Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs First Public Statement (Read 146894 times)

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #300 on:** July 26, 2013, 10:18 »

Quote from: Jaak on July 26, 2013, 03:31

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

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.

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #301 on:** July 26, 2013, 10:22 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 26, 2013, 06:37

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 is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?

cthoman · « **Reply #302 on:** July 26, 2013, 10:24 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 26, 2013, 10:18

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.

pancaketom · « **Reply #303 on:** July 26, 2013, 10:27 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 26, 2013, 10:22

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 26, 2013, 06:37
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 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?

somethingpretentious · « **Reply #304 on:** July 26, 2013, 10:34 »

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?

cthoman · « **Reply #305 on:** July 26, 2013, 10:35 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on July 26, 2013, 08:41

Quote from: cthoman on July 26, 2013, 08:31
Quote from: XPTO on July 26, 2013, 03:02
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.

XPTO · « **Reply #306 on:** July 26, 2013, 10:38 »

Quote from: cthoman on July 26, 2013, 10:24

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 26, 2013, 10:18
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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #307 on:** July 26, 2013, 10:47 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 26, 2013, 10:22

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 26, 2013, 06:37
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 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?

JPSDK · « **Reply #308 on:** July 26, 2013, 10:49 »

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.

shudderstok · « **Reply #309 on:** July 26, 2013, 10:55 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 26, 2013, 10:14

"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.

jjneff · « **Reply #310 on:** July 26, 2013, 11:02 »

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.

shudderstok · « **Reply #311 on:** July 26, 2013, 11:08 »

Quote from: jjneff on July 26, 2013, 11:02

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #312 on:** July 26, 2013, 11:13 »

Quote from: jjneff on July 26, 2013, 11:02

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #313 on:** July 26, 2013, 11:17 »

" 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.

XPTO · « **Reply #314 on:** July 26, 2013, 11:19 »

Quote from: shudderstok on July 26, 2013, 10:55

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!

jjneff · « **Reply #315 on:** July 26, 2013, 11:30 »

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

donding · « **Reply #316 on:** July 26, 2013, 11:45 »

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.

travelwitness · « **Reply #317 on:** July 26, 2013, 11:48 »

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.

EmberMike · « **Reply #318 on:** July 26, 2013, 11:51 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 26, 2013, 10:18

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?

Pickerell · « **Reply #319 on:** July 26, 2013, 11:56 »

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?

ShadySue · « **Reply #320 on:** July 26, 2013, 12:00 »

Quote from: XPTO on July 26, 2013, 11:19

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
being discussed here:
http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/629-manything-blog

topol · « **Reply #321 on:** July 26, 2013, 12:00 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 26, 2013, 09:55

Quote from: SLP_London on July 26, 2013, 01:25
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...

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #322 on:** July 26, 2013, 12:04 »

Quote from: somethingpretentious on July 26, 2013, 10:34

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.

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #323 on:** July 26, 2013, 12:06 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on July 26, 2013, 08:41

Quote from: cthoman on July 26, 2013, 08:31
Quote from: XPTO on July 26, 2013, 03:02
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.

topol · « **Reply #324 on:** July 26, 2013, 12:06 »

Quote from: XPTO on July 26, 2013, 11:19

Quote from: shudderstok on July 26, 2013, 10:55
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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs First Public Statement (Read 146894 times)

Yuri_Arcurs

Yuri_Arcurs

cthoman

pancaketom

somethingpretentious

cthoman

XPTO

gostwyck

JPSDK

shudderstok

jjneff

shudderstok

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

XPTO

jjneff

donding

travelwitness

EmberMike

Pickerell

ShadySue

topol

Yuri_Arcurs

Yuri_Arcurs

topol

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors