to marriage, but in this case refers to interpretation of Truth.
-
I can't imagine how tedious a job removing Yuri's portfolio from all the sites it was on must be. Especially with the sites that have a tedious removal procedure. Might take years to get every image off every site. I'm sure its something that stopped lots of us considering going exclusive.
If someone wants to go exclusive now and istock insist that they remove every single image from all the other sites first, wouldn't that be discrimination?
-
If someone wants to go exclusive now and istock insist that they remove every single image from all the other sites first, wouldn't that be discrimination?
Depends on Alberta/Canadian law, I suppose; would be an interesting case here.
-
I still cringe when I read the way some people speak to others here, including many of the comments made to Yuri. yikes. anyways, have read through most of this thread and my two cents.
flooded microstock libraries with factory-produced images; that is what I have known of Yuri for the last eight years. I don't know you Yuri. I'm sure all in all you're a nice person. but you have stated that your 'exit' from subs microstock to higher ground is some sort of epiphany. that statement can only be interpreted as egotistical and hypocritical. I'm not begrudging you success; you're arguably the most prolific and highest paid microstock photographer in the world, however, slamming the door on the microstock models that you helped build claiming their detrimental affect on the fair pricing of images, well, I can't believe that is coming from you given your longstanding contribution to those very models. You're looking for better prices, but pushing phone camera image sales. Again, that leaves me confused.
You've gotten into bed with Getty at a moment when the chasm between Getty and contributors has never been deeper or wider. you're not in the trenches with us Yuri. You have made decisions that benefit you, that's your prerogative, but with respect I doubt you know what it is to be a 'normal' contributor, a regular photographer who is not privy to special exclusivity and deals with companies that are disrespectful to their suppliers. If I were in a position of influence such that you are, I hope I would use it to do some good in the industry along with achieving success for myself. I'd like to think those two things can be achieved simultaneously. cheers.
My part in bold and then you go on saying you dont know him and call him egotistical and hypocritical. And that makes you what?
I said his statement could "only be interpreted as egotistical and hypocritical"....and my point is that not knowing Yuri personally, there are few ways to interpret the (many) bold statements he made in his announcement. I don't want to turn this into a pi55ing match, but you misquoted me.
-
over 25k at Visco as well (http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?page=1&order=download&find=&photographer (http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?page=1&order=download&find=&photographer)[]=1289)
-
Looks like SS's stocks are bouncing back, so the Yuri effect, as he would like us to believe, was very temporary:
(http://www.lizworld.com/SSGraph.jpg)
-
superstock has great images but i wonder about their sales, i can't remember the last time i've seen a photo credit @ superstock, must be a few years ago, same for Masterfile.
-
Although the snooty "come to getty and get healed" speech was a little disturbing, I must apologize for my stupid retorts.
-
Looks like SS's stocks are bouncing back, so the Yuri effect, as he would like us to believe, was very temporary:
([url]http://www.lizworld.com/SSGraph.jpg[/url])
as confirmed by Yuri it seems SS has no plans to raise our fees or to launch a new expensive product line.
and frankly speaking i would do the same, their core business is being the leader in low cost so they better avoid risky adventures in news, reportage, midstock, etc
their strategy will be about cutting costs to the bone even more than now, as for their new collection i'm afraid they've something nasty in store, like all-you-can-eat mobile pics or whatever cheaper than chips.
in any case they can't stay idle, public companies usually announce something new every quarter to keep high the investors's attention span, no matter if it's all smoke and mirrors as in most of the cases, see the recent jump in FB's mobile profits, anyone following the industry knows very well the ugly truth and it will all crumble soon like a sack of potatoes.
at this point they could also find the money for some M&As .. including buying FT or DT, we'll see but it would be a logical step.
-
Looks like SS's stocks are bouncing back, so the Yuri effect, as he would like us to believe, was very temporary:
([url]http://www.lizworld.com/SSGraph.jpg[/url])
as confirmed by Yuri it seems SS has no plans to raise our fees or to launch a new expensive product line.
and frankly speaking i would do the same, their core business is being the leader in low cost so they better avoid risky adventures in news, reportage, midstock, etc
their strategy will be about cutting costs to the bone even more than now, as for their new collection i'm afraid they've something nasty in store, like all-you-can-eat mobile pics or whatever cheaper than chips.
in any case they can't stay idle, public companies usually announce something new every quarter to keep high the investors's attention span, no matter if it's all smoke and mirrors as in most of the cases, see the recent jump in FB's mobile profits, anyone following the industry knows very well the ugly truth and it will all crumble soon like a sack of potatoes.
at this point they could also find the money for some M&As .. including buying FT or DT, we'll see but it would be a logical step.
I don’t think Yuri is in the position to confirm anything relating to SS, especially any of their future plans.
-
....as confirmed by Yuri it seems SS has no plans to raise our fees or to launch a new expensive product line...
They already launched a new expensive product line....
-
...as confirmed by Yuri it seems SS has no plans to raise our fees or to launch a new expensive product line.
and frankly speaking i would do the same, their core business is being the leader in low cost so they better avoid risky adventures in news, reportage, midstock, etc...
So... have you heard of Offset?
-
...as confirmed by Yuri it seems SS has no plans to raise our fees or to launch a new expensive product line.
and frankly speaking i would do the same, their core business is being the leader in low cost so they better avoid risky adventures in news, reportage, midstock, etc...
So... have you heard of Offset?
No ... judging by his misguided posts, it would appear that Xanox hasn't heard anything at all for at least 5 years.
-
Looks like SS's stocks are bouncing back, so the Yuri effect, as he would like us to believe, was very temporary:
([url]http://www.lizworld.com/SSGraph.jpg[/url])
as confirmed by Yuri it seems SS has no plans to raise our fees or to launch a new expensive product line.
and frankly speaking i would do the same, their core business is being the leader in low cost so they better avoid risky adventures in news, reportage, midstock, etc
their strategy will be about cutting costs to the bone even more than now, as for their new collection i'm afraid they've something nasty in store, like all-you-can-eat mobile pics or whatever cheaper than chips.
in any case they can't stay idle, public companies usually announce something new every quarter to keep high the investors's attention span, no matter if it's all smoke and mirrors as in most of the cases, see the recent jump in FB's mobile profits, anyone following the industry knows very well the ugly truth and it will all crumble soon like a sack of potatoes.
at this point they could also find the money for some M&As .. including buying FT or DT, we'll see but it would be a logical step.
You might find this info interesting
http://bits.shutterstock.com/ (http://bits.shutterstock.com/)
Snip
Now suppose you are so diligent that you keep rolling out A/B tests, this time testing a fancy search ranking algorithm. Two weeks later you see that there is a $0.10 increase in dollar spent per visitor for the test variant compared to the control (i.e. existing search ranking algorithm) variant. If the increase is real, with 100K visitors each day, that’s $0.10 × 100,000 = $10,000 dollars extra revenue each day. Now, let’s add a twist: you need five extra servers to support that fancy algorithm in production, and the servers cost $10,000 each to buy, and another $10,000 to run per year. You want to make sure it’s worth the investment. Your stats tell you that you currently have a p-value of 0.3, which most people would interpret as a “nonsignificant” result. But a p-value of 0.3 means that with the new ranking algorithm the net gain in extra-money-making probability is 0.7 − 0.3 = 0.4. With the expected size of the gain being $0.10 per visitor, the expected extra revenue per year is $0.10 × 100,000 × 0.4 × 365 = $1.46M dollars. The rational thing to do is of course release it.
-
^^^ Ha! From the same link here's an even more extreme example of how SS are pushing the boundaries of search optimisation ... whilst IS can barely keep their site functioning;
"You know the world has come a long way when someone has to espouse the heresy of not caring about statistical significance.
This is not an argument against A/B testing, but rather about how we use A/B test results to make business decisions. Instead of statistical significance, let’s make decisions based on expected value, i.e. $benefit × probability − $cost.
A little background on statistical significance, or “p < 0.05″. Say you have just deployed an A/B test, comparing the existing red (control) vs. a new green (test) “BUY NOW!” button. Two weeks later you see that the green-button variant is making $0.02 more per visitor than the red-button variant. You run some stats and see that the p-value is less than 0.05, and are ready to declare the results “significant.” ”Significant” here means that there’s an over 95% chance that the color made a difference, or more true to the statistics, there’s less than 5% chance that the $0.02 difference is simply due to random fluctuations.
That last sentence there is probably too long to fit in anyone’s attention span. Let me break it down a little. The problem here is that you need to prove, or disprove, that the difference between the two variants is real — “real” meaning generalizable to the larger audience outside of the test traffic. The philosophy of science (confirmation is indefinite while negation is absolute — a thousand white swans can’t prove that all swans are white, but one black swan can disprove that all swans are white) and practicality both require that people set out to prove that the difference is real by disproving the logical opposite, i.e. there is no real difference. Statistics allows us to figure out that if we assume there is no difference between the red- and green-button variants, the probability of observing a $0.02 or larger difference by random chance is less than 0.05, i.e. p < 0.05. That is pretty unlikely. So we accept the alternative assumption, that the difference is real."
SS and IS are on different planets when it comes to technical innovation, response to customers' needs and the analytical use of data. IS haven't even been able to provide real-time statistics for 5 years! What hope have they, with their part-time, ever-changing GM's, of competing against a full-on, aggressive entrepreneur like Oringer? Er .. that'll be ... not much.
The very idea that IS can compete with SS in the longer term is utterly laughable. Who was it that said "professionals deal with professionals"? Oh yeah __ I just remembered. Boy, is he going to regret that decision within a couple of years from now! It'll be triple-helpings of humble pie for Mr Yuri when he can't feed his '100 employees'. I'm just sitting on my hands waiting for the inevitable to happen.
-
Looks like SS's stocks are bouncing back, so the Yuri effect, as he would like us to believe, was very temporary:
([url]http://www.lizworld.com/SSGraph.jpg[/url])
as confirmed by Yuri it seems SS has no plans to raise our fees or to launch a new expensive product line....
SS already pay up to $120 for SOD's. Do any non-exclusives get that much from any other microstock site?
Is Yuri the right person to give a balanced view on SS when he's just gone exclusively non-exclusive with Getty/istock? He's the last person I'd be looking to for an unbiased opinion.
-
I wonder how much dosh Yuri has banked since this thread started.
Yuri - next time I moor up in Monte Carlo I'll nip over with a bottle of Russian Standard and we'll get bladdered.
-
The very idea that IS can compete with SS in the longer term is utterly laughable. Who was it that said "professionals deal with professionals"? Oh yeah __ I just remembered. Boy, is he going to regret that decision within a couple of years from now! It'll be triple-helpings of humble pie for Mr Yuri when he can't feed his '100 employees'. I'm just sitting on my hands waiting for the inevitable to happen.
Don't forget that Yuri's employees consist of two large groups : the "production" group, needed for shoots, like makeup artists, models etc., and the "distribution" group, needed for submitting the images to 20 or 30 different sites. Now that he's only with Getty/Istock and his own site, he can probably fire more than 50% of that group (and probably even more once Dreamstime is cleaned up). So on one hand he gets a nice bag of money from Getty, and on the other hand he saves a lot of expenses by no longer submitting to a whole bunch of sites.
-
The very idea that IS can compete with SS in the longer term is utterly laughable. Who was it that said "professionals deal with professionals"? Oh yeah __ I just remembered. Boy, is he going to regret that decision within a couple of years from now! It'll be triple-helpings of humble pie for Mr Yuri when he can't feed his '100 employees'. I'm just sitting on my hands waiting for the inevitable to happen.
Don't forget that Yuri's employees consist of two large groups : the "production" group, needed for shoots, like makeup artists, models etc., and the "distribution" group, needed for submitting the images to 20 or 30 different sites. Now that he's only with Getty/Istock and his own site, he can probably fire more than 50% of that group (and probably even more once Dreamstime is cleaned up). So on one hand he gets a nice bag of money from Getty, and on the other hand he saves a lot of expenses by no longer submitting to a whole bunch of sites.
and then gets the award for fastest growing danish company...
-
The very idea that IS can compete with SS in the longer term is utterly laughable. Who was it that said "professionals deal with professionals"? Oh yeah __ I just remembered. Boy, is he going to regret that decision within a couple of years from now! It'll be triple-helpings of humble pie for Mr Yuri when he can't feed his '100 employees'. I'm just sitting on my hands waiting for the inevitable to happen.
Don't forget that Yuri's employees consist of two large groups : the "production" group, needed for shoots, like makeup artists, models etc., and the "distribution" group, needed for submitting the images to 20 or 30 different sites. Now that he's only with Getty/Istock and his own site, he can probably fire more than 50% of that group (and probably even more once Dreamstime is cleaned up). So on one hand he gets a nice bag of money from Getty, and on the other hand he saves a lot of expenses by no longer submitting to a whole bunch of sites.
He still needs to keep his staff a little longer, I presume, to find all the thousands of exclusive images spread over 20 odd sites and delete them all.
-
He still needs to keep his staff a little longer, I presume, to find all the thousands of exclusive images spread over 20 odd sites and delete them all.
I doubt he is in any hurry; I'm sure he wants to have his cake and eat it.
-
and then gets the award for fastest growing danish company...
maybe in the startups category or SMEs.
for big ones i've the feeling Carlsberg is spreading like wildfire in asia, and what about LEGO becoming massive even in China ?
-
i don't think he's gonna fire anyone, his goal could be to create a 1 million images portfolio so he might hire another 100 guys if needed.
you all think his belly is full but i've the feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg, the deal with getty allows him to produce expensive shots for getty and leaving the cr-ap for istock and thinkstock, win-win scenario.
-
i don't think he's gonna fire anyone, his goal could be to create a 1 million images portfolio so he might hire another 100 guys if needed.
you all think his belly is full but i've the feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg, the deal with getty allows him to produce expensive shots for getty and leaving the cr-ap for istock and thinkstock, win-win scenario.
can you show me how different he creates for getty and crap for is or thinkstock? as i can see there is no different yuri create for the expensive or cheap. just people ,people ,people.......
-
i don't think he's gonna fire anyone, his goal could be to create a 1 million images portfolio so he might hire another 100 guys if needed.
you all think his belly is full but i've the feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg, the deal with getty allows him to produce expensive shots for getty and leaving the cr-ap for istock and thinkstock, win-win scenario.
can you show me how different he creates for getty and crap for is or thinkstock? as i can see there is no different yuri create for the expensive or cheap. just people ,people ,people.......
And more than easy to spot in any agency, which is why he's being caught out so consistently.
-
i don't think he's gonna fire anyone, his goal could be to create a 1 million images portfolio so he might hire another 100 guys if needed.
you all think his belly is full but i've the feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg, the deal with getty allows him to produce expensive shots for getty and leaving the cr-ap for istock and thinkstock, win-win scenario.
No. He 'hit the wall' as an independent, as we all do, he was just a bit later than most of us because he kept upping his production rate. Unfortunately you can't keep doing that forever. You can't just keep 'employing another 100 guys' and expect it to pay off. It's painfully ironic that Yuri's 'solution' to the issue was to tie himself into a dwindling agency. Big, big mistake.
A 'Main Collection' image at IS, at medium size, is now 3 credits. An exclusive image (not Main Collection) at medium size is now 30 credits. Is a 10x differential, between main and exclusive, sustainable? Nope. Quite frankly you might as well start another agency for exclusive content. You just don't get the same customers, with such different budgets, all happily shopping in the same place. It doesn't work like that.
-
i don't think he's gonna fire anyone, his goal could be to create a 1 million images portfolio so he might hire another 100 guys if needed.
you all think his belly is full but i've the feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg, the deal with getty allows him to produce expensive shots for getty and leaving the cr-ap for istock and thinkstock, win-win scenario.
No. He 'hit the wall' as an independent, as we all do, he was just a bit later than most of us because he kept upping his production rate. Unfortunately you can't keep doing that forever. You can't just keep 'employing another 100 guys' and expect it to pay off. It's painfully ironic that Yuri's 'solution' to the issue was to tie himself into a dwindling agency. Big, big mistake.
A 'Main Collection' image at IS, at medium size, is now 3 credits. An exclusive image (not Main Collection) at medium size is now 30 credits. Is a 10x differential, between main and exclusive, sustainable? Nope. Quite frankly you might as well start another agency for exclusive content. You just don't get the same customers, with such different budgets, all happily shopping in the same place. It doesn't work like that.
Honest question. Why do you think Yuri jumped ship and why did he choose IS? Yuri has built up a very successful business, and we cant say he is not business savvy or doesnt know the market. Why would he make this decision at this moment?
-
Honest question. Why do you think Yuri jumped ship and why did he choose IS? Yuri has built up a very successful business, and we cant say he is not business savvy or doesnt know the market. Why would he make this decision at this moment?
Pay attention up at the back. "Professionals deal with Professionals" ;) ::)
-
i don't think he's gonna fire anyone, his goal could be to create a 1 million images portfolio so he might hire another 100 guys if needed.
you all think his belly is full but i've the feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg, the deal with getty allows him to produce expensive shots for getty and leaving the cr-ap for istock and thinkstock, win-win scenario.
No. He 'hit the wall' as an independent, as we all do, he was just a bit later than most of us because he kept upping his production rate. Unfortunately you can't keep doing that forever. You can't just keep 'employing another 100 guys' and expect it to pay off. It's painfully ironic that Yuri's 'solution' to the issue was to tie himself into a dwindling agency. Big, big mistake.
A 'Main Collection' image at IS, at medium size, is now 3 credits. An exclusive image (not Main Collection) at medium size is now 30 credits. Is a 10x differential, between main and exclusive, sustainable? Nope. Quite frankly you might as well start another agency for exclusive content. You just don't get the same customers, with such different budgets, all happily shopping in the same place. It doesn't work like that.
Honest question. Why do you think Yuri jumped ship and why did he choose IS? Yuri has built up a very successful business, and we cant say he is not business savvy or doesnt know the market. Why would he make this decision at this moment?
Well, if you could get access to Getty and the exclusive commission rates and prices for what appears to be an agreement to pull your portfolio from just one agency - SS - wouldn't you reckon it might be the best earning option available to you?
-
.
-
i don't think he's gonna fire anyone, his goal could be to create a 1 million images portfolio so he might hire another 100 guys if needed.
you all think his belly is full but i've the feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg, the deal with getty allows him to produce expensive shots for getty and leaving the cr-ap for istock and thinkstock, win-win scenario.
No. He 'hit the wall' as an independent, as we all do, he was just a bit later than most of us because he kept upping his production rate. Unfortunately you can't keep doing that forever. You can't just keep 'employing another 100 guys' and expect it to pay off. It's painfully ironic that Yuri's 'solution' to the issue was to tie himself into a dwindling agency. Big, big mistake.
A 'Main Collection' image at IS, at medium size, is now 3 credits. An exclusive image (not Main Collection) at medium size is now 30 credits. Is a 10x differential, between main and exclusive, sustainable? Nope. Quite frankly you might as well start another agency for exclusive content. You just don't get the same customers, with such different budgets, all happily shopping in the same place. It doesn't work like that.
Honest question. Why do you think Yuri jumped ship and why did he choose IS? Yuri has built up a very successful business, and we cant say he is not business savvy or doesnt know the market. Why would he make this decision at this moment?
That is a good question, I would say that Getty solved some problems for him and helped him move forward with some business goals. He mentioned in another thread the challenges he was having in regard to peopleimages, it could very well be that Yuri solved those challenges with this deal.
Could also be that a light came on when he realized what A/B testing and the new SS board would do to his income.
I don't think we will see Yuri sitting back sipping port. He enjoys building things and is very successful doing so.
We do not have all the information, Yuri has been meeting with owners for years and he may be making decisions based on facts that we have no knowledge of. I would be surprised to find that he is truly biased toward Getty, if so that would be unfortunate because you miss important facts when you are biased. It would be a shame to find that someone who has come so far; has become so biased as to put that bias first, while twisting every fact to suit that bias.
If so maybe he should meet with gostwyck and they can pound it out of each other.
-
i don't think he's gonna fire anyone, his goal could be to create a 1 million images portfolio so he might hire another 100 guys if needed.
you all think his belly is full but i've the feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg, the deal with getty allows him to produce expensive shots for getty and leaving the cr-ap for istock and thinkstock, win-win scenario.
No. He 'hit the wall' as an independent, as we all do, he was just a bit later than most of us because he kept upping his production rate. Unfortunately you can't keep doing that forever. You can't just keep 'employing another 100 guys' and expect it to pay off. It's painfully ironic that Yuri's 'solution' to the issue was to tie himself into a dwindling agency. Big, big mistake.
A 'Main Collection' image at IS, at medium size, is now 3 credits. An exclusive image (not Main Collection) at medium size is now 30 credits. Is a 10x differential, between main and exclusive, sustainable? Nope. Quite frankly you might as well start another agency for exclusive content. You just don't get the same customers, with such different budgets, all happily shopping in the same place. It doesn't work like that.
Honest question. Why do you think Yuri jumped ship and why did he choose IS? Yuri has built up a very successful business, and we cant say he is not business savvy or doesnt know the market. Why would he make this decision at this moment?
Well, if you could get access to Getty and the exclusive commission rates and prices for what appears to be an agreement to pull your portfolio from just one agency - SS - wouldn't you reckon it might be the best earning option available to you?
Lets assume he is going to remove everything and he is going to be exclusive.
-
Lets assume he is going to remove everything and he is going to be exclusive.
[/quote]
In which case he's simply betting that iStock, Getty and his own "partner site" will be more profitable for him than continuing with his previous policy of supplying everyone. It's just a business decision.
-
In the few months that I've owned SSTK stock, I'm up over 27%, netting more than I've made from SS since I started with them. I guess if Yuri were an investor he'd be paying closer attention to how the stock is actually performing. But even if SSTK went down 12% tomorrow, I'd still be ahead of the game. And if iS beats out SS, all my eggs aren't in one basket. In fact, stock is just one small portion of my photo income. Yuri's on another planet as far as the size of his portfolio, the kind of work he produces, and his ability to negotiate a deal, so what he does, while it's interesting in a general “what's happening in the stock photo world?” kind of way, it doesn't affect my choices.
I didn't really learn much about shooting stock until I joined SS and saw downloads nearly every day, even early on with a very tiny portfolio. It showed me what kind of stuff worked for me and confirmed that when I shoot what I enjoy it actually sells. I don't love all the changes there but the site runs well, they pay me on time without my having to ask them to, they report earnings nearly instantaneously, they answer emails and even the telephone, and they can even do math! On a gut level, I hate the subscription model, but SS knows how to make it work.
Yuri’s welcome to hype his work and look out for himself. I don't really get the anger here. He's styled himself as the world's leading stock photographer for years now, so why should the size of his ego surprise or infuriate anyone? Bad grammar and poor spelling are the bane of the internet, though you'd think someone on his staff could read and write English.
If he's looking to take over Getty or iS from the inside I wish him all the luck in the world, but I doubt that's the ace up his sleeve. I'm afraid he's just scrambling like the rest of us, wondering when the hordes with their iPhones are going to muscle in on our business, and trying to keep the cash cow running for a few more years. Printing fine art or shooting a print campaign is one thing, but iPhone photos can look great on the web - in fact, I've seen them blown up as huge printed panoramas with surprising quality.
I'll stick with my DSLRs for the most part, but I do love having a camera with me all the time that doesn't weigh a ton. For something that's a phone, a mini-computer (with more power than my first HP), a game console, magazine rack, mini-kindle, and camera rolled into one, it takes pretty good pictures. But then, if you’ll pardon my ego, I'm the one pushing the button. 8)
-
You can slap me now or later but I am feeling bullish on iStock! I think SS is in more of a bind long term with shareholders then iStock is at the moment.
-
You can slap me now or later but I am feeling bullish on iStock! I think SS is in more of a bind long term with shareholders then iStock is at the moment.
You can only say as you find.
-
he's got a 100K images collection spread out on dozens of agencies so he's the only ones with the hard data to judge what's going on, what's selling good or bad, etc etc
if he moved to greener pastures is because it's worth it, simple as that.
now, no idea how much worth it, maybe just 10% more or maybe 50%, who knows, but he wouldn't do it to lose money or just to save the hassle of dealing with 20-30 agencies instead of one or two.
as for "the cr-ap", well we dont know if getty agreed to take 100% of his collection of if they will just pick the good ones, so the "leftovers" can pretty much be moved into istock or thinkstock.
and for what we know he could also produce and resell photos for other image factories !
-
I don't have any problem with Yuri's plans but this "cult of personality II." doesn't entertain me anymore.
Be creative and send your best summer shot to the competition. Winning photo must be taken with the Scoopshot App. All competing photos can be viewed at www.scoopshot.com (http://www.scoopshot.com) You can vote for your own favorite there.
The winning shot will be selected by the "King of Microstock", Yuri Arcurs, on September 30, 2013.
-
Suppose Yuri made a post and nobody answered.
-
you guys all seem to forget that nowadays to sell a product like hotcakes you NEED exposure, you need to be famous, popular, or at least well known in your market niche, no matter if because of a good or bad reputation.
once you're famous you can even ask donations on crowdfunding sites, you can write books, do interviews, get your BS heard and written in blogs and forums and newspapers, no matter what you actually say, it's all about getting your name known.
random readers who never heard about Yuri will believe the mumbo jumbo about him being the king of microstock, they will not double check if other image factories are bigger than him and if they keep a low profile to avoid unwanted attention by the tax office or whatever.
so may you like it or not he's doing the right thing and actually he's not even pushing his image too much as he's not updating his blog regularly and he's not posting cr-ap on FB or Twitter like so many others.
all he needs to keep his status now is to post a new press release to us villains and plebs once every 3 months, maybe coupled with an editorial article about the situation of the micro/macro market .. people will like it and write 50 pages of comments like here on MSG ...
-
"and for what we know he could also produce and resell photos for other image factories !"
so all we can be the ex of IS and then produce some craps to other sites???????????
as i did the observation, some guys did it as i told, using multi-id to be ex on iS and produce other files to other site, i guess they all learn from yuri...lololol ;D
-
you guys all seem to forget that nowadays to sell a product like hotcakes you NEED exposure, you need to be famous, popular, or at least well known in your market niche, no matter if because of a good or bad reputation.
once you're famous you can even ask donations on crowdfunding sites, you can write books, do interviews, get your BS heard and written in blogs and forums and newspapers, no matter what you actually say, it's all about getting your name known.
random readers who never heard about Yuri will believe the mumbo jumbo about him being the king of microstock, they will not double check if other image factories are bigger than him and if they keep a low profile to avoid unwanted attention by the tax office or whatever.
so may you like it or not he's doing the right thing and actually he's not even pushing his image too much as he's not updating his blog regularly and he's not posting cr-ap on FB or Twitter like so many others.
all he needs to keep his status now is to post a new press release to us villains and plebs once every 3 months, maybe coupled with an editorial article about the situation of the micro/macro market .. people will like it and write 50 pages of comments like here on MSG ...
Basically I agree. On the other hand - it's like calling David Beckham "King of football" and with all respect to him it would be nonsense. Marketing doesn't make somebody a king.
-
Have we noted his 59261 images on pixmac? http://www.pixmac.com/author/YuriArcurs (http://www.pixmac.com/author/YuriArcurs)
"Liars deal with liars"
-
I agree that 5 USD per task is ridiculous, but so was 1 USD per download for Istockphoto.com back 7 years ago. We are looking at the birth of a new industry. It's not refined like microstock is today. Mistakes are ok, small income is ok, bad images are ok, it does not mean it is where it will end. You have to see the potential long term.
So if something happens literally outside my front door, so it doesn't cost me a penny to take it, and I upload it, for $2.50 to me (unless one of my neighbours shoots the 'winning' shot, minus tax, I find I'm more or less giving away my rights:
Scoopshot.com terms of delivery and use 20 May 2013
5.1.The Photographer shall provide to the Service all Exclusive rights to the Photo for a minimum of 48 hours from the moment of the delivery of the Photo. A longer period for the Exclusive rights may also be required by the Service.
5.2.Should no Buyer purchase the rights specified in Section 6 of this Agreement within the above mentioned Exclusive right period, the rights in the Photo shall be partly returned to the Photographer.
5.3.After the above mentioned Exclusive rights period has lapsed, Scoopshot shall have the continuing right to offer Photos to the Buyers through the Service. After the Exclusive rights period has lapsed a contemporaneous right to use and sell publishing rights in the Photo shall remain with the Photographer. Photographer shall have the right to, independently, sell, at the most, a Publishing License to the Photo according to the Section 6.2 of this Agreement, i.e. not All rights.
5.4.Scoopshot’s right to forward the copyrights to the Photo to the Buyers shall take effect immediately after the Photographer has delivered the Photo to the Service.
Clearly, Yuri is looking for the naive.
You might as well give your photos away for a credit, and not have to bother saving the sales microreturns information and adding them to your Income Tax form.
-
Isn't transferring copyright illegal in Germany? Still don't understand how a photographer can let other photographers lose their copyright for $2.50? Can't compare it with the start of microstock because the photographers still have their copyright and can still make money from photos they were selling very cheap 10 years ago.
This amazing new business will most likely be like almost every other tech startup, a big failure.
-
This amazing new business will most likely be like almost every other tech startup, a big failure.
Let's hope so. If it succeeds, it will be a significant step toward further degrading the value of photography and artists' copyrights.
-
This amazing new business will most likely be like almost every other tech startup, a big failure.
Let's hope so. If it succeeds, it will be a significant step toward further degrading the value of photography and artists' copyrights.
i think it can only damage amateur photographers and in any case buyers will only get cr-appy snapshots, what else do they expect for a few bucks ? not certainly pro images.
i mean this stuff is the real rock bottom in terms of price, professionals will not lose any sleep about it.
-
This amazing new business will most likely be like almost every other tech startup, a big failure.
Let's hope so. If it succeeds, it will be a significant step toward further degrading the value of photography and artists' copyrights.
+1 The site owners are the only ones who will benefit, it will further degrade content value for the rest of us.
-
This amazing new business will most likely be like almost every other tech startup, a big failure.
Let's hope so. If it succeeds, it will be a significant step toward further degrading the value of photography and artists' copyrights.
i think it can only damage amateur photographers and in any case buyers will only get cr-appy snapshots, what else do they expect for a few bucks ? not certainly pro images.
i mean this stuff is the real rock bottom in terms of price, professionals will not lose any sleep about it.
High quality HCV images for 16 cents?
-
High quality HCV images for 16 cents?
yeah I mean this stuff is clearly targeting Flickrs, students, and random amateurs.
Anyone joining such a low-profit business is not a pro and never will.
so all in all i don't see it as a menace honestly, even if people gave away the images for free rather than 2-3$.
-
Riddling soil gives me a lot of time to muse on stuff, and my latest random wondering is whether it's a way of him headhunting talent easily - see who can actually take great photos on a phonecam (it can be done), then training them up to do things to his template style.
Did he / is he about to run his 'annual' bootcamp this year (2013). It doesn't seem to have been as much hyped as last year's, and a quick Google only has links from last year to advise people to keep watching for 2013's, but nothing more.
-
^^^Seems like a lot of money to invest to do that. I can't think what he's doing, a bit like I can't work out the Getty strategy with istock.
-
Isn't transferring copyright illegal in Germany? Still don't understand how a photographer can let other photographers lose their copyright for $2.50? Can't compare it with the start of microstock because the photographers still have their copyright and can still make money from photos they were selling very cheap 10 years ago.
This amazing new business will most likely be like almost every other tech startup, a big failure.
I doubt the legalese was looked over by competent professionals. The "forward the copyrights to the Photo to the Buyers" probably is intended to refer to the regular licensing of rights. The whole terms paragraph reads like one of those "new agencies" that copies bits and pieces from various existing sites.
-
Maybe the String should have read- " Yuri Arcurs First and Probably His Last Public Statement" ...
-
Isn't transferring copyright illegal in Germany? Still don't understand how a photographer can let other photographers lose their copyright for $2.50? Can't compare it with the start of microstock because the photographers still have their copyright and can still make money from photos they were selling very cheap 10 years ago.
This amazing new business will most likely be like almost every other tech startup, a big failure.
I doubt the legalese was looked over by competent professionals. The "forward the copyrights to the Photo to the Buyers" probably is intended to refer to the regular licensing of rights. The whole terms paragraph reads like one of those "new agencies" that copies bits and pieces from various existing sites.
That was my thought, too - along with the possibility that the thing might be a bad translation from German with a lot of nuances getting lost along the way.
-
So they now have 1.4mil USD to pay for a decent translator :) Would be interesting to see what contributors to the site are actually getting in to.
-
And, as referenced over on the Alamy forum, he has 11093 pics and videos over there.
http://tinyurl.com/oseq2oz (http://tinyurl.com/oseq2oz), some via Tetra Images, where he has 1353 http://www.tetraimages.com/search/smsx_photographer_Yuri_Arcurs.html]images:
[url]http://www.tetraimages.com/search/smsx_photographer_Yuri_Arcurs.html (http://images:
[url)[/url]
-
It's interesting that one of the leading "people-pic" guys puts up 40 or 50 quite similar shots of the same model from the same shoot, whereas I generally restrict myself to four or five images from my culinary shoots. With that sort of output per shoot, portfolios of 50,000 to 100,000 images are a bit less impressive than they look at first sight. Especially if you have a factory of producers handling the processing and uploading.
-
Remember he's not taking all, maybe not even many, of the photos himself.
While I was looking for his Bootcamp 2013, I came across this:
http://peopleimages.com/support/view/8 (http://peopleimages.com/support/view/8)
Question?
asked by Utku O.
Can I sell my images on peopleimages.com?
I would really like to sell my images on your site! How can I achieve this?
Official Answer
Answered by: Alessa Digsmed
Hi Utku,
This is a site selling only Yuri Arcurs' images, and images shot by photographers that have passed the Yuri Arcurs Bootcamp, so unfortunately, this is not a possibility. All images on the site are Yuri's so to speak.
So I guess in theory some iStock exclusive who has passed the Bootcamp might be selling at PI or even across many sites under the Yuri moniker. Wonder if he buys out all rights or pays a royalty?
-
It's interesting that one of the leading "people-pic" guys puts up 40 or 50 quite similar shots of the same model from the same shoot, whereas I generally restrict myself to four or five images from my culinary shoots. With that sort of output per shoot, portfolios of 50,000 to 100,000 images are a bit less impressive than they look at first sight. Especially if you have a factory of producers handling the processing and uploading.
composition is probably the key ingredient of stock photography, it's laughable that many agencies are hellbent against "similars", many buyers need more space for the copywriting, others are ok with the subject filling the frame, and then again i could use different DOFs, different lighting, color or B/W, you just can't have it all with 3-4 images at all.
-
Remember he's not taking all, maybe not even many, of the photos himself.
While I was looking for his Bootcamp 2013, I came across this:
[url]http://peopleimages.com/support/view/8[/url] ([url]http://peopleimages.com/support/view/8[/url])
Question?
asked by Utku O.
Can I sell my images on peopleimages.com?
I would really like to sell my images on your site! How can I achieve this?
Official Answer
Answered by: Alessa Digsmed
Hi Utku,
This is a site selling only Yuri Arcurs' images, and images shot by photographers that have passed the Yuri Arcurs Bootcamp, so unfortunately, this is not a possibility. All images on the site are Yuri's so to speak.
So I guess in theory some iStock exclusive who has passed the Bootcamp might be selling at PI or even across many sites under the Yuri moniker. Wonder if he buys out all rights or pays a royalty?
I think it's like for any other photo studio, the assistants don't keep the copyright nor are they allowed to resell the image for stock or whatever, and this applies also to many news agencies and newspapers.
His team is probably earning a fixed salary with small bonuses.
Believe it or not it happens also for some famous painters, they hire a crew of art students, they learn to paint exactly as their master and then the paintings are produced in limited 20-30 signed copies by the artist, no one knows they were painted by random students, it's an open secret and it can easily backfire.
-
It's interesting that one of the leading "people-pic" guys puts up 40 or 50 quite similar shots of the same model from the same shoot, whereas I generally restrict myself to four or five images from my culinary shoots. With that sort of output per shoot, portfolios of 50,000 to 100,000 images are a bit less impressive than they look at first sight. Especially if you have a factory of producers handling the processing and uploading.
composition is probably the key ingredient of stock photography, it's laughable that many agencies are hellbent against "similars", many buyers need more space for the copywriting, others are ok with the subject filling the frame, and then again i could use different DOFs, different lighting, color or B/W, you just can't have it all with 3-4 images at all.
Spread 50 sales across 50 images with similars and you could kill the search ranking of every one of them. The occasional buyer might search 10,000 images to find the perfect one but most of them will make do with something in the first 100 results.
-
Spread 50 sales across 50 images with similars and you could kill the search ranking of every one of them. The occasional buyer might search 10,000 images to find the perfect one but most of them will make do with something in the first 100 results.
i'm not advocating doing 50 similars for each shot, but agencies should be a bit more flexible.
it's not fair to blame similars when the issue is their search engines su-ck.
with their typical double standard they have zillions of images of the Tour Eiffel on sale but nobody complain, what about that ?
-
Believe it or not it happens also for some famous painters,
'twere ever thus.
-
Well, Good Luck Yuri!
As you all can see the right side here under 'microstock poll results' it is more than clear that being iStock exclusive gives you more earnings than compared to all other places combined together. It clearly states 335.3 if you are exclusive. So, Yuri knows his math. It is obviously more easier to go with one agency than spreading your portfolio through all of them.
Nevertheless, mobile phone photo selling platforms are risk. Who dares wins - so Yuri I wish you luck in your business venture.
I, amongst the rest will stay with lower earning majority of this industry and avoid to become part of Getty/iStock machinery. At least we need to have some opposition to them - So I am there!
-
The Song that Never Ends (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz6OGVCdov8#)
-
Well, Good Luck Yuri!
As you all can see the right side here under 'microstock poll results' it is more than clear that being iStock exclusive gives you more earnings than compared to all other places combined together. It clearly states 335.3 if you are exclusive. So, Yuri knows his math. It is obviously more easier to go with one agency than spreading your portfolio through all of them.
Nevertheless, mobile phone photo selling platforms are risk. Who dares wins - so Yuri I wish you luck in your business venture.
I, amongst the rest will stay with lower earning majority of this industry and avoid to become part of Getty/iStock machinery. At least we need to have some opposition to them - So I am there!
I don't think its clear at all that istock exclusives make more than non-exclusives. Yuri obviously thought being non-exclusive was more lucrative up until his meeting with Getty. None of us know how much they offered him to go exclusive. I don't think he did it just on the maths and he has obviously done a deal, as he is the only exclusive to still have tens of thousands of images on several istock rival sites.
I'm sure exclusivity will suit some people but I think the best time to do it was a few years ago and now is probably the worst time.
-
Well, Good Luck Yuri!
As you all can see the right side here under 'microstock poll results' it is more than clear that being iStock exclusive gives you more earnings than compared to all other places combined together. It clearly states 335.3 if you are exclusive. So, Yuri knows his math. It is obviously more easier to go with one agency than spreading your portfolio through all of them.
Nevertheless, mobile phone photo selling platforms are risk. Who dares wins - so Yuri I wish you luck in your business venture.
I, amongst the rest will stay with lower earning majority of this industry and avoid to become part of Getty/iStock machinery. At least we need to have some opposition to them - So I am there!
I don't think its clear at all that istock exclusives make more than non-exclusives. Yuri obviously thought being non-exclusive was more lucrative up until his meeting with Getty. None of us know how much they offered him to go exclusive. I don't think he did it just on the maths and he has obviously done a deal, as he is the only exclusive to still have tens of thousands of images on several istock rival sites.
I'm sure exclusivity will suit some people but I think the best time to do it was a few years ago and now is probably the worst time.
I also think that the majority of Istock exclusives at MSG are high enders and (here by in large to speak on behalf of IS) skew the results. I would venture to guess that most GAP's (generally accepted photographers) exclusives just upload and don't actively participate in forum discussions. I see by in large that MSG in general has a wide breadth of contributors, from beginners to experienced, most of whom are not exclusive to IS. This is to say that I personally believe that the numbers in the polls are more accurate for non-exclusives than for exclusives simply because of the breadth of responders and number of data points. Just my opinion, of course.
-
Yuri stated what he stated and the world is going on. Shutterstock, Fotolia or Dreamstime haven't stopped to perform, people are still sending tens of thousands pictures weekly, developers are still coding microstock upload and keywording software.
Why all this noise ? Do you feel insecure because of Yuri 's words? He can say whatever he want and people shudder with fear. Microstock's going to an end because of scoopshot and Yuri's mystical incentives and plans that 'we'll all see in 6 months' ? It's just noise.
It's time to stop blowing his own horn.
Peace,
Michal
-
54
iStockPhoto.com / Re: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive
« on: May 18, 2013, 01:31 »
Hi Guys.
We have found a good distribution partner (Getty Images) for the kind of content we produce. We will be removing all images from microstock doing the next few weeks. Microstock, especially subscription sites, are not suited for the kind of high production cost images we produce.
Best Yuri
80 days after and Yuri's portfolio is still selling at DT (we talking about 11.42 weeks)
-
54
iStockPhoto.com / Re: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive
« on: May 18, 2013, 01:31 »
Hi Guys.
We have found a good distribution partner (Getty Images) for the kind of content we produce. We will be removing all images from microstock doing the next few weeks. Microstock, especially subscription sites, are not suited for the kind of high production cost images we produce.
Best Yuri
80 days after and Yuri's portfolio is still selling at DT (we talking about 11.42 weeks)
Come on Luis, why wax on this when you know the drill. http://www.dreamstime.com/faqs-detail-2 (http://www.dreamstime.com/faqs-detail-2)
I am a contributor, how do I close my account?
A You can disable all files approved more than six months ago at any time. You are allowed to disable 30% of files uploaded in the recent six months however 70% must be kept online for six months from their approval date. You can disable the remaining 70% after six months pass. Once the files are disabled, nobody is able to view/access them, except for you. The files will remain in our offline database for 12 months until all liabilities (refunds, potential copyright infringements, etc) concerning them are cleared off, then they are automatically deleted.
The account cannot be closed until the above requirements of the contract expire. Accounts with activity (license/download) cannot be deleted, as they can be referenced internally in regards to past licensing. However, they can be blocked from public access. More account closure details can be found in our Terms and Conditions.
-
A You can disable all files approved more than six months ago at any time. You are allowed to disable 30% of files uploaded in the recent six months however 70% must be kept online for six months from their approval date. You can disable the remaining 70% after six months pass. Once the files are disabled, nobody is able to view/access them, except for you. The files will remain in our offline database for 12 months until all liabilities (refunds, potential copyright infringements, etc) concerning them are cleared off, then they are automatically deleted.
The account cannot be closed until the above requirements of the contract expire. Accounts with activity (license/download) cannot be deleted, as they can be referenced internally in regards to past licensing. However, they can be blocked from public access. More account closure details can be found in our Terms and Conditions.
"Professionals" would have planned appropriately, to be able to meet the requirements as needed.
-
A You can disable all files approved more than six months ago at any time. You are allowed to disable 30% of files uploaded in the recent six months however 70% must be kept online for six months from their approval date. You can disable the remaining 70% after six months pass. Once the files are disabled, nobody is able to view/access them, except for you. The files will remain in our offline database for 12 months until all liabilities (refunds, potential copyright infringements, etc) concerning them are cleared off, then they are automatically deleted.
The account cannot be closed until the above requirements of the contract expire. Accounts with activity (license/download) cannot be deleted, as they can be referenced internally in regards to past licensing. However, they can be blocked from public access. More account closure details can be found in our Terms and Conditions.
"Professionals" would have planned appropriately, to be able to meet the requirements as needed.
Why would he? If they told him it was ok not to worry about it, then there is no need to plan for that. He jumped ship and Getty accepts the fact that he is an exclusive contributor selling his images on several different stock agencies whilst paying him royalties as an exclusive. Why would we blame Yuri? Its Getty who needs to enforce that, not Yuri.
-
54
iStockPhoto.com / Re: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive
« on: May 18, 2013, 01:31 »
Hi Guys.
We have found a good distribution partner (Getty Images) for the kind of content we produce. We will be removing all images from microstock doing the next few weeks. Microstock, especially subscription sites, are not suited for the kind of high production cost images we produce.
Best Yuri
80 days after and Yuri's portfolio is still selling at DT (we talking about 11.42 weeks)
Come on Luis, why wax on this when you know the drill. [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/faqs-detail-2[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/faqs-detail-2[/url])
I am a contributor, how do I close my account?
A You can disable all files approved more than six months ago at any time. You are allowed to disable 30% of files uploaded in the recent six months however 70% must be kept online for six months from their approval date. You can disable the remaining 70% after six months pass. Once the files are disabled, nobody is able to view/access them, except for you. The files will remain in our offline database for 12 months until all liabilities (refunds, potential copyright infringements, etc) concerning them are cleared off, then they are automatically deleted.
The account cannot be closed until the above requirements of the contract expire. Accounts with activity (license/download) cannot be deleted, as they can be referenced internally in regards to past licensing. However, they can be blocked from public access. More account closure details can be found in our Terms and Conditions.
sorry but I believe you haven't read it properly, actually I have said it before in this topic, Yuri doesn't have a single file uploaded in the last 6 months (about 1k files close to 6 months, looking at ID number), all other were approved before that period
p.s: you got my minus
-
Why would he? If they told him it was ok not to worry about it, then there is no need to plan for that. He jumped ship and Getty accepts the fact that he is an exclusive contributor selling his images on several different stock agencies whilst paying him royalties as an exclusive. Why would we blame Yuri? Its Getty who needs to enforce that, not Yuri.
I would guess a "professional" who has his images tagged "Only From iStock" would have taken steps to ensure that is true, so as not to tarnish his "professional" label.
-
Why would he? If they told him it was ok not to worry about it, then there is no need to plan for that. He jumped ship and Getty accepts the fact that he is an exclusive contributor selling his images on several different stock agencies whilst paying him royalties as an exclusive. Why would we blame Yuri? Its Getty who needs to enforce that, not Yuri.
I would guess a "professional" who has his images tagged "Only From iStock" would have taken steps to ensure that is true, so as not to tarnish his "professional" label.
that is why professionals deal with professionals ;D
-
Why would he? If they told him it was ok not to worry about it, then there is no need to plan for that. He jumped ship and Getty accepts the fact that he is an exclusive contributor selling his images on several different stock agencies whilst paying him royalties as an exclusive. Why would we blame Yuri? Its Getty who needs to enforce that, not Yuri.
I would guess a "professional" who has his images tagged "Only From iStock" would have taken steps to ensure that is true, so as not to tarnish his "professional" label.
But thats a different issue as planning 6 months ahead which my comment was based on.
But he did defend the fact his images are all over the place. They are all partner sites of Getty. I havent heard the news from Serban yet, though, that they are now a Getty partner site.
-
A You can disable all files approved more than six months ago at any time. You are allowed to disable 30% of files uploaded in the recent six months however 70% must be kept online for six months from their approval date. You can disable the remaining 70% after six months pass. Once the files are disabled, nobody is able to view/access them, except for you. The files will remain in our offline database for 12 months until all liabilities (refunds, potential copyright infringements, etc) concerning them are cleared off, then they are automatically deleted.
The account cannot be closed until the above requirements of the contract expire. Accounts with activity (license/download) cannot be deleted, as they can be referenced internally in regards to past licensing. However, they can be blocked from public access. More account closure details can be found in our Terms and Conditions.
why could IS allow contributors still having massive files on other sites to be its ex memeber?thats totally unfair to us
-
why could IS allow contributors still having massive files on other sites to be its ex memeber?thats totally unfair to us
Agreed. But if there is one thing that is glaringly obvious about Getty, it is that they couldn't care less about fairness to (most) contributors.
-
why could IS allow contributors still having massive files on other sites to be its ex memeber?thats totally unfair to us
Agreed. But if there is one thing that is glaringly obvious about Getty, it is that they couldn't care less about fairness to (most) contributors.
Exactly
-
why could IS allow contributors still having massive files on other sites to be its ex memeber?thats totally unfair to us
Agreed. But if there is one thing that is glaringly obvious about Getty, it is that they couldn't care less about fairness to (most) contributors.
At Getty everything is fair as long as it benefits them.
Exactly
-
Well, Good Luck Yuri!
As you all can see the right side here under 'microstock poll results' it is more than clear that being iStock exclusive gives you more earnings than compared to all other places combined together. It clearly states 335.3 if you are exclusive. So, Yuri knows his math. It is obviously more easier to go with one agency than spreading your portfolio through all of them.
Nevertheless, mobile phone photo selling platforms are risk. Who dares wins - so Yuri I wish you luck in your business venture.
I, amongst the rest will stay with lower earning majority of this industry and avoid to become part of Getty/iStock machinery. At least we need to have some opposition to them - So I am there!
I don't think its clear at all that istock exclusives make more than non-exclusives. Yuri obviously thought being non-exclusive was more lucrative up until his meeting with Getty. None of us know how much they offered him to go exclusive. I don't think he did it just on the maths and he has obviously done a deal, as he is the only exclusive to still have tens of thousands of images on several istock rival sites.
I'm sure exclusivity will suit some people but I think the best time to do it was a few years ago and now is probably the worst time.
I also think that the majority of Istock exclusives at MSG are high enders and (here by in large to speak on behalf of IS) skew the results. I would venture to guess that most GAP's (generally accepted photographers) exclusives just upload and don't actively participate in forum discussions. I see by in large that MSG in general has a wide breadth of contributors, from beginners to experienced, most of whom are not exclusive to IS. This is to say that I personally believe that the numbers in the polls are more accurate for non-exclusives than for exclusives simply because of the breadth of responders and number of data points. Just my opinion, of course.
Yup. I reckon that the IS exclusive figure could be quite skewed too by small numbers of large volume accounts.
-
Well, Good Luck Yuri!
As you all can see the right side here under 'microstock poll results' it is more than clear that being iStock exclusive gives you more earnings than compared to all other places combined together. It clearly states 335.3 if you are exclusive. So, Yuri knows his math. It is obviously more easier to go with one agency than spreading your portfolio through all of them.
Nevertheless, mobile phone photo selling platforms are risk. Who dares wins - so Yuri I wish you luck in your business venture.
I, amongst the rest will stay with lower earning majority of this industry and avoid to become part of Getty/iStock machinery. At least we need to have some opposition to them - So I am there!
I don't think its clear at all that istock exclusives make more than non-exclusives. Yuri obviously thought being non-exclusive was more lucrative up until his meeting with Getty. None of us know how much they offered him to go exclusive. I don't think he did it just on the maths and he has obviously done a deal, as he is the only exclusive to still have tens of thousands of images on several istock rival sites.
I'm sure exclusivity will suit some people but I think the best time to do it was a few years ago and now is probably the worst time.
I also think that the majority of Istock exclusives at MSG are high enders and (here by in large to speak on behalf of IS) skew the results. I would venture to guess that most GAP's (generally accepted photographers) exclusives just upload and don't actively participate in forum discussions. I see by in large that MSG in general has a wide breadth of contributors, from beginners to experienced, most of whom are not exclusive to IS. This is to say that I personally believe that the numbers in the polls are more accurate for non-exclusives than for exclusives simply because of the breadth of responders and number of data points. Just my opinion, of course.
Yup. I reckon that the IS exclusive figure could be quite skewed too by small numbers of large volume accounts.
It can't be skewed too much the max you can enter is only $2500. A few years ago the average exclusive was making $30,000 per year (or $2500/month) so lots of exclusives now have their income under represented in the poll.
-
I still dont unserstand why yuri accurs came to this forum...to promote his new venture? We supposed not to make any benefit out of it,actually the way I see it after reading his posts is that our days as full timers microstockers are numbered, that only him and a handfull of photo factories aregoing to survive,he brings here bad news.
Thats the way I see it and I still dont understand why still are many people following him and praising him.
Please let me know in which way his new ideas and ventures could be more than the last nail in our coffins.
The only thing, with all my respects,I can from it is that he betrayed all his for many years policies and way of conducting his business in general.
Becaming Getty kind of exclusive contributor contradict his prior spreaded theories.
-
From Hero to Zero ;)
-
A few years ago the average exclusive was making $30,000 per year (or $2500/month) so lots of exclusives now have their income under represented in the poll.
Where do you get that figure and how are you working it out?
When iStockStats was working (preRCs), for a long time I was always around position 1880-5 in downloads. That was among all contributors, not just exclusives, and at that time there were said to be IIRC something around 4000-5000 exclusives. So I'd say that put me a bit above the average for exclusives for downloads. The top people would be earning much more, but some of the top downloaded togs were indies, just like now.
I can assure you that as an apparent 'average' exclusive at the time, I was earning quite a bit less than half of that.
So, where are you getting the 'average exclusive was earning $2500pm' figure from? No doubt a very few at the top were earning more than that, but I doubt very much if even the 'average earned by exclusives' was anything like that.
-
A few years ago the average exclusive was making $30,000 per year (or $2500/month) so lots of exclusives now have their income under represented in the poll.
Where do you get that figure and how are you working it out?
When iStockStats was working (preRCs), for a long time I was always around position 1880-5 in downloads. That was among all contributors, not just exclusives, and at that time there were said to be IIRC something around 4000-5000 exclusives. So I'd say that put me a bit above the average for exclusives for downloads. The top people would be earning much more, but some of the top downloaded togs were indies, just like now.
I can assure you that as an apparent 'average' exclusive at the time, I was earning quite a bit less than half of that.
So, where are you getting the 'average exclusive was earning $2500pm' figure from? No doubt a very few at the top were earning more than that, but I doubt very much if even the 'average earned by exclusives' was anything like that.
From the yearly poll here, should be about the same people answering the monthly poll so I chose that group. I meant it to be the average of people that participate on MSG, all the numbers would be much lower if you took into account people that uploaded 1 image in 2005 and never thought about it again. Your numbers would be for the median contributor not the average.
-
I guess only Leaf knows, and maybe even he doesn't, the number of iStock exclusives who participate in the monthly polls and annual questionnaire; and possibly whether it's been the same people for several years.
It's all moot anyway because it's about amount earned, not profit. Most of the people at the top have expensive shoots. Turnover is vanity; profit is sanity.
-
I guess only Leaf knows, and maybe even he doesn't, the number of iStock exclusives who participate in the monthly polls and annual questionnaire; and possibly whether it's been the same people for several years.
It's all moot anyway because it's about amount earned, not profit. Most of the people at the top have expensive shoots. Turnover is vanity; profit is sanity.
Ok you don't trust the poll and if you did trust it you think the numbers are meaningless anyway. I guess you should try not to pay much attention to it then. Until everyone sends you their tax filings I think this is the closest you're going to get to useful numbers to compare.
-
A few years ago the average exclusive was making $30,000 per year (or $2500/month) so lots of exclusives now have their income under represented in the poll.
Where do you get that figure and how are you working it out?
When iStockStats was working (preRCs), for a long time I was always around position 1880-5 in downloads. That was among all contributors, not just exclusives, and at that time there were said to be IIRC something around 4000-5000 exclusives. So I'd say that put me a bit above the average for exclusives for downloads. The top people would be earning much more, but some of the top downloaded togs were indies, just like now.
I can assure you that as an apparent 'average' exclusive at the time, I was earning quite a bit less than half of that.
So, where are you getting the 'average exclusive was earning $2500pm' figure from? No doubt a very few at the top were earning more than that, but I doubt very much if even the 'average earned by exclusives' was anything like that.
From the yearly poll here, should be about the same people answering the monthly poll so I chose that group. I meant it to be the average of people that participate on MSG, all the numbers would be much lower if you took into account people that uploaded 1 image in 2005 and never thought about it again. Your numbers would be for the median contributor not the average.
How utterly ridiculous. That's the most laughable 'extrapolation' of a tiny, non-representative, self-selecting, non-verifiable piece of 'data' I have ever had the misfortune to observe.
-
A few years ago the average exclusive was making $30,000 per year (or $2500/month) so lots of exclusives now have their income under represented in the poll.
Where do you get that figure and how are you working it out?
When iStockStats was working (preRCs), for a long time I was always around position 1880-5 in downloads. That was among all contributors, not just exclusives, and at that time there were said to be IIRC something around 4000-5000 exclusives. So I'd say that put me a bit above the average for exclusives for downloads. The top people would be earning much more, but some of the top downloaded togs were indies, just like now.
I can assure you that as an apparent 'average' exclusive at the time, I was earning quite a bit less than half of that.
So, where are you getting the 'average exclusive was earning $2500pm' figure from? No doubt a very few at the top were earning more than that, but I doubt very much if even the 'average earned by exclusives' was anything like that.
From the yearly poll here, should be about the same people answering the monthly poll so I chose that group. I meant it to be the average of people that participate on MSG, all the numbers would be much lower if you took into account people that uploaded 1 image in 2005 and never thought about it again. Your numbers would be for the median contributor not the average.
How utterly ridiculous. That's the most laughable 'extrapolation' of a tiny, non-representative, self-selecting, non-verifiable piece of 'data' I have ever had the misfortune to observe.
So apparently a lot of people find that the poll has NO reason to exist (because they don't like the results of it maybe?). If the poll contains no data then perhaps we should ask Leaf to get rid of it. I think you are misreading what I'm saying also, there is no extrapolation. I'm talking just about this small group of contributors who participate on MSG and fill out the poll. I would rather compare myself to a selfselected group of contributors that are active in this industry, I don't see it being beneficial to look at the 75%(or whatever number) of contributors that are not active. That group is not representative of me and doesn't add anything to my understanding of the business.
The point of that statement of mine was that $2500/month was too low of a maximum because according to the yearly poll the average exclusive made that much. Setting the maximum at the average seems to me to keep the number lower than it should be.
And here is what I was talking about: http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/ (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/)
-
Well, I would consider myself a fairly "average" exclusive, but like ShadySue, I don't make anywhere near $2500/month on iStock, and even my BME isn't close.
I suspect it's a case where the sample size and variation is such that the average isn't very representative; it is likely skewed by a few very high earners against a large number of moderate sellers. I would think the median figure given in the poll, $12,405/annum, is much closer to the experience for most of us. Certainly it's a lot more like mine.
-
Well, I would consider myself a fairly "average" exclusive, but like ShadySue, I don't make anywhere near $2500/month on iStock, and even my BME isn't close.
I suspect it's a case where the sample size and variation is such that the average isn't very representative; it is likely skewed by a few very high earners against a large number of moderate sellers. I would think the median figure given in the poll, $12,405/annum, is much closer to the experience for most of us. Certainly it's a lot more like mine.
There are a lot of people doing it full time and $12,000 is nowhere near enough for a full time living so I'm pretty sure there are many people making more than that.
-
Well, I would consider myself a fairly "average" exclusive, but like ShadySue, I don't make anywhere near $2500/month on iStock, and even my BME isn't close.
I suspect it's a case where the sample size and variation is such that the average isn't very representative; it is likely skewed by a few very high earners against a large number of moderate sellers. I would think the median figure given in the poll, $12,405/annum, is much closer to the experience for most of us. Certainly it's a lot more like mine.
There are a lot of people doing it full time and $12,000 is nowhere near enough for a full time living so I'm pretty sure there are many people making more than that.
Gosh! Thanks for that. You really know how to do your research don't you? At the risk of paraphrasing you, "I'm pretty sure" that you haven't got a * clue what you are talking about!
You are just pulling numbers, any numbers, out of the air and using them to support your hilarious and absurd assumptions about the obviously failing Istockphoto and the income of their unfortunate and gullible exclusives, of which sadly, you are one (but probably not for too much longer).
-
Well, I would consider myself a fairly "average" exclusive, but like ShadySue, I don't make anywhere near $2500/month on iStock, and even my BME isn't close.
I suspect it's a case where the sample size and variation is such that the average isn't very representative; it is likely skewed by a few very high earners against a large number of moderate sellers. I would think the median figure given in the poll, $12,405/annum, is much closer to the experience for most of us. Certainly it's a lot more like mine.
There are a lot of people doing it full time and $12,000 is nowhere near enough for a full time living so I'm pretty sure there are many people making more than that.
Gosh! Thanks for that. You really know how to do your research don't you? At the risk of paraphrasing you, "I'm pretty sure" that you haven't got a * clue what you are talking about!
You are just pulling numbers, any numbers, out of the air and using them to support your hilarious and absurd assumptions about the obviously failing Istockphoto and the income of their unfortunate and gullible exclusives, of which sadly, you are one (but probably not for too much longer).
So if my own numbers, the monthly poll, and the yearly polls aren't acceptable which numbers do you take to be ok? It sounds to me like you just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.
-
Well, I would consider myself a fairly "average" exclusive, but like ShadySue, I don't make anywhere near $2500/month on iStock, and even my BME isn't close.
I suspect it's a case where the sample size and variation is such that the average isn't very representative; it is likely skewed by a few very high earners against a large number of moderate sellers. I would think the median figure given in the poll, $12,405/annum, is much closer to the experience for most of us. Certainly it's a lot more like mine.
There are a lot of people doing it full time and $12,000 is nowhere near enough for a full time living so I'm pretty sure there are many people making more than that.
Gosh! Thanks for that. You really know how to do your research don't you? At the risk of paraphrasing you, "I'm pretty sure" that you haven't got a * clue what you are talking about!
You are just pulling numbers, any numbers, out of the air and using them to support your hilarious and absurd assumptions about the obviously failing Istockphoto and the income of their unfortunate and gullible exclusives, of which sadly, you are one (but probably not for too much longer).
So if my own numbers, the monthly poll, and the yearly polls aren't acceptable which numbers do you take to be ok? It sounds to me like you just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.
truth be told, there is so much negative speculation and assumptions about anything GI/IS by a very select few, they assume that we are all at the bottom of the tank and that GI/IS are sinking. let them assume...
-
So if my own numbers, the monthly poll, and the yearly polls aren't acceptable which numbers do you take to be ok? It sounds to me like you just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.
No. I'm only dismissing your 'numbers' that are based on nothing at all. If I drove down a road and happened to see 2 rabbits and one cow, by your assumptions, there therefore must be twice as many rabbits as cows in the world. Even more bizarrely, you've even managed to extrapolate, supposedly, how much the average rabbit must be earning! Are you really so stupid that you don't appreciate that you can't actually multiply bananas by coconuts to work out how apples per square metre you will need to tile your bathroom? That's how ridiculous your extrapolations are.
-
So if my own numbers, the monthly poll, and the yearly polls aren't acceptable which numbers do you take to be ok? It sounds to me like you just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.
No. I'm only dismissing your 'numbers' that are based on nothing at all. If I drove down a road and happened to see 2 rabbits and one cow, by your assumptions, there therefore must be twice as many rabbits as cows in the world. Even more bizarrely, you've even managed to extrapolate, supposedly, how much the average rabbit must be earning! Are you really so stupid that you don't appreciate that you can't actually multiply bananas by coconuts to work out how apples per square metre you will need to tile your bathroom? That's how ridiculous your extrapolations are.
I understand your thing is to try to be as insulting as possible in order to get a rise out of people, once again your first impulse is to resort to name calling. I can only assume you are a sad, pathetic, jealous old man.
-
...It sounds to me like you just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.
No offense but aren't you doing the same? You seem to be on this mission to get people to believe that being exclusive is far superior to the alternative, and you seem to be equally dismissive of anything that suggests otherwise. In our direct exchanges on the subject, you've completely dismissed my stance on the subject, even though my own numbers are pretty clear on where I'm better off.
I seriously wonder why you bother with all of this. Why does it matter to you that some of us just don't like the exclusive offer and really are better off without it?
-
...It sounds to me like you just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.
No offense but aren't you doing the same? You seem to be on this mission to get people to believe that being exclusive is far superior to the alternative, and you seem to be equally dismissive of anything that suggests otherwise. In our direct exchanges on the subject, you've completely dismissed my stance on the subject, even though my own numbers are pretty clear on where I'm better off.
I seriously wonder why you bother with all of this. Why does it matter to you that some of us just don't like the exclusive offer and really are better off without it?
I never dismissed you. From what I remember I agreed with you that it wouldn't make sense for you to go exclusive. There are lots of people that it probably doesn't make sense for, I think that's clear. I can't remember ever, even once, saying that everyone (or even most people) should be exclusive.
-
So if my own numbers, the monthly poll, and the yearly polls aren't acceptable which numbers do you take to be ok? It sounds to me like you just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.
No. I'm only dismissing your 'numbers' that are based on nothing at all. If I drove down a road and happened to see 2 rabbits and one cow, by your assumptions, there therefore must be twice as many rabbits as cows in the world. Even more bizarrely, you've even managed to extrapolate, supposedly, how much the average rabbit must be earning! Are you really so stupid that you don't appreciate that you can't actually multiply bananas by coconuts to work out how apples per square metre you will need to tile your bathroom? That's how ridiculous your extrapolations are.
I understand your thing is to try to be as insulting as possible in order to get a rise out of people, once again your first impulse is to resort to name calling. I can only assume you are a sad, pathetic, jealous old man.
if you started your "career" in stock photography as a rank amateur by entering in the microstock world with little to no experience (the overwhelming majority of microstock photographers) and use the argument clause of the 'trads' and 'closed shop', then yes i see a developed pattern of bitterness and jealousy by many on these forums (more so from certain continual complainers) as they have more or less it their plateau. i think we all have choices, and if your choice is to be non-exclusive so be it, this might be the only way to make it worthwhile within the ranks by squeezing pennies from multiple microstock agencies.
however, if you are a developed and/or truly professional photographer and consistently create good stock worthy images that the market demands, then there is not one reason that i can think of why one would not be exclusive and make dollars from one or two carefully selected options.
for me exclusivity works wonders. i can place my second tier images on IS, some of which make it onto GI and i can also submit directly to GI. i can double dip and make a great living doing so.
i made it as a 'trad' in the 'closed shop' and anyone can provided they have the skill to do so, and for those that don't, well there is always multiple micros and endless complaining...
this will most certainly piss a few people off and reward me with countless -1, -2, etc, but ain't the truth a b!tch.
-
I never dismissed you. From what I remember I agreed with you that it wouldn't make sense for you to go exclusive. There are lots of people that it probably doesn't make sense for, I think that's clear. I can't remember ever, even once, saying that everyone (or even most people) should be exclusive.
Actually, you kinda did. I mentioned that I make only 5% of my microstock income from istock and there's no way I'd make up the difference by being exclusive, and you suggested that with Vetta and the increased earnings percentage, it might be possible.
In reality I think we both know it was just wishful thinking on your part that it is even remotely possible that anyone could make up the missing 95%. People have reported nice gains from going exclusive, but a jump of 20x current earnings? Come on.
If that's not dismissing the fact that I'd be worse off as an exclusive, I'm not sure what is.
-
I never dismissed you. From what I remember I agreed with you that it wouldn't make sense for you to go exclusive. There are lots of people that it probably doesn't make sense for, I think that's clear. I can't remember ever, even once, saying that everyone (or even most people) should be exclusive.
Actually, you kinda did. I mentioned that I make only 5% of my microstock income from istock and there's no way I'd make up the difference by being exclusive, and you suggested that with Vetta and the increased earnings percentage, it might be possible.
In reality I think we both know it was just wishful thinking on your part that it is even remotely possible that anyone could make up the missing 95%. People have reported nice gains from going exclusive, but a jump of 20x current earnings? Come on.
If that's not dismissing the fact that I'd be worse off as an exclusive, I'm not sure what is.
Actually you said there was no possible way the math would work out and I gave a scenario where it would, I didn't say you would make that, just that it was mathematically possible. Especially now look at the difference in pricing between an XXXL non exclusive and an XXXL Vetta, it's 23 times more and add to that the increase in royalty % and you're at 30x. I'm not saying all your content would be made Vetta, just that it is a mathematical possibility which you said it wasn't. Hopefully this cleared up your misunderstanding a little.
ETA my own estimate for how much I would lose at Istock by going nonexclusive is over 90%.
-
Well, I would consider myself a fairly "average" exclusive, but like ShadySue, I don't make anywhere near $2500/month on iStock, and even my BME isn't close.
I suspect it's a case where the sample size and variation is such that the average isn't very representative; it is likely skewed by a few very high earners against a large number of moderate sellers. I would think the median figure given in the poll, $12,405/annum, is much closer to the experience for most of us. Certainly it's a lot more like mine.
There are a lot of people doing it full time and $12,000 is nowhere near enough for a full time living so I'm pretty sure there are many people making more than that.
But the figures from the poll you are quoting don't refer only to full time exclusives.
-
Actually you said there was no possible way the math would work out and I gave a scenario where it would, I didn't say you would make that, just that it was mathematically possible. Especially now look at the difference in pricing between an XXXL non exclusive and an XXXL Vetta, it's 23 times more and add to that the increase in royalty % and you're at 30x. I'm not saying all your content would be made Vetta, just that it is a mathematical possibility which you said it wasn't.
Since the collections change farce, it seems that only the 'in crowd' get their files made Vetta or S+ - there are a lot of complaints about it over on the iS forums. So if you are already in that group, fair enough; but it's unlikely a new 'real' exclusive would get these promotions. The new faux-exclusives have their own deal.
So mathematically possible, maybe, but very hypothetical.
Then there's the question as to whether your one's higher-priced files would sell.
Your personal experience doesn't appear to be the norm for posters here or over there; I accept that there are plenty of iS exclusives at all points on the scale who don't post to forums.
-
Since the collections change farce, it seems that only the 'in crowd' get their files made Vetta or S+ - there are a lot of complaints about it over on the iS forums. So if you are already in that group, fair enough; but it's unlikely a new 'real' exclusive would get these promotions. The new faux-exclusives have their own deal.
So mathematically possible, maybe, but very hypothetical.
Then there's the question as to whether your one's higher-priced files would sell.
Your personal experience doesn't appear to be the norm for posters here or over there; I accept that there are plenty of iS exclusives at all points on the scale who don't post to forums.
I'm certainly not part of any 'in-crowd' at iStock but I'm still getting a few Vettas and S+ images in.
It feels like the Vetta / S+ criteria has returned to normal (i.e. your best images in great light of interesting subjects) to me.
Since they removed the Vetta limits I'm also bolder in selecting images to be judged for those collections too.
None of this diminishes any of the other problems there, but I don't think this is one.
-
Since the collections change farce, it seems that only the 'in crowd' get their files made Vetta or S+ - there are a lot of complaints about it over on the iS forums. So if you are already in that group, fair enough; but it's unlikely a new 'real' exclusive would get these promotions. The new faux-exclusives have their own deal.
So mathematically possible, maybe, but very hypothetical.
Then there's the question as to whether your one's higher-priced files would sell.
Your personal experience doesn't appear to be the norm for posters here or over there; I accept that there are plenty of iS exclusives at all points on the scale who don't post to forums.
I'm certainly not part of any 'in-crowd' at iStock but I'm still getting a few Vettas and S+ images in.
It feels like the Vetta / S+ criteria has returned to normal (i.e. your best images in great light of interesting subjects) to me.
Since they removed the Vetta limits I'm also bolder in selecting images to be judged for those collections too.
None of this diminishes any of the other problems there, but I don't think this is one.
Interesting, and looking at latest uploads by Vetta, there is a wider range or contributors featured than when the Collections first started, e.g. as reported here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354349&page=43 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354349&page=43)
I was going by some posts I'd read in the exclusive forum by people who had Vettas before not getting V or S+ now. I haven't nominated a file since April 2010, haven't uploaded since 7 July and have only uploaded 'markers' since early May.
-
The Wackerhausens must be reading this thread with a bucket of popcorn and a big smile on their face.
-
Since the collections change farce, it seems that only the 'in crowd' get their files made Vetta or S+ - there are a lot of complaints about it over on the iS forums. So if you are already in that group, fair enough; but it's unlikely a new 'real' exclusive would get these promotions. The new faux-exclusives have their own deal.
So mathematically possible, maybe, but very hypothetical.
Then there's the question as to whether your one's higher-priced files would sell.
Your personal experience doesn't appear to be the norm for posters here or over there; I accept that there are plenty of iS exclusives at all points on the scale who don't post to forums.
I'm certainly not part of any 'in-crowd' at iStock but I'm still getting a few Vettas and S+ images in.
It feels like the Vetta / S+ criteria has returned to normal (i.e. your best images in great light of interesting subjects) to me.
Since they removed the Vetta limits I'm also bolder in selecting images to be judged for those collections too.
None of this diminishes any of the other problems there, but I don't think this is one.
I'm not in any in crowd either. I've actually held off on uploading most of my new content for a couple of months and focused more on creating work for when things get fixed.
Shady I haven't heard how new exclusives files are getting treated, when they changed the collections they automatically moved up files that sold a lot.
-
Well, I would consider myself a fairly "average" exclusive, but like ShadySue, I don't make anywhere near $2500/month on iStock, and even my BME isn't close.
I suspect it's a case where the sample size and variation is such that the average isn't very representative; it is likely skewed by a few very high earners against a large number of moderate sellers. I would think the median figure given in the poll, $12,405/annum, is much closer to the experience for most of us. Certainly it's a lot more like mine.
There are a lot of people doing it full time and $12,000 is nowhere near enough for a full time living so I'm pretty sure there are many people making more than that.
But the figures from the poll you are quoting don't refer only to full time exclusives.
Right, my only point about this was that the poll should have the maximum amount one can enter raised from $2500. The poll is supposed to be showing an average though, not a median. I would guess you are correct about the median for an exclusive here being close to $12,000/year but there are at least a few people making a full time living at it and it doesn't really make sense to not count them in the polls. This is the "Professional Microstock Forum" and limiting the maximum income allowed in the poll to $30,000 doesn't seem quite high enough for professionals.
-
Actually you said there was no possible way the math would work out and I gave a scenario where it would, I didn't say you would make that, just that it was mathematically possible. Especially now look at the difference in pricing between an XXXL non exclusive and an XXXL Vetta, it's 23 times more and add to that the increase in royalty % and you're at 30x. I'm not saying all your content would be made Vetta, just that it is a mathematical possibility which you said it wasn't. Hopefully this cleared up your misunderstanding a little.
ETA my own estimate for how much I would lose at Istock by going nonexclusive is over 90%.
Mathematically possible? Sure, fine. But I'm not running my business on long-shot remote possibilities.
It still seems like it is your belief that it is possible that anyone, even someone like me with so low of a percentage of my income coming from istock, can do better with the crown. And yet everything I've seen and heard tells me that it is impossible my earnings would multiple by 20x if I were exclusive. Have you ever heard of a case where someone's income jumped that much when they became exclusive? The best I've ever heard of is folks reporting 3x or 4x previous earnings.
I just think it's kind of funny that you'll call other people dismissive when it is pretty clear you aren't really open to any beliefs and assumptions other than your own.
-
Actually you said there was no possible way the math would work out and I gave a scenario where it would, I didn't say you would make that, just that it was mathematically possible. Especially now look at the difference in pricing between an XXXL non exclusive and an XXXL Vetta, it's 23 times more and add to that the increase in royalty % and you're at 30x. I'm not saying all your content would be made Vetta, just that it is a mathematical possibility which you said it wasn't. Hopefully this cleared up your misunderstanding a little.
ETA my own estimate for how much I would lose at Istock by going nonexclusive is over 90%.
Mathematically possible? Sure, fine. But I'm not running my business on long-shot remote possibilities.
It still seems like it is your belief that it is possible that anyone, even someone like me with so low of a percentage of my income coming from istock, can do better with the crown. And yet everything I've seen and heard tells me that it is impossible my earnings would multiple by 20x if I were exclusive. Have you ever heard of a case where someone's income jumped that much when they became exclusive? The best I've ever heard of is folks reporting 3x or 4x previous earnings.
I just think it's kind of funny that you'll call other people dismissive when it is pretty clear you aren't really open to any beliefs and assumptions other than your own.
These are your exact words "I know that if my istock income is 5% of my total monthly microstock income, there is no mathematical way possible that going exclusive would make up the missing 95%."
It is mathematically possible, that's all I said. If a large portion of your files gets moved to Vetta (remember you get 30+ times more from that) then it is possible. Also you get Getty sales, for some people those equal Istock sales, for me it's about 33% of Istock sales.
From my own numbers I would guess that dropping exclusivity would result in at least 90% reduction in earnings and I don't have a lot of Vetta files, people with a good amount of Vetta files would drop much further. I don't think I'm being dismissive at all, I'm looking at all of the data available and making an educated guess that you don't agree with.
-
I make 0% of my income at IS, so I'm going with mathematically impossible. ;D
-
I make 0% of my income at IS, so I'm going with mathematically impossible. ;D
Can't argue with that.
-
I make 0% of my income at IS, so I'm going with mathematically impossible. ;D
Can't argue with that.
In all seriousness, 30% I would think would be the point you should start looking at it. Anything below that seems like an unsafe bet.
-
I make 0% of my income at IS, so I'm going with mathematically impossible. ;D
Can't argue with that.
In all seriousness, 30% I would think would be the point you should start looking at it. Anything below that seems like an unsafe bet.
Right now I'd say 20% is pretty much a guarantee and 10% isn't crazy (and for embermike, 5% is possible). Minimally pricing differences are around 4x and royalty rates are 2x so without considering search position, moving up a level from higher RCs, higher PP earnings, Vetta, S+, or Getty you would be making 8x more per sale. It's probably different for illustrators, I don't really have much of an idea what's going on there these days.
-
I make 0% of my income at IS, so I'm going with mathematically impossible. ;D
Can't argue with that.
In all seriousness, 30% I would think would be the point you should start looking at it. Anything below that seems like an unsafe bet.
Right now I'd say 20% is pretty much a guarantee and 10% isn't crazy (and for embermike, 5% is possible). Minimally pricing differences are around 4x and royalty rates are 2x so without considering search position, moving up a level from higher RCs, higher PP earnings, Vetta, S+, or Getty you would be making 8x more per sale. It's probably different for illustrators, I don't really have much of an idea what's going on there these days.
8 times your current? That's a fantasy land.
-
I make 0% of my income at IS, so I'm going with mathematically impossible. ;D
Can't argue with that.
In all seriousness, 30% I would think would be the point you should start looking at it. Anything below that seems like an unsafe bet.
Right now I'd say 20% is pretty much a guarantee and 10% isn't crazy (and for embermike, 5% is possible). Minimally pricing differences are around 4x and royalty rates are 2x so without considering search position, moving up a level from higher RCs, higher PP earnings, Vetta, S+, or Getty you would be making 8x more per sale. It's probably different for illustrators, I don't really have much of an idea what's going on there these days.
8 times your current? That's a fantasy land.
8x current RPD, right now. I don't think that's really in dispute, is it? All nonexclusive images are 1-7 credits, S pricing(which all new exclusive content goes into and most every old file with a sale) is at 5-28 credits so about 4x. Royalty rates are about 2x for exclusives over nonexclusives. 2x and 4x is 8x. That assumes none of your files are moved to S+ or Vetta in which case the price goes to about 8x and 23x respectively, with RPD increases of 16x and 30x.
-
It would depend totally whether the files have any indie rivals, which buyers can see at a glance is cheaper. Conversely, it isn't obvious in a search (and of course, iStock did it deliberately, just to piss off buyers) which exclusive files are available at main price. Although they lied that the collections change was to make things more transparent to to the buyers, before the change the price symbol was visible on a search.
Certainly don't consider search position. In my regular checks, which are of small search results (so that they're all on one page) there seem to be a few exclusive at the top, then a big swathe of indies in the middle, then exclusives with 1-10 downloads at the bottom. Only a few very old 'oddities' disturb that pattern. However, I can't be bothered analysing huge searches like 'sexy businesswoman', which could well have a different pattern.
-
It would depend totally whether the files have any indie rivals, which buyers can see at a glance is cheaper. Conversely, it isn't obvious in a search (and of course, iStock did it deliberately, just to piss off buyers) which exclusive files are available at main price. Although they lied that the collections change was to make things more transparent to to the buyers, before the change the price symbol was visible on a search.
Certainly don't consider search position. In my regular checks, which are of small search results (so that they're all on one page) there seem to be a few exclusive at the top, then a big swathe of indies in the middle, then exclusives with 1-10 downloads at the bottom. Only a few very old 'oddities' disturb that pattern. However, I can't be bothered analysing huge searches like 'sexy businesswoman', which could well have a different pattern.
I don't know about that at all, most all the searches I do have way more exclusive files in the first 200 than nonexclusive files, like 90% on a lot of searches. 92% of the first 200 for 'new york city', 95% for 'businesswoman'. Is it honestly your belief that if you gave up exclusivity your files would get better best match treatment? I don't believe that for one second.
-
These are your exact words "I know that if my istock income is 5% of my total monthly microstock income, there is no mathematical way possible that going exclusive would make up the missing 95%."
It is mathematically possible, that's all I said. If a large portion of your files gets moved to Vetta (remember you get 30+ times more from that) then it is possible. Also you get Getty sales, for some people those equal Istock sales, for me it's about 33% of Istock sales.
From my own numbers I would guess that dropping exclusivity would result in at least 90% reduction in earnings and I don't have a lot of Vetta files, people with a good amount of Vetta files would drop much further. I don't think I'm being dismissive at all, I'm looking at all of the data available and making an educated guess that you don't agree with.
Ok, I stand corrected. Mathematically it is possible.
Realistically, it's not. To my knowledge, no one has ever gone exclusive and reported the kind of bump in earnings you think it possible. But I'd be happy to hear about anyone you know of who did achieve such a result.
Like you, I'm looking at all of the data available and making an educated guess. I don't see any data to suggest that a boost in sales of 20x previous non-exclusive earnings is at all a likely outcome for anyone, regardless of whether it's mathematically possible or not.
-
8x current RPD, right now. I don't think that's really in dispute, is it? All nonexclusive images are 1-7 credits, S pricing(which all new exclusive content goes into and most every old file with a sale) is at 5-28 credits so about 4x. Royalty rates are about 2x for exclusives over nonexclusives. 2x and 4x is 8x. That assumes none of your files are moved to S+ or Vetta in which case the price goes to about 8x and 23x respectively, with RPD increases of 16x and 30x.
Sorry. I thought you meant 8 times income not RPD.
-
This is a tiny search (as of this morning) but the same now, on a low-supply, low demand search term ("Eurasian Siskin"). It's the smallest of my regular tests that I upload 'markers' for:
(http://www.lizworld.com/Siskins.jpg)
Other bigger search results (still under 200) show a similar distribution.
I can't work out at all what is factoring into this long-lasting best match, other than exclusive files with ten or fewer files are punished severely. Eleven gets them into that >10 category which is favoured.
Your search could possibly yield the same results overall. 95% of the first 200 being exclusive on an enormous search like businesswoman could just be a 'small tip'.
I didn't say that I'd definitely have better placement being indie. I do say that Lobo's 'shouted' "Always. Period" is still a hollow promise, but what else is new?
-
I've never heard of anyone reporting an 800% or 1000% increase in earnings upon going exclusive. 150-300%, maybe 4 times if your style is really suited for istock and they choose a lot of vettas AND they sell...
And lately all you here is people losing money, even from those who contribute over 1900 new filesin 12months...
The price of your files will increase if you go exclusive, but the volume of sales will drop and on Vettas your royalty will be lower than on the S+ files.
I am sure the earnings poll on the right is correct, but you cannot use it to imply that anyones portfolio will see a 1000% increase in earnings upon going exclusive.
If this was happening we would all know about it. The istock community might be scared to post on the istock forums, but they are all extremly well connected, especially those who do it full time.
-
Good post with thought behind it Leo... so different than the non stop micro background buzz.
Who can blame Jacob for parking his images where he feels they will hold their value best. He worked hard and non stop to build his brand. It is pretty clear that the sites have no interest in protecting the value of our assets. In their race for market share, they are perfectly willing to drive the value of our hard work down to quickly fill their pockets. They do not want to wait the 20 or 50 years that companies did in the past to build net worth. They are perfectly willing to take it out of our own hides in the short term.
I think people are so quick to find fault with Yuri that they take his comment's out of context. For instance I suspect that this comment was NOT an insult to other microstockers but a reference to his own decisions over the last few years. "and desperately trying to hold on to ones own wrong ones"
The marketing hype does get old and is offensive considering the state of the market. In any case I am finding the non stop snooping into other peoples ports and business counter productive. Minding everyone else's business has become a trend here and on other micro sites. The fork in the road is getting closer and we should be taking Leo's and Jacob's lead of focusing on our backup plan; what ever we individually decide that should be.
Nicely said.
-
c'mon guys, Yuri's press release if of course a funny PR stunt but i've seen a lot worse in other industries.
i don't have the feeling Yuri reached the point where he's believing his own sh-it, he's just having a laugh on micro agencies and SS in particular, guess he still has a chip on the shoulder with them ?
you're all angry because Yuri was the living proof it was possible to make a living with microstock alone and now you're shocked and despaired to be told by the king himself that you better go back to macro agencies as micro is financially unsustainable as it is today.
so you feel betrayed and rejected by the guy you idolized for so long but seriously i can't see any mind control tricks in his statements, just common marketing BS you can read in any other press release, i think he was just in a happy mood drinking a couple beers and wanting to have fun on you guys.
He's having a laugh and you're having a laugh but it doesn't make me angry, I find it funny. Yuri is a factory, has nothing at all in common with the cheap way the vast majority of microstockers work. It looks like he's been paid off by Getty, good for him. I'll carry on doing what I want to do and not taking advice from people that know nothing about working with very low expenses. I don't want to be the owner of a big business or have to work only with Getty. I'm quite happy as a sole trader. There's problems with microstock but there's also problems with the traditional sites and we all have to deal with them in our own way.
It's a shame we can't all get together and work on the real problem, sites that are making huge profits while reducing the commission they pay us. They always seem to get the last laugh. Imagine how funny they find these threads with stock contributors bickering when it takes the attention away from what they're doing.
In the state of things, no chance. Work together? A union you mean? I really put thought into that, but decided to abandon it primarily because of the people that would be "in the union". Not a chance that would have worked.
-
Yuri got outcompeted, so he blamed it on the business model and escaped into a special deal. The macro agencies basically did / doing the same thing, didn't help them either.
HAHAHA. At 350% above my next competitor I hardly think that is the case. :)
-
I've never heard of anyone reporting an 800% or 1000% increase in earnings upon going exclusive. 150-300%, maybe 4 times if your style is really suited for istock and they choose a lot of vettas AND they sell...
And lately all you here is people losing money, even from those who contribute over 1900 new filesin 12months...
The price of your files will increase if you go exclusive, but the volume of sales will drop and on Vettas your royalty will be lower than on the S+ files.
I am sure the earnings poll on the right is correct, but you cannot use it to imply that anyones portfolio will see a 1000% increase in earnings upon going exclusive.
If this was happening we would all know about it. The istock community might be scared to post on the istock forums, but they are all extremly well connected, especially those who do it full time.
Just a few numbers from my own sales, 50% of my last 100 sales were S+ and Vetta, and 40% were S so that makes my RPD around 13x what it would have been if I was nonexclusive getting those same sales.
If "all you hear is people losing money" then I think you aren't listening. The earnings thread where you talk about the person uploading 1900 files and losing money has a black diamond and other diamonds saying they are up year on year, more than just a couple too. I also think most people there are reporting just on Istock numbers and not accounting for Getty Images sales, after all those haven't come in yet. My Istock sales are lower but most months GI sales have balanced that out or increased it.
-
I can't help but think that with Yuri's background in psychology, he's playing a game with us here. This forum has an anti Getty/istock bias and Yuri going exclusive was never going to make him more popular. Then he invests in a site that could potentially damage microstock. So now he can play games, as he's no longer the independent microstockers hero. I find it hard to believe he wouldn't of been aware of the reaction he would get to his statement and some of his recent posts here.
With all due respect I would not consider BA in psychology in some Danish school a <<psychology background>>
Utterly disrespectful.
I agree here. Many things can be said about me, but that the line of psychology at Aarhus University is "second grade" is very untrue. To enter, you have to be in the top 2% (top 1% for most districts). Some respect is deserved here :)
-
... he got the foot in the door with IS at the right time and at the right place, found his own "gold mine" and executed his business plan better than all the other players...
Did he? Really? I think that's a highly debatable point.
I'd argue that other people are far more successful than Yuri, people who are making good money without all of the overhead he has. Honestly I cant imagine how he makes any money when he has 100 employees to pay and his whole business brings in less than $10 million. Sounds like a lot of money but it doesn't go far when you've got so many mouths to feed.
ironically for photographers, your limit is not seeing the whole picture ...
Could say the same for you, ignoring the big part of the picture where Yuri not only has a ton of money coming in but also has a ton going out the door also.
We will just have to wait and see who wins as the most expansive company in Denmark next year wont we. :)
-
We will just have to wait and see who wins as the most expansive company in Denmark next year wont we. :)
Microstock is still a global industry, no? And success in it isn't limited to people with large companies. In fact, I don't see how your company's status in Denmark has anything to do with how well you're doing relative to other successful microstock folks.
-
tickstock, as you know, I used to work closely with many people in the istock community. And if you want to see monthly sales threads that give a very positive impression of success and overall well being of the company, why don't you go back two or three years and look at the threads there. The sales threads happening now are unbelievably depressing.And the reports from the network grid are even worse and the majority of community interaction is no longer taking place on the istock forums. You don't seem to be using them yourself...
istock is a shadow of what it used to be, wether it is growth, money, trust, business vision etc...
Which is a great shame, they made it really easy for SS and other competitors.
Maybe Yuri can help them, but it doesn't sound like he is going to work with them in any business development position.
But he is very intelligent, so maybe they can pick his brain for fresh ideas in their struggle to stop the loss of market share and good people giving up exclusivity.
There is a lot istock can do to move away from the icebergs. But so far the changes this year don't look very promising. Unfortunately. I really would prefer to see them turn things round. I believe that balance in the market is best for the contributors, irrespective wether you are exclusive or indie.
-
Yuri got outcompeted, so he blamed it on the business model and escaped into a special deal. The macro agencies basically did / doing the same thing, didn't help them either.
HAHAHA. At 350% above my next competitor I hardly think that is the case. :)
Are you sure its 350%? Calculating isnt your strong point ;)
-
The sales threads happening now are unbelievably depressing.And the reports from the network grid are even worse and the majority of community interaction is no longer taking place on the istock forums. You don't seem to be using them yourself...
I assume they weren't offering us vector peeps 20% again because everything was peachy either.
-
tickstock, as you know, I used to work closely with many people in the istock community. And if you want to see monthly sales threads that give a very positive impression of success and overall well being of the company, why don't you go back two or three years and look at the threads there. The sales threads happening now are unbelievably depressing.And the reports from the network grid are even worse and the majority of community interaction is no longer taking place on the istock forums. You don't seem to be using them yourself...
Don't get me wrong, I know there are a lot of people doing worse than they used to be. The question is still whether or not it's better to be exclusive or not. Comparing a few years ago to now isn't really that useful, we can't go back there (for me it's better now, so that's ok). Just saying Istock is much worse than it was doesn't mean that anything and everything else out there is better.
-
Well, old threads show you a time when the company was doing well and the threads reflected that. So I guess it is normal to use them as an indicator. Threads, forums, community network. What else do contributors have?
The most important is the future obviously. And the tea leaves I read tell me istock is going down and in the 3 months since being indie all that I see happening at istock makes me grateful I made the jump. I probably should have left much earlier, but like many I waited and waited and waited..but it just kept getting worse and worse.
If you feel comfortable with istock and your income is growing or remaining the same, good for you. But even you said, you are currently not uploading, so you must be worried about something.
Anyway, if you and Yuri feel being exclusive is the best way to make money out of your files - good for you.
But your positive sentiments don't seem to be shared with a very, very large number of istock exclusives and indies.
-
Don't mistake my sentiments about Istock, I'm much more negative about the alternative than I am positive about exclusivity. I think it's the (much) better option out of two poor ones.
-
If Istock had given me even a small indication that the company will get back on track, I would still be photo exclusive. Going indie isn't an easy decision and having to work your way back up is absolutely no fun.
But since they took away the option to decide the price point in the portfolio, I know I made the right choice. E+ was one of the best programs istock had. Killing it tells me everything I need to know about what is coming...
As an indie I have many options to choose the price point for my files, I just send them to the appropriate agencies.
To be in control of prices is just as important as to decide what goes into your portfolio. Computer programs and editors can never replace my commercial experience in my given niche.
-
I don't know why you are losing your time on Yuri so much...
-
Don't mistake my sentiments about Istock, I'm much more negative about the alternative than I am positive about exclusivity. I think it's the (much) better option out of two poor ones.
Trust me. There are more than two options. I've pretty much chosen neither of the two you are referring to.
-
Yuri, thanks for checking back in despite the hostility surrounding this place.
The RPI (return pr image), including fresh content, has probably been dropping for most top contributors for quite a while now. We are seeing a stable flat decline - how did you experience it, and more interestingly: How do you predict the RPI for independents to behave in the coming years. Do you see the flat decline continue or will there be some dramatic drops coming up. Any insights would be appreciated!
-
Don't mistake my sentiments about Istock, I'm much more negative about the alternative than I am positive about exclusivity. I think it's the (much) better option out of two poor ones.
Trust me. There are more than two options. I've pretty much chosen neither of the two you are referring to.
You are almost one of a kind around here though, I don't expect that plan to work for everyone.
-
Nice of you to check in Yuri and I applaud your success. I am frustrated with iStock's current silence but understand your move. Now my question is what are you willing to do for the photo community at iStock?
-
Nice of you to check in Yuri and I applaud your success. I am frustrated with iStock's current silence but understand your move. Now my question is what are you willing to do for the photo community at iStock?
maybe leaving his portfolio at a few agencies apart from iStock, applaud him again ;D
-
Don't mistake my sentiments about Istock, I'm much more negative about the alternative than I am positive about exclusivity. I think it's the (much) better option out of two poor ones.
Trust me. There are more than two options. I've pretty much chosen neither of the two you are referring to.
You are almost one of a kind around here though, I don't expect that plan to work for everyone.
I'm not sure about that. It looks like the Symbiostock people are implementing that plan. So are the Stocksy people. I assume some people do a fair amount of RM stuff. Then, there are probably other things that I haven't even heard of or didn't mention. New stuff is popping up all the time. Not all of it is good, but if you throw enough stuff against the wall... Some of it is bound to stick.
-
Don't mistake my sentiments about Istock, I'm much more negative about the alternative than I am positive about exclusivity. I think it's the (much) better option out of two poor ones.
Trust me. There are more than two options. I've pretty much chosen neither of the two you are referring to.
You are almost one of a kind around here though, I don't expect that plan to work for everyone.
I'm not sure about that. It looks like the Symbiostock people are implementing that plan. So are the Stocksy people. I assume some people do a fair amount of RM stuff. Then, there are probably other things that I haven't even heard of or didn't mention. New stuff is popping up all the time. Not all of it is good, but if you throw enough stuff against the wall... Some of it is bound to stick.
I'm confused. Surely all these are part of 'the alternative' to being iS exclusive?
-
I'm confused. Surely all these are part of 'the alternative' to being iS exclusive?
Maybe, I was overthinking it. I just see a lot of people's fears about going independent as I don't want to sell my stuff on SS for subs prices or that classic factory strategy of I sell anywhere and everywhere. There's nothing wrong with those strategies, but a lot of people do want to have more control and be a little pickier about where they distribute to. That philosophy seems to be growing as well, so I see it as almost an alternative to the classic independent thinking.
-
Yuri, thanks for checking back in despite the hostility surrounding this place.
Very true, some people get really worked up about other's accomplishments.
Regrettably, in addition to the contextual venom, now we have to put up also with visual affront. I've been always allergic to blazing red blobs - whether it was the Red Square flags used to push communistic propaganda or blood spilled by a portuguese torero.
-
Yuri, thanks for checking back in despite the hostility surrounding this place.
Very true, some people get really worked up about other's accomplishments.
Regrettably, in addition to the contextual venom, now we have to put up also with visual affront. I've been always allergic to blazing red blobs - whether it was the Red Square flags used to push communistic propaganda or blood spilled by a portuguese torero.
You honestly don't see the real reason why there's some hostility to Yuri now? Its like a politician switching sides. After years and years of telling people that its best to be non-exclusive, he does a deal and now exclusivity is suddenly the best option. At the moment, he's exclusive and non-exclusive at the same time. Some of his comments here have been in bad taste, so he's going to get some back. It happens to lots of people in forums, not just the high achievers.
-
I don't know why you are losing your time on Yuri so much...
Bar discussions have always a lot of success…
-
Its like a politician switching sides. After years and years of telling people that its best to be non-exclusive, he does a deal and now exclusivity is suddenly the best option. At the moment, he's exclusive and non-exclusive at the same time.
Firstly, the business conditions are changing, and changing your mind or direction is sometimes the best course.
Secondly, he is in a different position than most of us. Whatever deals he made, they are not available to the average contributor.
Thirdly, we don't know all the details and intricacies, or the big picture behind his new ventures.
And lastly, it's his business, and none of our business. I don't see him criticizing other stock shooters.
BTW, I'm still convinced, that the drop of SS stock price was caused by stronger currents than by Yuri's departure.
-
And lastly, it's his business, and none of our business.
Who was the OP in this thread?
-
Not the torero
-
Not the torero
Bullfighter? ???
-
Nah, using a bullfighter term would be too simplistic - equivalent of giving to an Eskimo just one word for snow.
I have never been to that type of circus, but apparently they have a cuadrilla with seven men, including banderilleros, torero and matador.
Much better behaved and more civilized than some fighters in this establishment.
-
Yuri, thanks for checking back in despite the hostility surrounding this place.
Very true, some people get really worked up about other's accomplishments.
Regrettably, in addition to the contextual venom, now we have to put up also with visual affront. I've been always allergic to blazing red blobs - whether it was the Red Square flags used to push communistic propaganda or blood spilled by a portuguese torero.
Portuguese toreros don't kill bulls in the arena, Spanish do
-
Very true, I apologize for the hasty writing. It's just when I noticed that big warning sign, I saw red.
However, one nice day a torero could become a matador and make the kill.
Back to the original topic. Somewhere, I read that all matadores are toreros but not all toreros are matadores.
Same as saying that a top performer like Yuri is a stockshooter, but not all stockshooters could aspire to be top performers.
-
Very true, I apologize for the hasty writing. It's just when I noticed that big warning sign, I saw red.
However, one nice day a torero could become a matador and make the kill.
Back to the original topic. Somewhere, I read that all matadores are toreros but not all toreros are matadores.
Same as saying that a top performer like Yuri is a stockshooter, but not all stockshooters could aspire to be top performers.
I really hope you aren't calling me a torero and worst that I can kill, just so you know I don't enjoy the all spanish/portuguese tradition
-
I don't know about that at all, most all the searches I do have way more exclusive files in the first 200 than nonexclusive files, like 90% on a lot of searches. 92% of the first 200 for 'new york city', 95% for 'businesswoman'.
Businesswoman is such a common search that the first page is pretty relevant, best match in this case has done a pretty good job on cleaning up that keyword. :)
Some inspector input at ingestion or rapid checking of wikied files is necessary for less common searches. Most of my files I've checked so far have totally irrelevant 'similar' files at the bottom of the page in this new file page shenanigan, because of severe spam in low-supply, low demand areas where the system just doesn't work. Good for me, I guess, but it just looks stupid.
But I digress.
Look at the second last page of the search, where the results mostly contain a businesswoman but are, perhaps, less relevant to a simple search for a businesswoman.
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/businesswoman/filetype/photos/source/basic#136116fb (http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/businesswoman/filetype/photos/source/basic#136116fb)
There is some factor in the best match algorhythm which is penalising 'certain' exclusive files which have sold over similar indie files which have not sold. Of course, the business woman search is so large, I'm not going over it with a toothcomb, but in the middle, there are pages which are almost 100% indie, compared to that second-last page.
(I know, now that it seems to be working again, buyers can filter down with the left hand keywording thing to refine their search, but I'm just pointing out a pattern.)
-
...And lastly, it's his business, and none of our business. I don't see him criticizing other stock shooters...
I'm sorry, who started this thread and made it public business?
And he hasn't criticized other stock shooters? I guess you missed the part where he declares himself the most important thing to ever happen to microstock and suggests that none of us independents are professionals, nor are any companies other than Getty and istock "professional".
-
I'm sorry, who started this thread and made it public business?
Starting a thread on the forum (and fortunately not all participators take it as seriously as some) is one thing, and trying the second guess, speculate, or advise him how to operate his business is another matter.
Most of those speculations are as naive as Yuri's conclusion that he caused a run on SS stock price.
I'd bet that creation and growth of Symbiostock image pool, along with withdrawal of those images from the agencies, will have much stronger and more lasting effect on many agencies than any single contributor who enters or leaves an agency.
-
I'd bet that creation and growth of Symbiostock image pool, along with withdrawal of those images from the agencies, will have much stronger and more lasting effect on many agencies than any single contributor who enters or leaves an agency.
I don't think any successful agency will notice or care about Symbiostock unless/until some of the bigger names in MS start pulling their portfolios. I just can't see it happening. The numbers of images online is in the tens of millions and will only get higher. That said, I think when Sym people start posting consistent sales we'll see more middlemen jump into the mix with commission schemes and add-ons. Perhaps agencies will try and find some kind of bridge program for a commission for steering customers our way or something.
As far as Yuri Arcurs goes, I haven't really seen hardly anyone upset at his successes. I just think a lot of us expected that he'd be a bit humbler about it. I used to think he was "one of us" who made it to the top, and perhaps he was in the early years. Now I don't (after reading his recent posts and blog article). It's too bad because he had the potential to make some positive changes for photographers in this industry. I wish him luck with the sale/move of his collection.
-
I think when Sym people start posting consistent sales...
Every month I look to see if the Self-Hosted option jumped into the mix on the poll to the right.
-
I can't help but think that with Yuri's background in psychology, he's playing a game with us here. This forum has an anti Getty/istock bias and Yuri going exclusive was never going to make him more popular. Then he invests in a site that could potentially damage microstock. So now he can play games, as he's no longer the independent microstockers hero. I find it hard to believe he wouldn't of been aware of the reaction he would get to his statement and some of his recent posts here.
With all due respect I would not consider BA in psychology in some Danish school a <<psychology background>>
Utterly disrespectful.
I agree here. Many things can be said about me, but that the line of psychology at Aarhus University is "second grade" is very untrue. To enter, you have to be in the top 2% (top 1% for most districts). Some respect is deserved here :)
Then as a psychologist you should be perfectly familiar that we are living in fake left brain society , that top 2% or any top they invent is really worth as much as an individual is willing to accept it , and that the real treats are hiding in the subsumed side...and conciseness which is above all we know simply cant be measured with numbers. ;D
-
The problem with that message is that it insults al Danes with an education and all Danish educational institutions.
And the bullet misses Yuri, and hits others instead. So you get all Danes alianated. Me included.
Compares to say: " So you have a degree from an American university, but we all know how useless they are".
See?
Was that the intent?
-
The problem with that message is that it insults al Danes with an education and all Danish educational institutions.
And the bullet misses Yuri, and hits others instead. So you get all Danes alianated. Me included.
Compares to say: " So you have a degree from an American university, but we all know how useless they are".
See?
Was that the intent?
No, the intent was to stop glorifying everything about Yuri and everything he says. Soon you be praising his primary school as he got some 'background' there.
And this whole argument is not about Yuri's success. It's great for him that he has had talents to become a successful photographer-businessman.
It is the discouragement that he, having all the means, did not do anything positive about the community (forget all his blogs or keywording tools - it was to gain attention to his websites and ventures - free SEO). Rather opposite - he raises the stink and panic around our small businesses and microstock.
Not humble, super high ego'ed person portraying himself as the king. This is the whole image I got about him, now after 8 years in this business.
-
Do you think it might be time to bring closure to this string?
-
Talking about influencing company stock price:
Today, Carl Icahn announced a large investment in Apple, and promptly pushed its stock price by $22.21.
If you had a modest portfolio of 500 Apple shares, you would have made over $11,000 just in one day. Beats taking and submitting pictures of isolated tomatoes.
I liked his quote, that some people get rich studying artificial intelligence, while he makes money by studying natural stupidity.
-
Talking about influencing company stock price:
Today, Carl Icahn announced a large investment in Apple, and promptly pushed its stock price by $22.21.
If you had a modest portfolio of 500 Apple shares, you would have made over $11,000 just in one day. Beats taking and submitting pictures of isolated tomatoes.
I liked his quote, that some people get rich studying artificial intelligence, while he makes money by studying natural stupidity.
You act like having 250.000 dollar locked up in shares is the most normal thing in the world. How many people can afford 500 Apple shares? You've lost touch with reality.
-
Depends when you bought the shares. They were cheap at one time, when Apple were about as popular as Kodak are now.
-
Depends when you bought the shares. They were cheap at one time, when Apple were about as popular as Kodak are now.
If you bought them that cheap, you would have sold when they were over 500 dollars and be * juice from a pineapple on a stock photo immaculate beach with palmtrees and saturated blue skies.
-
Depends when you bought the shares. They were cheap at one time, when Apple were about as popular as Kodak are now.
not to mention that apple shares were at 630$ (1 year ago)
I believe it is ridiculous to compare doing microstock to buying shares...
-
You act like having 250.000 dollar locked up in shares is the most normal thing in the world. How many people can afford 500 Apple shares? You've lost touch with reality.
Loosen up, Ron, don't take everything so seriously. You wouldn't want me to append those funny round emoticons to my posts, would you? That could insult intelligence of some readers here. Actually, when I think of it, some people could make even more money by selling their camera equipment.
not to mention that apple shares were at 630$ (1 year ago)
I believe it is ridiculous to compare doing microstock to buying shares...
Luis, to be precise, less than a year ago, those shares were actually over $700. And some "investment experts" predicted that they would soar to $1500 (same experts who corrected themselves as the share price was falling and subsequently forecasted $300/share). Certain Cramer made very similar predictions.
As to the "ridiculous" - I prefer the word "fun".
Guys, you may be spending too much time looking into that little viewfinder.
-
1 - I know how to read a graphic as well
2 - if it is that easy why are you wasting time doing microstock?
3 - on August 13th 2012 they were exactly 630$
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8294845/apple.JPG)
-
If you had a modest portfolio of 500 Apple shares, you would have made over $11,000 just in one day.
Firstly $250K of Apple shares is hardly 'modest'. Assuming a balanced portfolio of no more than 10% in any one investment it suggests a 'modest' $2.5M in overall savings.
Apart from that you would also have lost a lot more than $11K if you'd bought your 500 Apple shares at their peak of $700. A 'snapshot' of what might have happened if you'd done this or that on one particular day is pointless and irrelevant ... unless you actually did it.
-
1 - I know how to read a graphic as well
2 - if it is that easy why are you wasting time doing microstock?
3 - on August 13th 2012 they were exactly 630$
Luis, I never said anything about anything being easy. I wouldn't say it even in a female company.
To paraphrase a certain well used quote on microstock forums, there are certain rules:
1. stock prices go up and they go down.
2. In doubt, look up rule 1.
However, one could say, that in contrast to microstock statistics that aim for absolute comparisons for specific dates and months, in investment world acting on peaks and valleys works out usually better than arbitrary dates. Write it down.
Now, if you prefer to buy and sell stocks on specific dates so you can track precisely BME and WME numbers, that's absolutely permissible.
For instance, if had bought that stock yesterday and sold it today, you could have scored BDE.
Firstly $250K of Apple shares is hardly 'modest'. Assuming a balanced portfolio of no more than 10% in any one investment it suggests a 'modest' $2.5M in overall savings.
That approach would require a fairly balanced investor. Not someone who likes to gamble on microstock.
I admit, "modest" may be not the right word when mentioning 500 Apple shares, but I do like the sound of it.
Gostwyck, you should loosen up, too. Are all the posters here so serious? Read my reply to Ron.
-
Nice of you to check in Yuri and I applaud your success. I am frustrated with iStock's current silence but understand your move. Now my question is what are you willing to do for the photo community at iStock?
Why should he do anything for the photo community at iStock? He's in this for himself, as he should be. In a way we are all competing against one another at iStock and everywhere else for that matter. Helping out the 'competition' may not be in his best interest.
Bottom line, it's a 'dog eat dog world' and 'every man for himself' cliched existence in the world of stock photography.
Isn't it obvious that iStock is in this to make money for itself and the contributor be damned.?
-
if had bought that stock yesterday and sold it today, you could have scored BDE.
if I had wings I would fly too
-
Yuri, thanks for checking back in despite the hostility surrounding this place.
Very true, some people get really worked up about other's accomplishments.
Regrettably, in addition to the contextual venom, now we have to put up also with visual affront. I've been always allergic to blazing red blobs - whether it was the Red Square flags used to push communistic propaganda or blood spilled by a portuguese torero.
You honestly don't see the real reason why there's some hostility to Yuri now? Its like a politician switching sides. After years and years of telling people that its best to be non-exclusive, he does a deal and now exclusivity is suddenly the best option. At the moment, he's exclusive and non-exclusive at the same time. Some of his comments here have been in bad taste, so he's going to get some back. It happens to lots of people in forums, not just the high achievers.
Here's what he said and it's not what you said it is. http://arcurs.com/2009/04/non-exclusivity-has-its-benefits/ (http://arcurs.com/2009/04/non-exclusivity-has-its-benefits/)
"So, to sum up, my vote is in and it’s for non-exclusivity for the time being. Only six months ago however, my vote would have been for exclusivity. Things change fast in the microstock business. There are nice bonuses afforded to exclusives, but when it comes right down to dollars and cents, it’s not worth it – for the time being. "
You put words in his mouth from your imagination.
-
Loosen up, Ron, don't take everything so seriously. You wouldn't want me to append those funny round emoticons to my posts, would you? That could insult intelligence of some readers here. Actually, when I think of it, some people could make even more money by selling their camera equipment.
SNIP
Guys, you may be spending too much time looking into that little viewfinder.
I certainly don't feel my intelligence is insulted when someone uses emoticons to make it clear they are joking or having "fun". Now I am devastated to learn that I have been insulting people's intelligence when I use them.
:o :-[ (<- interpret those however you choose)
Maybe if I want to insult people I should just take a cue from your last (italicized) remark. :P
-
"You put words in his mouth from your imagination."
Actions speak louder...
-
Lisa,
that would be like going to those pre-recorded comedy shows and wait for the showmaster's cues when to start laughing.
You won't see any big LOLs or small yellow circles in my posts. But after a while you'll get a feel when to smile and when to cry.
-
That approach would require a fairly balanced investor. Not someone who likes to gamble on microstock.
How do you 'gamble' on microstock? Where are the odds displayed? What on earth are you talking about?
-
Ok, as fun as this thread is :) I think maybe it's time to call it a night.
We can discuss the 1000 other side topics this thread has touched upon in their own threads.