MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Sean Locke Photography on January 21, 2011, 17:29
-
Surprised nobody ( including Yuri ;) ) has posted this today:
http://blog.johnlund.com/2011/01/yuri-arcurs-leading-microstock.html (http://blog.johnlund.com/2011/01/yuri-arcurs-leading-microstock.html)
-
Thanks for posting that. I note that the plagiarism example noted in the interview has resulted in the offending copy being removed from SS. AFAIK they don't insist on a photo reference to which you hold the copyright which makes that sort of thing easy to do for someone with no scruples.
Interesting to see that he thinks agencies without exclusivity are missing the boat - must make you feel a ton better about your choice Sean :)
-
Wow! Yuri really cut loose on his opinions. Good stuff though. The diplomatic gloves have come off.
Interesting that he's really big on Istock and their future. Never would have expected that.
And he made the leadership of the other companies sound like amateurs. Kind of expected that.
-
Really interesting read, thanks for that.
-
Interesting that he's really big on Istock and their future. Never would have expected that.
And he made the leadership of the other companies sound like amateurs. Kind of expected that.
I noticed the same thing. His faith in Istock's future seems to be much greater than general opinion of the moment. Maybe he has some inside scoop that is inspiring such confidence. Or maybe he has some vested interest in promoting Istock. Almost sounds like he is courting them for a special exclusive deal.
I don't know what could have transpired to sour him on the leaders of the other micros. They appear to be doing quite well, AFAIK, and none seems to have mismanaged their sites like Istock is currently doing.
Perhaps he feels these are just growing pains for Istock? Without being privy to whatever info he's basing his opinions on it is impossible to tell.
It was certainly an interesting article, and as usual, Yuri has given plenty of food for thought :)
-
I don't know what could have transpired to sour him on the leaders of the other micros. They appear to be doing quite well, AFAIK, and none seems to have mismanaged their sites like Istock is currently doing.
I'm guessing he's had quite a bit of direct interaction with all of them which most contributors probably don't. Here's the key part.
The problem is also that the primary CEO's of the non-exclusive agencies are amateur photographers at best and often don't know good design, good pictures from less good ones, and really don't care too much about the "whine" in the design world. iStock is way better at this and when we start getting out of our current economic crisis, they are prepared for nurturing the high paying customers. Non-exclusive agencies will be the "leftovers", but the CEO's will probably disagree to the grave, not realizing that they have been check-mated for a couple of years and iStock has been earning bulk in those years.
Sounds like they're kicking their feet up on the desk and ignoring the need to proactive and make changes.
-
I guess most import component of success in any venture is to be in right place on right time. Rest is a history :-)
-
Interesting stuff although he did appear to contradict himself on a few issues.
He says iStock are streets ahead of the other agencies and that exclusivity is best ... but then decides it is not for him at the moment. Why then bother to support all the other agencies of which he is so dismissive?
He says "the primary CEO's of the non-exclusive agencies are amateur photographers at best and often don't know good design, good pictures from less good ones, and really don't care too much about the "whine" in the design world." Huh? Where does he place Kelly Thompson in that scenario? Is Kelly a 'pro photographer' now? I hadn't realised. Jon Oringer might not be the world's best photographer __ but he is a very good businessman and that probably counts for more when it comes to running a business. Personally I still think that Shutterstock will win out in the end, simply because they are led by a shrewd businessman who takes the long view, rather than short-term Flash Harrys who are out to make a quick buck.
He reckons he can't produce images for less than $20 a pop but also reveals that his return per image topped $9 in 2009 and is predicted to be under $6 in 2011. That suggests a 4-year payback for his current work at today's prices __ which have already tumbled more than 30% in the last couple of years. If returns continue to dwindle at that pace then his outlay for today's shoots might actually take 6-7 years to pay back. By 2012 the payback could be more like 10 years per image. I'd say that's plenty to be concerned about.
-
He says iStock are streets ahead of the other agencies and that exclusivity is best ... but then decides it is not for him at the moment. Why then bother to support all the other agencies of which he is so dismissive?
There's just no way he could. His RF stuff is scattered to the winds. He's got to support the other agencies.
He reckons he can't produce images for less than $20 a pop but also reveals that his return per image topped $9 in 2009 and is predicted to be under $6 in 2011. That suggests a 4-year payback for his current work at today's prices __ which have already tumbled more than 30% in the last couple of years. If returns continue to dwindle at that pace then his outlay for today's shoots might actually take 6-7 years to pay back. By 2012 the payback could be more like 10 years per image. I'd say that's plenty to be concerned about.
One might say that's a good argument for not training your competition, but I guess not.
-
The problem is also that the primary CEO's of the non-exclusive agencies are amateur photographers at best and often don't know good design, good pictures from less good ones, and really don't care too much about the "whine" in the design world. iStock is way better at this and when we start getting out of our current economic crisis, they are prepared for nurturing the high paying customers. Non-exclusive agencies will be the "leftovers", but the CEO's will probably disagree to the grave, not realizing that they have been check-mated for a couple of years and iStock has been earning bulk in those years.
Sounds like they're kicking their feet up on the desk and ignoring the need to proactive and make changes.
I guess I got hung up in that paragraph on the term " 'whine' in the design world". What does that mean?
As for not being proactive, making changes is only a good thing if the changes are actually an improvement. The other sites all change and improve, but usually without disastrous fallout, so nobody notices. Taking a slow, deliberative approach to site changes isn't as likely to strike terror in either your buyers or your sellers....
You are right that Yuri would be in a much better position than most of us to know the site owners personally, however, so he is certainly entitled to his opinions.
Makes one wonder if he is, perhaps, in the process of getting a special RF exclusivity deal with Istock and withdrawing from the other micros. Otherwise I can't imagine a clever businessman like Yuri burning his bridges with the other site owners.
I realize that Istock doesn't openly offer special exclusivity deals, but with the advent of Agency photographers that policy seems to be in flux. And if an exception could be made, surely it would be for "the most successful photographer in the world".
-
...I don't know what could have transpired to sour him on the leaders of the other micros. They appear to be doing quite well, AFAIK, and none seems to have mismanaged their sites like Istock is currently doing. ...
I think there was a time relatively recently when Yuri stopped uploading to DT because of some difference of opinion (I think over rejections for similars) which he couldn't resolve by appealing to the owner. I would expect that at some level there was a bit of a clash of egos - all these guys who have started something that got big (which is the case for FT, DT and SS which are still run by their founders). Yuri probably see himself as their equal and they're nervous by having someone that big and successful giving them suggestions about what they should be doing.
I think there's a distinction between liking iStock/Getty's overall plans and liking the pitiful state of implementation at present. And it isn't just IS - the portal to the partner program has been busted for months and the ingestion of Vetta & Agency into Getty ran into all sorts of technical hiccups (they didn't elaborate in the forums, so I don't know any details).
I think that it's pretty understandable for those who stand to benefit from some industry change to be all for it, and those who are going to be left behind, worse off, etc. to be less enthusiastic. I'm guessing that given Yuri's position, he's pretty confident that someone will want to make him happy and keep his images coming to their site regardless of what happens over the next couple of years.
I'm hoping that iStock/Getty don't forget about small businesses and budget-conscious designers as they go on their collection-creating binge coming up with new higher priced imagery. IOW I wish they'd do something to sort out the ability to filter collections and keep a robust set of "regular" priced images in front of buyers (not 100 pages back buried by Vetta/Agency). None of that matters to Yuri, but I think if that area's ignored, it'll hurt the business in the long run (especially if it allows a newcomer to do to them what they did to traditional stock way back when).
-
I guess I got hung up in that paragraph on the term " 'whine' in the design world". What does that mean?
I thought maybe he meant 'buzz', but maybe not ...?
-
I don't know what could have transpired to sour him on the leaders of the other micros. They appear to be doing quite well, AFAIK, and none seems to have mismanaged their sites like Istock is currently doing.
I get the impression that he is prone to sulking if he doesn't get his own way. Remember that spat he had with DT because they rejected a few of his images? Went on for months until he and Serban kissed & made up at the Dublin event. He used to love SS when he was selling 1100 images a day but, when the numbers started to fall, then so did his enthusiasm for them. I think he blames the static market on the CEO's __ but strangely not IS. Maybe he is trying to negotiate a special deal between himself & IS.
-
Maybe he is trying to negotiate a special deal between himself & IS.
Makes one wonder if he is, perhaps, in the process of getting a special RF exclusivity deal with Istock and withdrawing from the other micros.
Looks like the same thing occurred to both of us :)
-
There's just no way he could. His RF stuff is scattered to the winds. He's got to support the other agencies.
That's what I've always understood but in his interview he indicates that he does have a choice.
One might say that's a good argument for not training your competition, but I guess not.
One might indeed say that!
-
...
He reckons he can't produce images for less than $20 a pop but also reveals that his return per image topped $9 in 2009 and is predicted to be under $6 in 2011. That suggests a 4-year payback for his current work at today's prices __ which have already tumbled more than 30% in the last couple of years. If returns continue to dwindle at that pace then his outlay for today's shoots might actually take 6-7 years to pay back. By 2012 the payback could be more like 10 years per image. I'd say that's plenty to be concerned about.
The exception is Vetta and Agency pricing at IS and Getty. That would, I think, be very appealing to Yuri given his cost structure. Which might explain his interest in IS exclusivity.
-
...
He reckons he can't produce images for less than $20 a pop but also reveals that his return per image topped $9 in 2009 and is predicted to be under $6 in 2011. That suggests a 4-year payback for his current work at today's prices __ which have already tumbled more than 30% in the last couple of years. If returns continue to dwindle at that pace then his outlay for today's shoots might actually take 6-7 years to pay back. By 2012 the payback could be more like 10 years per image. I'd say that's plenty to be concerned about.
The exception is Vetta and Agency pricing at IS and Getty. That would, I think, be very appealing to Yuri given his cost structure. Which might explain his interest in IS exclusivity.
+ uno
-
The exception is Vetta and Agency pricing at IS and Getty. That would, I think, be very appealing to Yuri given his cost structure. Which might explain his interest in IS exclusivity.
Good thinking. I guess Istock exclusives with a lot of Vetta and Agency are finding that the high prices more than compensate for the reduction in sales volume? Anyone willing to weigh in on that one?
-
Interesting that he's really big on Istock and their future. Never would have expected that.
And he made the leadership of the other companies sound like amateurs. Kind of expected that.
I noticed the same thing. His faith in Istock's future seems to be much greater than general opinion of the moment. Maybe he has some inside scoop that is inspiring such confidence. Or maybe he has some vested interest in promoting Istock. Almost sounds like he is courting them for a special exclusive deal.
I don't know what could have transpired to sour him on the leaders of the other micros. They appear to be doing quite well, AFAIK, and none seems to have mismanaged their sites like Istock is currently doing.
Perhaps he feels these are just growing pains for Istock? Without being privy to whatever info he's basing his opinions on it is impossible to tell.
It was certainly an interesting article, and as usual, Yuri has given plenty of food for thought :)
I dont understand why they (iStock) dont buy him (with big cheky amount of money) in the first place, or make with him more exclusive contract than with other members (like they have with some old scanned archives, or gettys outdated agency images?) without they crap stories about too similar images, few wrong keys, low upload limits or other bullies which we ordinary mortals have with them?
-
I am a bit confused by this statement:
"My return per image topped at 9.1 USD in 2009, and in 2010 it topped at 7.10 USD. It is continuously falling and I expect it to top at 5.6 USD in 2011."
When Yuri is talking about return per image - is it return per image per year?? Or per image per month?? Probably not per day:) but still what's the time frame?
-
For all the IS bashing we do here (myself included), they have tried to do a number of very positive things. Unfortunately they don't usually do a very good job of it in my mind, or it is closed to exclusives only.
For example, the CV combined with all the data they collect on search terms and sales could really make searches precise and great and punish the spammers. Instead they sort of muddled it.
another example - they continue to increase prices, which in general as a photographer I agree with. Unfortunately that is coupled with decreasing royalties, moving canister goal posts, and us vs. them exclusive only deals.
another - putting higher value images into higher priced collections = good. IS implementation = a mess / exclusive only.
and so on. If some other site (or IS) could do these things right, they would rule the microstock world.
It does sound like he has some sort of sweetheart deal in the works though.
-
that was really good. I'm surprised how open Yuri was. it was nice to read his gloves-off responses to some pretty loaded questions. I read his blogs and about his work frequently and have never seen comments quite as blunt as these out of him.
thanks for posting the link Sean. I hadn't seen the interview yet. and thanks Yuri for the great interview.
-
...
another - putting higher value images into higher priced collections = good. IS implementation = a mess / exclusive only.
...
But just think about this proposition for a minute - or at least what the issue is if you think that the higher price collections should be open to exclusives only. You can't have a high price collection if the same stuff is selling for less elsewhere.
I know Getty's already doing that with some of its many properties - $12 for a Comstock image via an "image pack" at Thinkstock vs. $370 if you buy it at Getty or Jupiter Images.
Or the sale on Agency Collection Images which varies depending on which Getty "family" site you get it from - 25% off at Punchstock, 15% off at Jupiter Images or full price at Getty unless you purchased an annual Thinkstock subscription in which case it's 25% off.
They could address this with image exclusivity and a very strict policy on similars, but even the IS policy on similars in Agency/Vetta is very loose, so I don't know how reasonable this would be to implement.
Even 123rf and Fotolia's Infinite collection had some rules that you couldn't be selling the same image anywhere else for less.
-
Maybe he is trying to negotiate a special deal between himself & IS.
Makes one wonder if he is, perhaps, in the process of getting a special RF exclusivity deal with Istock and withdrawing from the other micros.
Looks like the same thing occurred to both of us :)
----------------------------------------
My take on it is that he wants to start earning Vetta like dollars while not being an Istock exclusive, which makes sense given his cost structure. It sounds to me like he's trying to scare the non-exclusive sites into doing something Vetta-like by hinting that he's open to a big offer from Istock. Sounds like he has asked them to do so already and they are not interested, so he's frustrated and is getting in their faces a bit by pegging them as amateurs, hoping this will get things to move. Or maybe that we will start pressuring the non-exclusives to move on this.
I think its also very interesting later in the interview where he says if this does not happen, the independents will fade, Istock will dominate, and he will go independent selling from his own site rather then go exclusive with Istock. Seems to contradict his hint at being interested in an exclusive deal, but again seems designed to push the non-exclusive micros to evolve with the times.
-
I guess I got hung up in that paragraph on the term " 'whine' in the design world". What does that mean?
There is currently a thread on SS asking to guess how many images will be accepted from a batch of 19 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt99046-0-asc-0.html) Apparently, 14 were accepted, but I would bet that number would be close to zero from 19 on iStock . And there lies the reason perhaps, why us designers sometimes "whine" at sites like SS. iStock clearly understand good design and quality will always sell. While their technical upgrades may be less than professional, iStock's direction is surely heading the right way long term.
-
Surprisingly Yuri commends IS for their approach of offering exclusivity and obviously the exclusivity offered by any other agency won't be a serious consideration for any contributors as the cut in royalties would be to significant (dropping all non-exclusives).
So he says, IS does it right (or let's say the strategy they follow).
Now, Yuri isn't blind and he has experienced the same down-times, problems, lying in the face posts as we have and yet it doesn't seem to rock his world. It may be that no matter how funky your agency works as long as you make your stuff appear the best people will follow you (and purchase from you). Personally, I don't understand how IS could stay afloat but perhaps we complainers and (few) upset buyers are actually in the minority???
So what's the future then? Either become exclusive with IS or...?
For now I'm sure Yuri makes much more money spreading all his images amongst all possible non-exclusives. Constantly I stumble across some unknown new agency that already has his images. For sure he receives regular payouts when most of us never will/would reach the payout limit before they shut down a couple years later.
-
This is fun!
-
...
another - putting higher value images into higher priced collections = good. IS implementation = a mess / exclusive only.
...
But just think about this proposition for a minute - or at least what the issue is if you think that the higher price collections should be open to exclusives only. You can't have a high price collection if the same stuff is selling for less elsewhere.
Only doing it for exclusives is fine (if you are exclusive), but does me no good as I am not, so I am less impressed with it - it sounds like all sorts of issues with lowering commissions and clubby acceptance into it etc. too.
Had IS done image exclusivity back before their first huge best match shakeup, they would have wrapped up almost all of the good sellers there as exclusives, but they didn't .
-
My take on it is that he wants to start earning Vetta like dollars while not being an Istock exclusive, which makes sense given his cost structure. It sounds to me like he's trying to scare the non-exclusive sites into doing something Vetta-like by hinting that he's open to a big offer from Istock. Sounds like he has asked them to do so already and they are not interested, so he's frustrated and is getting in their faces a bit by pegging them as amateurs, hoping this will get things to move. Or maybe that we will start pressuring the non-exclusives to move on this.
I think its also very interesting later in the interview where he says if this does not happen, the independents will fade, Istock will dominate, and he will go independent selling from his own site rather then go exclusive with Istock. Seems to contradict his hint at being interested in an exclusive deal, but again seems designed to push the non-exclusive micros to evolve with the times.
Sounds about right.
-
This is fun!
Hmmm. The phrase "Light blue touch-paper and stand well back" somehow comes to mind!
-
Hi All,
Remember that when Yuri says his RPI he is speaking from 38,000 images. The new work he supplies does much better than $6 that is the balance from all his work online and some has been on for quite a long time. So his new work does not have to wait 3-4 years to recoup because it will make it's cost in the first couple of years return if not the first year.
As you are in the game longer and keep producing work your RPI will always go down unless you increase your production to offset the lower returns of your earlier work. I just wanted to point that out. It is the same for everyone.
Best,
Jonathan
-
I get the impression that he is prone to sulking if he doesn't get his own way.
:D Don't we all.
I always view anything Yuri has written as a marketing tool, read between the lines and he's usually trying to sell something or (as I think in this case) trying to get something - my guess - iStock image only exclusivity deal like they've given to Getty artists via Vetta.
-
In many ways this guy is a genious, an institution rather. However, in reading many Micro interviews, not just this one but almost all others, one gets the feeling theyre trying to defend a sinking ship really. The entire Micro world is full of troubles, its not at all what it used to be and many micros are moving towards macro, etc.
Good interview though, thanks for posting
-
I used to be very optimistic until a few months ago, then I am changing my mind since the IS and FT paycut.
Maybe the ship is really sinking, or maybe not. The day SS will reduce commission I will start really worrying. But I am still hoping that they will increase prices a bit, and our commission too, to capitalise on their - already high - respect among contributors.
Meanwhile, Yuri's view about IS - so different from what the majority of us here thinks, including me - is in a sense refreshing.
But one thing is sure: buyers will always need pictures, in a way or another. This is not the end (yet)
-
I am confused by his numbers:
Does he say that hi average return per image (for entire 2010) was $7.10?
Is that what he got paid from all the agencies or some calculated figure after he subtracted all his expenses?
Because I find that number shockingly low.
-
I am confused by his numbers:
Does he say that hi average return per image (for entire 2010) was $7.10?
Is that what he got paid from all the agencies or some calculated figure after he subtracted all his expenses?
Because I find that number shockingly low.
I think he might mean per month.
-
I am confused by his numbers:
Does he say that hi average return per image (for entire 2010) was $7.10?
Is that what he got paid from all the agencies or some calculated figure after he subtracted all his expenses?
Because I find that number shockingly low.
I think he might mean per month.
Yep __ he must do. It was the way he used the year to describe the return that makes it sound like an annual rate. It would barely be viable let alone profitable otherwise.
-
Agree with some parts of his interview, disagree with others.
I'd definitely agree that the non-exclusive agencies have been largely stagnant in recent years. The SS site and experience hasn't changed much at all since I started there years ago.
I disagree that istock has an edge in pricing, with multiple pricing levels. Ultimately I think that this will hurt istock and buyers will embrace agencies that offer simpler pricing. We've already seen some of this happening, with buyers voicing frustration over seeing images priced from a few bucks to hundreds, all within the same search results. I think buyers will start looking form easier experiences in the future, going to places where they know exactly how much a large image costs every time.
-
I'd definitely agree that the non-exclusive agencies have been largely stagnant in recent years. The SS site and experience hasn't changed much at all since I started there years ago.
That might not always be a Bad Thing.
-
All agencies that offer subs have had 'stagnant' prices for 3 years because it is very competitive and they know that the buyers are price-sensitive on those packages. It's not their 'fault', it's just the way it is.
It certainly doesn't help when contributors encourage additional competition from every direction including bottom-feeding sites like Thinkstock. Who would do such a thing if they want higher prices you might ask? Well there's a bloke called Yuri Arcurs who has 25k images at TS for example;
http://tinyurl.com/yuriatTS (http://tinyurl.com/yuriatTS)
He says he wants higher prices but then spreads his images around like confetti. He blames the agencies but he needs to look in the mirror to see where the problem really lies. He devalues his own work by making it available at so many price points rather than only supporting agencies that sell at the rates he prefers.
-
I'd definitely agree that the non-exclusive agencies have been largely stagnant in recent years. The SS site and experience hasn't changed much at all since I started there years ago.
That might not always be a Bad Thing.
+1. I agree. Plus one. Agreed. :D I think that humans are basically creatures of habit. And SS did have a website upgrade last year. That was enough change for me.
-
Well there's a bloke called Yuri Arcurs who has 25k images at TS for example;
[url]http://tinyurl.com/yuriatTS[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/yuriatTS[/url])
There's something strange up with that. Many of those 25k images appear to be exact duplicates. In just the first few pages there's a closeup of a blond girl holding out a cellphone that is repeated several times, and also a portrait of a dark haired bride, and a photo of a groom sitting at a table giving a thumbs down. All appear to be from Hemera. Wonder why there are so many repeats/identical (as opposed to similar) images...?
-
Well there's a bloke called Yuri Arcurs who has 25k images at TS for example;
[url]http://tinyurl.com/yuriatTS[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/yuriatTS[/url])
There's something strange up with that. Many of those 25k images appear to be exact duplicates. In just the first few pages there's a closeup of a blond girl holding out a cellphone that is repeated several times, and also a portrait of a dark haired bride, and a photo of a groom sitting at a table giving a thumbs down. All appear to be from Hemera. Wonder why there are so many repeats/identical (as opposed to similar) images...?
There are strange images in that collection, e.g. illustrations which I don't think belong to Yuri at all. And what are those Gorilla images?
-
Maybe he just put a lot of older work there(?) I seem to remember him doing some gorilla shots a long while back...
-
Maybe he just put a lot of older work there(?) I seem to remember him doing some gorilla shots a long while back...
This from the blog post " now it seems to be the 600-pound gorilla of the stock photo industry."
This thread is in danger of becoming the Gorilla thread ;D
and the usual saying is "800 pound gorilla" , so maybe the gorilla is becoming unsustainable....
-
I love this picture (http://bit.ly/f6Sbse). I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases. ;D - (Info: no model release required :P)
Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity
(http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xr/100910068.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=3&d=EF02D7492C29D693FC02D3456985EA0CDD9672763B8E94EEA38B15BDF9482181FECA12A918A60706)
-
I love this picture ([url]http://bit.ly/f6Sbse[/url]). I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases. ;D (Info: no model release required :P)
([url]http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xr/100910068.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=3&d=EF02D7492C29D693FC02D3456985EA0CDD9672763B8E94EEA38B15BDF9482181FECA12A918A60706[/url])
Uh-oh.
-
I love this picture ([url]http://bit.ly/f6Sbse[/url]). I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases. ;D - (Info: no model release required :P)
Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity
([url]http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xr/100910068.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=3&d=EF02D7492C29D693FC02D3456985EA0CDD9672763B8E94EEA38B15BDF9482181FECA12A918A60706[/url])
Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work. What an utter shambles that place is.
-
Uh-oh.
I agree. The white balance is far off.
-
I love this picture ([url]http://bit.ly/f6Sbse[/url]). I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases. ;D - (Info: no model release required :P)
Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity
([url]http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xr/100910068.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=3&d=EF02D7492C29D693FC02D3456985EA0CDD9672763B8E94EEA38B15BDF9482181FECA12A918A60706[/url])
Some places would have rejected that for "no model release"
-
Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work.
It's on page 2, following your link. Didn't have to make a big effort to find it.
-
Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work.
It's on page 2, following your link. Didn't have to make a big effort to find it.
There is even another one on the same page. Uh.
-
I love this picture ([url]http://bit.ly/f6Sbse[/url]). I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases. ;D - (Info: no model release required :P)
Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity
([url]http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xr/100910068.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=3&d=EF02D7492C29D693FC02D3456985EA0CDD9672763B8E94EEA38B15BDF9482181FECA12A918A60706[/url])
Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work. What an utter shambles that place is.
This is a real disgrace...must be nice having all your details online like that...
-
I love this picture ([url]http://bit.ly/f6Sbse[/url]). I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases. ;D - (Info: no model release required :P)
Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity
([url]http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xr/100910068.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=3&d=EF02D7492C29D693FC02D3456985EA0CDD9672763B8E94EEA38B15BDF9482181FECA12A918A60706[/url])
Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work. What an utter shambles that place is.
This is a real disgrace...must be nice having all your details online like that...
Wouldn't that qualify as a BIG invasion of privacy?
-
I love this picture ([url]http://bit.ly/f6Sbse[/url]). I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases. ;D - (Info: no model release required :P)
Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity
([url]http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xr/100910068.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=3&d=EF02D7492C29D693FC02D3456985EA0CDD9672763B8E94EEA38B15BDF9482181FECA12A918A60706[/url])
wow what a bad scan really not the same quality as his other pictures - lol :-)
-
I love this picture ([url]http://bit.ly/f6Sbse[/url]). I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases. ;D - (Info: no model release required :P)
Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity
([url]http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xr/100910068.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=3&d=EF02D7492C29D693FC02D3456985EA0CDD9672763B8E94EEA38B15BDF9482181FECA12A918A60706[/url])
Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work. What an utter shambles that place is.
This is a real disgrace...must be nice having all your details online like that...
Wouldn't that qualify as a BIG invasion of privacy?
Absolutely.
I've read again and again on iStock forums that people's details can't get out of the system, because they're in a jpeg, not a database, so models should be totally reassured about giving away all that information.
I guess we'd need to know if these were transferred over from iStock before we knew that it counted as an iStock cock-up.
-
Absolutely shocking. :o
I thought I'd seen it all...
-
Has anyone alerted IS/Thinkstock/whoever? I have not.
-
HI all,
Let's also remember that Yuri cannot go exclusive at Istock because he has work in RF agencies that ask for much longer contracts than Microstock sites do. If he is going to think of going exclusive at Micro level for himself why would he be producing work for Macro agencies in RF? Just a questions to throw out before to much is assumed here.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Has anyone alerted IS/Thinkstock/whoever? I have not.
I really feel for the model, so i dropped Yuri a line.
-
Has anyone alerted IS/Thinkstock/whoever? I have not.
I really feel for the model, so i dropped Yuri a line.
Thank you.
I hope he really kicks up a stink about that.
-
HI all,
Let's also remember that Yuri cannot go exclusive at Istock because he has work in RF agencies that ask for much longer contracts than Microstock sites do. If he is going to think of going exclusive at Micro level for himself why would he be producing work for Macro agencies in RF? Just a questions to throw out before to much is assumed here.
Best,
Jonathan
So you have said many times __ but that wasn't how Yuri answered the question at all, although he had the opportunity to do so. Either your 'facts' are nonsense or Yuri is being extremely 'economical with the truth' to say the least.
-
Why do the images mentioned above, and several other of his people pictures there, have the keywords "No People" and "UNKNOWN"? Seems weird and senseless (and Thinkstock).
-
Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work.
It's on page 2, following your link. Didn't have to make a big effort to find it.
There is even another one on the same page. Uh.
So bizarre. Is thinkstock even manned? I think it's just an automatic dumping ground. What a ridiculous error.
-
HI all,
Let's also remember that Yuri cannot go exclusive at Istock because he has work in RF agencies that ask for much longer contracts than Microstock sites do. If he is going to think of going exclusive at Micro level for himself why would he be producing work for Macro agencies in RF? Just a questions to throw out before to much is assumed here.
Best,
Jonathan
So you have said many times __ but that wasn't how Yuri answered the question at all, although he had the opportunity to do so. Either your 'facts' are nonsense or Yuri is being extremely 'economical with the truth' to say the least.
Well, he did put a smiley at the end... I read the whole sentence as just a funny comment.
Of course he would be exclusive if Istock offered him enough (or anyone else), but
it would be much easier to just call them instead of hinting that
he would like an offer on someones blog: -)
Cheers
Morten
-
Hi Gostiwick,
He has agreed to shoot with Cultura and I believe that is under way and I know he has shot for Tetra in the past and may still do. Both agencies are not owned by Getty and are Macro RF agencies. Maybe he is just following the money.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi Gostiwick,
This is a quote from the article that pretty much explains what I was saying " You are known as the worlds best selling microstock photographer…and you participate in "macro" stock as well. How involved are you in macrostock?
I have about 7000 images in macrostock. And I plan to add at least 4000 images this year. So I think it’s safe to say that I’m very much involved with macrostock. "
I think that sums it up, did you read the article? Maybe he is planning on ditching Micro and going just Macro, only he knows for sure the rest is just assumptions.
Best,
Jonathan
-
This is a quote from the article that pretty much explains what I was saying " You are known as the worlds best selling microstock photographer…and you participate in "macro" stock as well. How involved are you in macrostock?
I have about 7000 images in macrostock. And I plan to add at least 4000 images this year. So I think it’s safe to say that I’m very much involved with macrostock. "
I think that sums it up, did you read the article? Maybe he is planning on ditching Micro and going just Macro, only he knows for sure the rest is just assumptions.
Nonsense. The Macro stuff could all have been assigned to RM if he wanted to go exclusive at IS. The truth is Yuri is non-exclusive because that's what he wants to be. You will also find that he will supply far more images to Micro than Macro because that's actually where the money is. If you believe different, despite all the evidence to the contrary, then you are a self-delusioned idiot.
-
The Macro stuff could all have been assigned to RM if he wanted to go exclusive at IS.
Some of the macro collections he's with don't do RM so that wouldn't be an option.
-
Hey Gostwyck,
Self delusioned idiot...hmmm not very nice of you to call people names and I think that delusioned is not a real word. I believe the word you were looking for was delusional, I could be wrong but anyways back to the forum. He is with Tetra I know the owner who is also an owner in Blend Images along with myself, Yuri has been with them for over a year easily, they are all RF and I have seen his work on the site under RF. He is shooting for Cultura, how do I know this because I am an owner in Cultura, almost all RF just now starting on presenting RM. Oh one more thing, pretty hard for anyone to get 7,000 images accepted as RM at any of the serious agencies in the amount of time he has been in it, even for Yuri. Now, that last line was speculation but it is an educated guess from dealing with that portion of the industry for the past thirteen years.
Cheers,
Jonathan
-
Thanks guys for letting me know about the model release issues. My legal team is preparing a letter to them as we speak. We take this very seriously. This is absolutely not allowed for many reasons.
By the way: What exactly am I trying to sell in my new interview? Had a great time with John writing this and that was basically what I was thinking about.
Have a great day. I am shooting a young family with grandparents today. Got to be off. Set's ready.
Best Yuri
-
Interesting stuff although he did appear to contradict himself on a few issues.
He says iStock are streets ahead of the other agencies and that exclusivity is best ... but then decides it is not for him at the moment. Why then bother to support all the other agencies of which he is so dismissive?
He says "the primary CEO's of the non-exclusive agencies are amateur photographers at best and often don't know good design, good pictures from less good ones, and really don't care too much about the "whine" in the design world." Huh? Where does he place Kelly Thompson in that scenario? Is Kelly a 'pro photographer' now? I hadn't realised. Jon Oringer might not be the world's best photographer __ but he is a very good businessman and that probably counts for more when it comes to running a business. Personally I still think that Shutterstock will win out in the end, simply because they are led by a shrewd businessman who takes the long view, rather than short-term Flash Harrys who are out to make a quick buck.
He reckons he can't produce images for less than $20 a pop but also reveals that his return per image topped $9 in 2009 and is predicted to be under $6 in 2011. That suggests a 4-year payback for his current work at today's prices __ which have already tumbled more than 30% in the last couple of years. If returns continue to dwindle at that pace then his outlay for today's shoots might actually take 6-7 years to pay back. By 2012 the payback could be more like 10 years per image. I'd say that's plenty to be concerned about.
Kelly is not with the "NON-exclusive agencies". He is actually quite good a photographer.
Exclusivity for me involves a huge risk in discontinuing distribution contracts with over 200 partners.
-
Glad you're on the case Yuri.
Well done FD for catching that, and Artemis for making contact.
I wonder why FD saw them and the rest of us didn't? Reminds me of that story about the natives who could only see the rowing boats coming ashore and not the huge Spanish galleons behind them - because their minds just couldn't comprehend such a thing...
-
Thanks guys for letting me know about the model release issues. My legal team is preparing a letter to them as we speak. We take this very seriously. This is absolutely not allowed for many reasons.
Best Yuri
I hope heads roll (metaphorically).
-
Hi Yuri,
Yes, that model release deal is a bit of a slip that you had no control over. When you have so many images out there this is just another area we all have to watch out for. Good to have people here watching out for you and hopefully all of us, I wish the entire industry felt the same way, we could help each other a great deal. Keep spreading your eggs across the world of baskets, that is the best security I can imagine for a contractor, I'm sure you are aware of that. ;)
Cheers,
Jonathan
-
Looks like congratulations are also in order for officially hitting the no.1 spot on iStock: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=295432&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=295432&page=1)
-
Hey Yuri,
Congratulations. We all knew it was just a matter of time. Beer is on you ;)
Best,
Jonathan
-
Beer?
Champagne!
Congrats, great achievement!
-
Beer?
Champagne!
If he is a real Dane he will prefer beer! ;D congrats!
-
wow, congrats. impressive work.
-
I thought I'd link into Mark Stout's blog here, he is always pretty vocal about his attitude toward microstock, and he brings up the Lund/Arcurs interview:
http://markstoutphotography.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/tide-turns-on-microstock/ (http://markstoutphotography.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/tide-turns-on-microstock/)
-
Most of that is fairly sensible, although I thought this part was unintended humor:
'I would like to close this with a thank you to Yuri Arcurs. I have long respected the quality of your work and your open door policy toward other photographers coupled with your willingness to share your success.'
What has eroded his earning power, but the competition trained by the 'open door policy' et al? Maybe he's applauding it because it was part of the puzzle that led everyone to his perceived cliff of change...
-
Most of that is fairly sensible, although I thought this part was unintended humor:
'I would like to close this with a thank you to Yuri Arcurs. I have long respected the quality of your work and your open door policy toward other photographers coupled with your willingness to share your success.'
What has eroded his earning power, but the competition trained by the 'open door policy' et al? Maybe he's applauding it because it was part of the puzzle that led everyone to his perceived cliff of change...
No humor intended at all. Perhaps I need to clarify some, but there are two points I made in addition to this: one is that there is plenty of work out there for all of us if we all learn to license our work for what it is worth and support business models that do the same and two, that I believe the reason so many have turned to microstock is that the door was closed to us in terms of information on professional licensing models, and to the agencies that would license our work. The traditional stock agencies, and the established pros simply turned a cold shoulder to those looking for how to break into the industry and the consequence was microstock, which has put many of the traditional stock houses out of business by throwing the door open wide and dropping prices to the sub-basement - and seriously harmed the income of a number of established photographers.
Hence, why I say I applaud Yuri's open door policy. Had this been the case the chances are a business model would have evolved that opened the door to anyone with the actual talent and experience to produce the work needed with a licensing model that sustains the cost of production instead of one that simply erodes the foundation by giving away the farm.
-
Well, there actually isn't enough work for everyone. There are lots of people with talent, and now that the door is open, the supply is huge. You can't say that if Getty just let everyone join we'd all be sellin 400 $300 licenses a day.
-
No humor intended at all. Perhaps I need to clarify some, but there are two points I made in addition to this: one is that there is plenty of work out there for all of us if we all learn to license our work for what it is worth and support business models that do the same and two, that I believe the reason so many have turned to microstock is that the door was closed to us in terms of information on professional licensing models, and to the agencies that would license our work. The traditional stock agencies, and the established pros simply turned a cold shoulder to those looking for how to break into the industry and the consequence was microstock, which has put many of the traditional stock houses out of business by throwing the door open wide and dropping prices to the sub-basement - and seriously harmed the income of a number of established photographers.
Hence, why I say I applaud Yuri's open door policy. Had this been the case the chances are a business model would have evolved that opened the door to anyone with the actual talent and experience to produce the work needed with a licensing model that sustains the cost of production instead of one that simply erodes the foundation by giving away the farm.
There's not 'plenty of work out there' at all. There's a limited amount of work, or licenses to be sold, spread between an ever-growing number of contributors who are producing an absurd amount of new images.
You can stand there applauding as many 'open door policies' as you like but it won't do anything to help. The farm's already gone mate __ for good. There's a little thing called 'supply & demand' at play. If you think it's bad now then pop by in 2-3 more years.
-
Well, there actually isn't enough work for everyone. There are lots of people with talent, and now that the door is open, the supply is huge. You can't say that if Getty just let everyone join we'd all be sellin 400 $300 licenses a day.
That's the point. If you were selling $300 licenses, instead of a dollar, you wouldn't have to license 400 images a day to make it. There is plenty of work for all of us if we learn to value our work... but no, the market does not have enough image demand to support a business model that allows the work to be had for a buck.
-
Well, there actually isn't enough work for everyone. There are lots of people with talent, and now that the door is open, the supply is huge. You can't say that if Getty just let everyone join we'd all be sellin 400 $300 licenses a day.
Do you really think that that the reason microstock pays so little to contributors is because Yuri told too many people about the world of microstock? There isn't enough work for everyone because digital cameras and photoshop have made it easy for anyone to shoot a reasonably good picture. If Yuri helps someone with talent do a better job, that moves the bar up a little for everyone. The only ones really hurt are the ones who should not be trying to play at being a professional photographer.
-
Do you really think that that the reason microstock pays so little to contributors is because Yuri told too many people about the world of microstock? There isn't enough work for everyone because digital cameras and photoshop have made it easy for anyone to shoot a reasonably good picture. If Yuri helps someone with talent do a better job, that moves the bar up a little for everyone. The only ones really hurt are the ones who should not be trying to play at being a professional photographer.
Sigh. I am not getting into that again. However, there is no denying that he is certainly part of the reason there are more people supply content than not. And every "here's my microstock success blog". And all that other stuff. It _all_ contributes to widening the contribution base.
-
Well, there actually isn't enough work for everyone. There are lots of people with talent, and now that the door is open, the supply is huge. You can't say that if Getty just let everyone join we'd all be sellin 400 $300 licenses a day.
That's the point. If you were selling $300 licenses, instead of a dollar, you wouldn't have to license 400 images a day to make it. There is plenty of work for all of us if we learn to value our work... but no, the market does not have enough image demand to support a business model that allows the work to be had for a buck.
We can't all sell enough $300 licenses to support ourselves. The buyer base for $300 a piece content is not that large.
Actually, the buyer base for micropricing is infinitely (ok, well not that much) bigger than the number of buyers that can afford $500 for _an_ image. Students, scrapbookers, scout flyer designers, micro-businesses, personal bloggers, etc.
-
Do you really think that that the reason microstock pays so little to contributors is because Yuri told too many people about the world of microstock? There isn't enough work for everyone because digital cameras and photoshop have made it easy for anyone to shoot a reasonably good picture. If Yuri helps someone with talent do a better job, that moves the bar up a little for everyone. The only ones really hurt are the ones who should not be trying to play at being a professional photographer.
Sigh. I am not getting into that again. However, there is no denying that he is certainly part of the reason there are more people supply content than not. And every "here's my microstock success blog". And all that other stuff. It _all_ contributes to widening the contribution base.
You're not going to get into that again, but you still keep posting that canard as if it's fact. As in " What has eroded his earning power, but the competition trained by the 'open door policy' et al?"
-
You're not going to get into that again, but you still keep posting that canard as if it's fact. As in " What has eroded his earning power, but the competition trained by the 'open door policy' et al?"
He and others bemoan sales losses to competition. Yet they actively train those competitors. It's not rocket science.
-
Most of that is fairly sensible, although I thought this part was unintended humor:
'I would like to close this with a thank you to Yuri Arcurs. I have long respected the quality of your work and your open door policy toward other photographers coupled with your willingness to share your success.'
What has eroded his earning power, but the competition trained by the 'open door policy' et al? Maybe he's applauding it because it was part of the puzzle that led everyone to his perceived cliff of change...
No humor intended at all. Perhaps I need to clarify some, but there are two points I made in addition to this: one is that there is plenty of work out there for all of us if we all learn to license our work for what it is worth and support business models that do the same and two, that I believe the reason so many have turned to microstock is that the door was closed to us in terms of information on professional licensing models, and to the agencies that would license our work. The traditional stock agencies, and the established pros simply turned a cold shoulder to those looking for how to break into the industry and the consequence was microstock, which has put many of the traditional stock houses out of business by throwing the door open wide and dropping prices to the sub-basement - and seriously harmed the income of a number of established photographers.
Hence, why I say I applaud Yuri's open door policy. Had this been the case the chances are a business model would have evolved that opened the door to anyone with the actual talent and experience to produce the work needed with a licensing model that sustains the cost of production instead of one that simply erodes the foundation by giving away the farm.
Mark, the problem with your article is that you rely on an interview with one contributor and draw second hand inferences from it to make conclusions about an entire industry.
I think the central point of Yuri's article is that the non-iStock agencies have stuck to a model where big and successful contributors will inevitably face a decline in revenue, whereas the iStock model through increasing prices and offering different collections has actually had the opposite effect for many exclusives.
Pickling out a few parts of the interview out of context and making conclusions the way you do may sound factual to the anti-microstock cheer-squad, but to anyone who actually knows a little bit more about the industry its obvious that you're really writing what you WANT to believe.
-
Most of that is fairly sensible, although I thought this part was unintended humor:
'I would like to close this with a thank you to Yuri Arcurs. I have long respected the quality of your work and your open door policy toward other photographers coupled with your willingness to share your success.'
What has eroded his earning power, but the competition trained by the 'open door policy' et al? Maybe he's applauding it because it was part of the puzzle that led everyone to his perceived cliff of change...
No humor intended at all. Perhaps I need to clarify some, but there are two points I made in addition to this: one is that there is plenty of work out there for all of us if we all learn to license our work for what it is worth and support business models that do the same and two, that I believe the reason so many have turned to microstock is that the door was closed to us in terms of information on professional licensing models, and to the agencies that would license our work. The traditional stock agencies, and the established pros simply turned a cold shoulder to those looking for how to break into the industry and the consequence was microstock, which has put many of the traditional stock houses out of business by throwing the door open wide and dropping prices to the sub-basement - and seriously harmed the income of a number of established photographers.
Hence, why I say I applaud Yuri's open door policy. Had this been the case the chances are a business model would have evolved that opened the door to anyone with the actual talent and experience to produce the work needed with a licensing model that sustains the cost of production instead of one that simply erodes the foundation by giving away the farm.
Mark, the problem with your article is that you rely on an interview with one contributor and draw second hand inferences from it to make conclusions about an entire industry.
I think the central point of Yuri's article is that the non-iStock agencies have stuck to a model where big and successful contributors will inevitably face a decline in revenue, whereas the iStock model through increasing prices and offering different collections has actually had the opposite effect for many exclusives.
Pickling out a few parts of the interview out of context and making conclusions the way you do may sound factual to the anti-microstock cheer-squad, but to anyone who actually knows a little bit more about the industry its obvious that you're really writing what you WANT to believe.
The possibility exists that I know the microstock industry, and the industry of photography as a whole considerably better than you presume here. And perhaps I am drawing on a body of knowledge a bit broader than the one person I referenced. You wouldn't know that. You didn't bother to find out. You just presumed.
-
Well there's a bloke called Yuri Arcurs who has 25k images at TS for example;
[url]http://tinyurl.com/yuriatTS[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/yuriatTS[/url])
There's something strange up with that. Many of those 25k images appear to be exact duplicates. In just the first few pages there's a closeup of a blond girl holding out a cellphone that is repeated several times, and also a portrait of a dark haired bride, and a photo of a groom sitting at a table giving a thumbs down. All appear to be from Hemera. Wonder why there are so many repeats/identical (as opposed to similar) images...?
There are strange images in that collection, e.g. illustrations which I don't think belong to Yuri at all. And what are those Gorilla images?
I would suggest these are leftover images maybe he didn't believe would sell or get accepted on the top tier agencies, but might on the lower tier agencies.. Maybe higher acceptance rate for repeat images etc.
-
The possibility exists that I know the microstock industry, and the industry of photography as a whole considerably better than you presume here. And perhaps I am drawing on a body of knowledge a bit broader than the one person I referenced. You wouldn't know that. You didn't bother to find out. You just presumed.
No I read your article and disagreed with the conclusions you made, based on my own understanding of the industry. Some points:
"They have one or two photographers who have done exceptionally well at it and held them up as examples of “how well you can do if you just invest more in your shoots, quit your day job and upload more.” "
There's a lot more than "one or two". Obviously how many depends on your definition of what makes up "exceptionally well". We all have different priorities in life. For many microstock photographers the real benefit isn't in getting rich, but in leading a lifestyle where they don't have to put up with regular clients or a regular employer. At the moment it takes well over 150,000 downloads to get into the top 50 at iStock - none of the contributors at that level are doing particularly badly - on my definition, they're all doing "exceptionally well". Bellow that level there are many photographers who are also doing "exceptionally well" even if they may not be placing orders for Porsches just yet. If earning a million dollar income is your sole criteria for determining "success" then microstock probably isn't the right choice though.
"He has now told the world the real scoop in his interview with Lund: my return per image has decreased with almost 1 USD a year since 2009. ..."
If you're assuming that quote means Yuri is earning $5.6 USD per image per year, then you're way off the mark. While I'd like to think that my RPI is higher than Yuri's, that' just isn't anywhere near the truth. What Yuri is hitting is a point that will apply in any format of the business - you just can't scale production in creative industries and expect future per-unit returns to be the same as before. Its only natural that he's looking for other avenues to diversify his business.
" Microstock has always been nothing other than a cancer that consumes its host and itself. That day is almost here."
Very emotive, but also not particularly factual. You're far more right about the closed shop mentality of the "old" agencies as being a major contributor of their decline however.
"And the buyers are finding that using microstock can be a fatal mistake. "
I don't know anyone who has died from using microstock - the (un-sourced) examples you give are no different to an adult products company using one of your images illegally, or a contributor on a traditional agency doing the wrong thing such as by faking model releases etc. You can never have 100% control over the actions of other people, whether they are employees or a selected group of suppliers. Obviously there are some situations where a microstock image isn't the best choice - buyers just need to consider their needs.
"As long as photographers allow their work to be licensed for a dime and used without restrictions, the abuses will continue. "
Again I could be wrong but I don't really see too many images for sale on the sites for this amount. The microstock "Royalty Free" license has plenty of restrictions. While many sites initially undershot the mark with pricing, the figures have been trending upwards in recent years. Without microstock, I think we'd see a much bigger impact from free images available through Creative Commons licenses.
You're right in the perception that many contributors are unhappy with reduced share of revenues, but that's a long way from the doom that you're predicting, and no different from what happened in the traditional agencies in the past.
-
Sigh. I am not getting into that again. However, there is no denying that he is certainly part of the reason there are more people supply content than not. And every "here's my microstock success blog". And all that other stuff. It _all_ contributes to widening the contribution base.
I absolutely agree with you that is one reason I absolutely hate this referral bullsh*t, I can understand that people don't care especially if they are hobbyists and have "real" jobs but I can't understand that people don't understand it, it isn't rocket science at all.
-
Students, scrapbookers, scout flyer designers, micro-businesses, personal bloggers, etc.
Did you really actually saw these kind of usages? There are few probably but I never saw them personally what I saw was Microstock-Images in advertising campaign of Dell, Apple and so on that easily did cost a 5 to 6 figure sum but the pictures they used just did cost a few bucks.
I think you are largely underestimate that buyers are willing to pay if the pictures really fit their demands.
I don't have a problem that students would use my images for a buck or free but they are not the main buyers of Microstock-Images.
-
Sigh. I am not getting into that again. However, there is no denying that he is certainly part of the reason there are more people supply content than not. And every "here's my microstock success blog". And all that other stuff. It _all_ contributes to widening the contribution base.
I absolutely agree with you that is one reason I absolutely hate this referral bullsh*t, I can understand that people don't care especially if they are hobbyists and have "real" jobs but I can't understand that people don't understand it, it isn't rocket science at all.
It's a shame that the people reading the blogs often don't take the time to check out the authors.
Many of these "microstock experts" (read parasites) have portfolios of a couple of dozen images with even less sales.
They've just discovered that the money's in exploiting newbies for their referral earning rather than taking the time to try and compete with the ever increasing numbers of contributors they themselves are inundating the sites with.
-
Hello Everyone.
Let me first introduce myself to the ones that I haven't had the pleasure to meet yet. My name is Kasper and I am the Vice President of Yuri Arcurs Photography. I have been working with Yuri more or less since he started contributing to microstock, but without contributing to this forum until now.
One of the things I have been very occupied with, is the legal aspects of microstock, which is why I have decided to reply to this threat. There is no such thing as micro-legal, which in other words means that everything that smells just the least of infringement or misuse of any kind has to be taken very seriously. This goes for microstock, as in every other industry.
Yuri Arcurs Photography has been in touch with Thinkstock and iStockphoto concerning the Model Releases put up for sale on their site. This is of course something that we have never approved for or let alone been informed about, and we take it very serious. Status is, that the Model Releases that was, by mistake, up for sale has been taken down yesterday and we are still working on mapping out this very unfortunate episode. Sadly, this is one of the things that can happen in a complex, and unstandardized online marketplace as microstock. Luckily, as Jonathan so very rightfully points out, there is a lot of eyes in an online marketplace as microstock which means that these incidents rarely are left unnoticed.
Thank you for noticing.
All the best,
Kasper.
Vice President, Yuri Arcurs Photography.
-
Students, scrapbookers, scout flyer designers, micro-businesses, personal bloggers, etc.
Did you really actually saw these kind of usages? There are few probably but I never saw them personally what I saw was Microstock-Images in advertising campaign of Dell, Apple and so on that easily did cost a 5 to 6 figure sum but the pictures they used just did cost a few bucks.
I think you are largely underestimate that buyers are willing to pay if the pictures really fit their demands.
I don't have a problem that students would use my images for a buck or free but they are not the main buyers of Microstock-Images.
Totally agree.
The belief that microstock images are mainly used by students, bloggers and microbusinesses etc is as airy fairy and irrational an idea as those 'earn gazillions from microstocks with photos on your hard disc' blogs.
Microstock images are used on TV, billboards, ads of serious companies who don't even care to buy an extended licence.
-
Students, scrapbookers, scout flyer designers, micro-businesses, personal bloggers, etc.
Did you really actually saw these kind of usages? There are few probably but I never saw them personally what I saw was Microstock-Images in advertising campaign of Dell, Apple and so on that easily did cost a 5 to 6 figure sum but the pictures they used just did cost a few bucks.
I think you are largely underestimate that buyers are willing to pay if the pictures really fit their demands.
I don't have a problem that students would use my images for a buck or free but they are not the main buyers of Microstock-Images.
Totally agree.
The belief that microstock images are mainly used by students, bloggers and microbusinesses etc is as airy fairy and irrational an idea as those 'earn gazillions from microstocks with photos on your hard disc' blogs.
Microstock images are used on TV, billboards, ads of serious companies who don't even care to buy an extended licence.
For these uses, ELs would not usually be required, at least on iStock.
What concerns me more is that while the students, bloggers, Mom & pop businesses and small charities pay higher prices per credit, the big companies with all the money are negotiating credits down to ridiculous levels. (Yes, I am aware that huge bulk discounts are normal in business.)
I still say that (on iStock) the EL details should be spelled out on every page, not just Vetta/agency, then there would be no 'ignorance' excuse.
-
In my experience the majority of buyers are the small time ones mentioned.
If I google my name most of the copyright declarations are on exactly this type of usage. Try it with your name if you sell enough volume to find results.
Trust me, the collective volume just wouldn't be there from the large companies alone. True it's still finite and getting stretched across too much supply, but it is there.
-
Students, scrapbookers, scout flyer designers, micro-businesses, personal bloggers, etc.
Did you really actually saw these kind of usages? There are few probably but I never saw them personally what I saw was Microstock-Images in advertising campaign of Dell, Apple and so on that easily did cost a 5 to 6 figure sum but the pictures they used just did cost a few bucks.
I think you are largely underestimate that buyers are willing to pay if the pictures really fit their demands.
I don't have a problem that students would use my images for a buck or free but they are not the main buyers of Microstock-Images.
Totally agree.
The belief that microstock images are mainly used by students, bloggers and microbusinesses etc is as airy fairy and irrational an idea as those 'earn gazillions from microstocks with photos on your hard disc' blogs.
Microstock images are used on TV, billboards, ads of serious companies who don't even care to buy an extended licence.
No, it's hardly an illusion. Yes, I have seen a couple of actual uses by scrapbookers in demo pages, but of course, you're less likely to see someone's personal work that you don't know, than an ad on tv, etc. The subjects of those uses are more likely to be non-people pictures, as they are scrapping their own albums, but things like icons or graphic elements. Especially with digital scrapbooking.
And to the last above poster, you don't need an EL for TV, billboard or ad use, even if the company is 'serious'.
-
In my experience the majority of buyers are the small time ones mentioned.
If I google my name most of the copyright declarations are on exactly this type of usage. Try it with your name if you sell enough volume to find results.
Googling my name usually throws up editorial-type uses like Scientific American and what have you, but that's biased because only editorial use has to be credited. TinEye shows up commercial uses, but nothing like as many as XSm and SM sales would lead me to believe.
Working out the credits paid for your own sales is a bit more likely to show up the relative numbers of smaller-value sales for your port. But I accept that if you're selling on a large scale that would prove far too time-consuming.
-
It's always someone else's fault...
-
It's always someone else's fault...
No it's always your fault!
-
It's always someone else's fault...
No it's always your fault!
Awwwe... That's sweet, but I can't take all the credit. :-*
-
Hi Brandon,
I couldn't agree more, always someone else's fault. The part that gets me on this post is that some people are complaining about to much information being offered through Blogs yet some of those unhappy have Blogs on Micro of their own. Education is available all over the place, from your local college to the book store to the boards that run and support photographers ( ASMP, etc.. ) and forums like this one that Tyler produces.
Information is everywhere, it is what you do with that information that makes the difference. So once again it is the individual that rises to the top not because of the information out there to educate but because of the person themselves, these people would succeed at anything they put there minds to.
The Blogs that are strong in my opinion are run by people that have been very successful in the industry for years and have always been givers. They have always shared ( John Lund, Tom Grill etc. ) and they have made a very strong name for themselves in the industry for DECADES while sharing what they know with others.
Why is it now that we blame the education and help that is out there for the fierce competition when it never hurt us from the inception of the industry before. The change in technology I believe is the greatest change to our industry and what gave the average person the opportunity to make money taking photos. Just my opinion.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Ok, I've said my same old. Jonathan said his same old. This thread has traveled its course... ;)
-
Ok, I've said my same old. Jonathan said his same old. This thread has traveled its course... ;)
For a second i thought this was a Lobo post
-
Well said Sean :D
Best to you,
Jonathan
-
The Blogs that are strong in my opinion are run by people that have been very successful in the industry for years and have always been givers. They have always shared ( John Lund, Tom Grill etc. ) and they have made a very strong name for themselves in the industry for DECADES while sharing what they know with others.
Totally agree, those blogs are very useful, and very few and far between.
There are also a great many blogs run by people that know nothing about how to be successful in the industry.
They are run as link farms for referral earnings by the same people that do it with ebooks about get rich quick schemes and any amount of other crap on the internet.
They have seen that the money is increasingly in giving people (erroneous) information about how to make money rather than in actually taking part in the activity itself.
God forbid they should create something rather than * the blood out of those that do.
Take a look at the SS forum sometime, there are people there who have built up entirely fictitious personas just to try and squeeze a bit of cash out of the ill informed.
-
He reckons he can't produce images for less than $20 a pop but also reveals that his return per image topped $9 in 2009 and is predicted to be under $6 in 2011. That suggests a 4-year payback for his current work at today's prices __ which have already tumbled more than 30% in the last couple of years. If returns continue to dwindle at that pace then his outlay for today's shoots might actually take 6-7 years to pay back. By 2012 the payback could be more like 10 years per image. I'd say that's plenty to be concerned about.
That genuinely is what unsustainable means and it is because of a fundamental flaw in his business plan. Microstock prices are not aimed at high-cost productions. If you can't produce images for next to nothing then it isn't going to work for you. The fall in annual return per image has been a very long-term trend and he should have factored it into his planning. I wonder if he will have the sense to shut up shop before his business slides into the red.
Perhaps he is hoping that Vetta and iStock's Getty link will offer salvation in the longer term.
-
I can't help feeling that what's 'unsustainable' in Yuri's business model would pay my rent about 20,000 times over. :D
-
He reckons he can't produce images for less than $20 a pop......
I think he's done well to produce any images for $20 a pop, taking onto account how much it costs to run a studio plus the associated work involved and $20 per image is a very good production rate.
-
I can't help feeling that what's 'unsustainable' in Yuri's business model would pay my rent about 20,000 times over. :D
Well, Yuri is the one who keeps blogging about how his returns are not able to keep up with the costs of flying fifteen models to the Seychelles for a fortnight along with the production assistants and make-up crew (or something like that). If he really does think he has to run a business like that (and employ vice-presidents etc.) then it is going to eat heavily into his earnings. The problem with high overheads is that any miscalculation about income can turn a big profit into a huge loss very quickly. Turnover 2m, costs 1.5m happiness, but if turnover drops by 30% that 500,000 profit suddenly becomes a 100,000 loss.
Once you deduct all his costs, it's quite possible that his microstock photo business (leaving aside referral income and all the other revenue streams he has worked on) is less profitable than that of a few others at the top of the game.
-
Once you deduct all his costs, it's quite possible that his microstock photo business (leaving aside referral income and all the other revenue streams he has worked on) is less profitable than that of a few others at the top of the game.[/quote]
A number of people have speculated this before and I agree. You can see some lower cost productions producing much higher returns on investment.
Yuri model is a highly leveraged one. But while its making a profit it is building up a huge very salable portfolio. The big question what is the lifetime of the images, how quickly will they date ? With 30,000 images you could shut up shop and live quite well, but for how long ?
There's also the option of an outright sale and heading in a different direction.
-
The big question what is the lifetime of the images, how quickly will they date ?
I didn't upload anything for half a year in 2010. And my images are much less "sellable" than Yuri's. Yet my drop in sales has been only 30%.
I believe portfolio of Johnathan Ross still sells quite well on micro despite it's not being updated for a couple of years.
-
The big question what is the lifetime of the images, how quickly will they date ?
I didn't upload anything for half a year in 2010. And my images are much less "sellable" than Yuri's. Yet my drop in sales has been only 30%.
I believe portfolio of Johnathan Ross still sells quite well on micro despite it's not being updated for a couple of years.
Very interesting Info. Thanks for sharing.
MY RPI is based on a monthly income per image. (as it is mostly in microstock. In macro people often like referring to RPI as being a yearly estimate)
-
Beer?
Champagne!
If he is a real Dane he will prefer beer! ;D congrats!
Actually Yes. A good Duval or Trapist will be enjoyed tonight.
-
Beer?
Champagne!
If he is a real Dane he will prefer beer! ;D congrats!
Actually Yes. A good Duval or Trapist will be enjoyed tonight.
Ah Duvel, the champagne of beers!
Ik knew it ;)
-
The big question what is the lifetime of the images, how quickly will they date ? With 30,000 images you could shut up shop and live quite well, but for how long ?
With that portfolio I'm sure shutting up shop would guarantee a wealthy retirement for a lifetime. Costs on retirement drop to zero and the income would probably run into millions before it finally more or less dried up. But having a company set-up traps you: can you throw all your staff out of work any time you decide it might be the best option for you? There would be huge pressure to keep such a business going and hope things would improve even if it started running at a loss.
The problem (for all of us) is that microstock is not geared to serving the interests of its suppliers. Those of us who do this full time - whether it is on a tiny scale or as an image factory - are gambling that the the agencies will continue to provide a decent return, and recent events show that this is a very dodgy assumption. We end up pushing ourselves harder and harder to try to maintain incomes, against the tide of new images flooding in and agencies freezing or cutting our commissions.
-
The Blogs that are strong in my opinion are run by people that have been very successful in the industry for years and have always been givers. They have always shared ( John Lund, Tom Grill etc. ) and they have made a very strong name for themselves in the industry for DECADES while sharing what they know with others.
Totally agree, those blogs are very useful, and very few and far between.
There are also a great many blogs run by people that know nothing about how to be successful in the industry.
They are run as link farms for referral earnings by the same people that do it with ebooks about get rich quick schemes and any amount of other crap on the internet.
They have seen that the money is increasingly in giving people (erroneous) information about how to make money rather than in actually taking part in the activity itself.
God forbid they should create something rather than the blood out of those that do.
Take a look at the SS forum sometime, there are people there who have built up entirely fictitious personas just to try and squeeze a bit of cash out of the ill informed.
I always wondered about that. Cheesy, but predictable. Nonetheless, the blog posts from Yuri and Lund are valuable on many levels, and serve more to foster an atmosphere of professionalism that is the natural progression of microstock. Everyone benefits from a better product in the long run. This industry is still in it's early years, and there are many oppourtunities ahead. IMHO.
-
Thanks for posting the article. I've been away so just catching up. No doubt that Yuri is a successful business. Maybe I'm too old and whatnot, but I don't hang the sun and moon on what anyone thinks. I read a lot of different opinions on various blogs, etc. Yay for me. I'm just starting. I'm new. My opinions don't count. But I'll say it anyway, I can't get over how everyone thinks of Yuri as a rockstar. Seriously. He has worked hard, just like a lot of others here, he's the number one microstocker. Yay for him. But. He's a business. He's good at his craft.
Again, thanks for the post. I'll keep doing what I do and let the chips fall where they may.
-
Hi BaldricksTrousers,
Dead on the money my friend. Quit tomorrow make millions for the next few years story over...WINNER! That is spoken from an old guy, Yuri still has a lot of time in the meter and loves his work. I am sure when it is getting to the point of truly being unsustainable he will hang his hat and live a wonderful life.
No one in this business can continue to keep there RPI the same as they build a larger and larger portfolio it is just a numbers thing for all of us, it has nothing to do with his business model. His revenue will continue to increase but his RPI will drop. 38,000 images x $85 ( $7 x 12 months )= $3.3 million a year. I would soooo quit, but that is just my Knees talking ;)
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi BaldricksTrousers,
Dead on the money my friend. Quit tomorrow make millions for the next few years story over...WINNER! That is spoken from an old guy, Yuri still has a lot of time in the meter and loves his work. I am sure when it is getting to the point of truly being unsustainable he will hang his hat and live a wonderful life.
No one in this business can continue to keep there RPI the same as they build a larger and larger portfolio it is just a numbers thing for all of us, it has nothing to do with his business model. His revenue will continue to increase but his RPI will drop. 38,000 images x $85 ( $7 x 12 months )= $3.3 million a year. I would soooo quit, but that is just my Knees talking ;)
Best,
Jonathan
Oh I doubt you'd ever quit entirely Jonathan - you like what you're doing way too much:) Quit running high-yield production company - maybe, but quit shooting - can't see that.
-
Hi Elenathewise,
You have me pegged ;) I just want to have the last part of my life to create my vision of art without having to worry if anyone else likes it or will buy it. That and teaching are my dream world but for now I have to shoot, shoot, shoot. :)
Best,
Jonathan
-
You have me pegged ;) I just want to have the last part of my life to create my vision of art without having to worry if anyone else likes it or will buy it. That and teaching are my dream world but for now I have to shoot, shoot, shoot. :)
That probably puts you at Level 6, Jonathan, a whore! Roll on Level 7. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm)
-
Hi Noodles,
I will never deny that my approach to my work is a bit like being a whore but hey they have the oldest profession known to mankind and they are still making a buck ;D
Cheers,
J
-
You have me pegged ;) I just want to have the last part of my life to create my vision of art without having to worry if anyone else likes it or will buy it. That and teaching are my dream world but for now I have to shoot, shoot, shoot. :)
That probably puts you at Level 6, Jonathan, a whore! Roll on Level 7. [url]http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm[/url])
Aren't we all?.... ;)
-
You have me pegged ;) I just want to have the last part of my life to create my vision of art without having to worry if anyone else likes it or will buy it. That and teaching are my dream world but for now I have to shoot, shoot, shoot. :)
That probably puts you at Level 6, Jonathan, a whore! Roll on Level 7. [url]http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm[/url])
Aren't we all?.... ;)
some of us maybe ::) the level that makes me chuckle is " Equipment Measurbator: Bottom Level 1 " and I'm pretty sure we have quite a few of those around here :o