Author Topic: yuri interview on John Lund (Read 36866 times)

click_click · « **Reply #25 on:** January 21, 2011, 22:32 »

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #26 on:** January 21, 2011, 23:02 »

This is fun!

pancaketom · « **Reply #27 on:** January 21, 2011, 23:03 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 21, 2011, 20:21

Quote from: pancaketom on January 21, 2011, 20:03
...
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 .

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #28 on:** January 21, 2011, 23:14 »

Quote from: Sadstock on January 21, 2011, 22:07

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #29 on:** January 21, 2011, 23:24 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 21, 2011, 23:02

This is fun!

Hmmm. The phrase "Light blue touch-paper and stand well back" somehow comes to mind!

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #30 on:** January 22, 2011, 00:41 »

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

RT · « **Reply #31 on:** January 22, 2011, 02:06 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2011, 18:51

I get the impression that he is prone to sulking if he doesn't get his own way.

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.

lagereek · « **Reply #32 on:** January 22, 2011, 03:13 »

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

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #33 on:** January 22, 2011, 07:54 »

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)

maco0708 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 22, 2011, 09:46 »

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.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #35 on:** January 22, 2011, 09:56 »

Quote from: maco0708 on January 22, 2011, 09:46

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #36 on:** January 22, 2011, 10:14 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on January 22, 2011, 09:56

Quote from: maco0708 on January 22, 2011, 09:46
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.

helix7 · « **Reply #37 on:** January 22, 2011, 11:08 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** January 22, 2011, 11:15 »

Quote from: helix7 on January 22, 2011, 11:08

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #39 on:** January 22, 2011, 11:26 »

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

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #40 on:** January 22, 2011, 11:33 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 22, 2011, 11:15

Quote from: helix7 on January 22, 2011, 11:08
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.

I think that humans are basically creatures of habit. And SS did have a website upgrade last year. That was enough change for me.

lisafx · « **Reply #41 on:** January 22, 2011, 11:47 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2011, 11:26

Well there's a bloke called Yuri Arcurs who has 25k images at TS for example;

http://tinyurl.com/yuriatTS

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...?

Maui · « **Reply #42 on:** January 22, 2011, 12:03 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 22, 2011, 11:47

Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2011, 11:26
Well there's a bloke called Yuri Arcurs who has 25k images at TS for example;

http://tinyurl.com/yuriatTS

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?

rubyroo · « **Reply #43 on:** January 22, 2011, 12:05 »

Maybe he just put a lot of older work there(?) I seem to remember him doing some gorilla shots a long while back...

jbarber873 · « **Reply #44 on:** January 22, 2011, 12:12 »

Quote from: rubyroo on January 22, 2011, 12:05

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

and the usual saying is "800 pound gorilla" , so maybe the gorilla is becoming unsustainable....

FD · « **Reply #45 on:** January 22, 2011, 12:14 »

I love this picture. I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases.

- (Info: no model release required

)
Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #46 on:** January 22, 2011, 12:21 »

Quote from: FD-regular on January 22, 2011, 12:14

I love this picture. I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases. (Info: no model release required )

Uh-oh.

gostwyck · « **Reply #47 on:** January 22, 2011, 12:27 »

Quote from: FD-regular on January 22, 2011, 12:14

I love this picture. I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases. - (Info: no model release required )
Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity

Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work. What an utter shambles that place is.

FD · « **Reply #48 on:** January 22, 2011, 12:28 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 22, 2011, 12:21

Uh-oh.

I agree. The white balance is far off.

pancaketom · « **Reply #49 on:** January 22, 2011, 12:47 »

Quote from: FD-regular on January 22, 2011, 12:14

I love this picture. I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases. - (Info: no model release required )
Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity

Some places would have rejected that for "no model release"

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: yuri interview on John Lund (Read 36866 times)

click_click

Sean Locke Photography

pancaketom

PaulieWalnuts

gostwyck

Jonathan Ross

RT

lagereek

microstockphoto.co.uk

maco0708

Elenathewise

gostwyck

helix7

ShadySue

gostwyck

cathyslife

lisafx

Maui

rubyroo

jbarber873

FD

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

FD

pancaketom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors