Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs First Public Statement (Read 146094 times)

Imagenomad · « **Reply #350 on:** July 27, 2013, 04:39 »

Is anyone else wondering what time the call came from Getty's lawyers asking Mr Arcurs to put down his shovel and stop digging?

cobalt · « **Reply #351 on:** July 27, 2013, 07:01 »

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.

jm · « **Reply #352 on:** July 27, 2013, 07:52 »

Deleted. Luis was faster

Les · « **Reply #353 on:** July 27, 2013, 08:32 »

Quote

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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #354 on:** July 27, 2013, 08:34 »

Quote from: Mellimage on July 27, 2013, 01:45

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 27, 2013, 00:58
Quote from: jjneff on July 26, 2013, 06:50
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.

Mellimage · « **Reply #355 on:** July 27, 2013, 08:57 »

True enough - on the other hand - does that mean Bruce is the only person to make such a model work?

topol · « **Reply #356 on:** July 27, 2013, 09:03 »

Quote from: cobalt on July 27, 2013, 07:01

...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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #357 on:** July 27, 2013, 09:30 »

"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.

gbalex · « **Reply #358 on:** July 27, 2013, 09:33 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 27, 2013, 03:56

Quote from: Ron on July 27, 2013, 03:18
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?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #359 on:** July 27, 2013, 09:39 »

Quote from: gbalex on July 27, 2013, 09:33

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 27, 2013, 03:56
Quote from: Ron on July 27, 2013, 03:18
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

ShadySue · « **Reply #360 on:** July 27, 2013, 09:41 »

Quote from: topol on July 27, 2013, 09:03

Quote from: cobalt on July 27, 2013, 07:01
...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.

mike ledray · « **Reply #361 on:** July 27, 2013, 09:44 »

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.

topol · « **Reply #362 on:** July 27, 2013, 09:50 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 27, 2013, 09:30

"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?

Digital66 · « **Reply #363 on:** July 27, 2013, 12:03 »

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."

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?

"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
So... ?

klsbear · « **Reply #364 on:** July 27, 2013, 12:14 »

Quote from: Les on July 27, 2013, 08:32

Quote
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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #365 on:** July 27, 2013, 13:11 »

"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?"

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.

Ed · « **Reply #366 on:** July 27, 2013, 13:28 »

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

imageegami · « **Reply #367 on:** July 27, 2013, 13:43 »

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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #368 on:** July 27, 2013, 13:52 »

Quote from: Mellimage on July 27, 2013, 08:57

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.

stocked · « **Reply #369 on:** July 27, 2013, 14:59 »

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.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #370 on:** July 27, 2013, 15:03 »

Quote from: stocked on July 27, 2013, 14:59

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #371 on:** July 27, 2013, 15:38 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on July 27, 2013, 15:03

Quote from: stocked on July 27, 2013, 14:59
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, 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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #372 on:** July 27, 2013, 15:43 »

Quote from: stocked on July 27, 2013, 14:59

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.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #373 on:** July 27, 2013, 16:04 »

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.

shudderstok · « **Reply #374 on:** July 27, 2013, 16:46 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 27, 2013, 09:41

Quote from: topol on July 27, 2013, 09:03
Quote from: cobalt on July 27, 2013, 07:01
...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."

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs First Public Statement (Read 146094 times)

Imagenomad

cobalt

jm

Les

BaldricksTrousers

Mellimage

topol

Sean Locke Photography

gbalex

luissantos84

ShadySue

mike ledray

topol

Digital66

klsbear

Sean Locke Photography

Ed

imageegami

BaldricksTrousers

stocked

WarrenPrice

ShadySue

sharpshot

stockmarketer

shudderstok

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors