Author Topic: yuri interview on John Lund (Read 36772 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #100 on:** January 25, 2011, 06:17 »

Quote from: niserin on January 25, 2011, 06:12

Quote from: grp_photo on January 25, 2011, 04:25
Quote from: sjlocke on January 24, 2011, 22:20

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.

Microbius · « **Reply #101 on:** January 25, 2011, 06:22 »

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #102 on:** January 25, 2011, 07:21 »

Quote from: niserin on January 25, 2011, 06:12

Quote from: grp_photo on January 25, 2011, 04:25
Quote from: sjlocke on January 24, 2011, 22:20

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'.

ShadySue · « **Reply #103 on:** January 25, 2011, 08:22 »

Quote from: Microbius on January 25, 2011, 06:22

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.

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #104 on:** January 25, 2011, 10:58 »

It's always someone else's fault...

grp_photo · « **Reply #105 on:** January 25, 2011, 12:11 »

Quote from: Brandon Seidel on January 25, 2011, 10:58

It's always someone else's fault...

No it's always your fault!

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #106 on:** January 25, 2011, 12:51 »

Quote from: grp_photo on January 25, 2011, 12:11

Quote from: Brandon Seidel on January 25, 2011, 10:58
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.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #107 on:** January 25, 2011, 19:52 »

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

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #108 on:** January 25, 2011, 20:20 »

Ok, I've said my same old. Jonathan said his same old. This thread has traveled its course...

jbarber873 · « **Reply #109 on:** January 25, 2011, 20:43 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 25, 2011, 20:20

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

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #110 on:** January 25, 2011, 22:04 »

Well said Sean

Best to you,
Jonathan

Microbius · « **Reply #111 on:** January 26, 2011, 03:58 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 25, 2011, 19:52

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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #112 on:** January 26, 2011, 04:10 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2011, 18:37

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.

rubyroo · « **Reply #113 on:** January 26, 2011, 04:15 »

I can't help feeling that what's 'unsustainable' in Yuri's business model would pay my rent about 20,000 times over.

RT · « **Reply #114 on:** January 26, 2011, 04:17 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2011, 18:37

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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #115 on:** January 26, 2011, 04:52 »

Quote from: rubyroo on January 26, 2011, 04:15

I can't help feeling that what's 'unsustainable' in Yuri's business model would pay my rent about 20,000 times over.

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.

qwerty · « **Reply #116 on:** January 26, 2011, 06:58 »

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.

MikLav · « **Reply #117 on:** January 26, 2011, 08:38 »

Quote from: qwerty on January 26, 2011, 06:58

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.

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #118 on:** January 26, 2011, 09:10 »

Quote from: MikLav on January 26, 2011, 08:38

Quote from: qwerty on January 26, 2011, 06:58
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)

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #119 on:** January 26, 2011, 09:15 »

Quote from: grp_photo on January 24, 2011, 03:36

Quote from: Opla on January 23, 2011, 18:20
Beer?
Champagne!

If he is a real Dane he will prefer beer! congrats!

Actually Yes. A good Duval or Trapist will be enjoyed tonight.

Opla · « **Reply #120 on:** January 26, 2011, 09:54 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on January 26, 2011, 09:15

Quote from: grp_photo on January 24, 2011, 03:36
Quote from: Opla on January 23, 2011, 18:20
Beer?
Champagne!

If he is a real Dane he will prefer beer! congrats!

Actually Yes. A good Duval or Trapist will be enjoyed tonight.

Ah Duvel, the champagne of beers!
Ik knew it

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #121 on:** January 26, 2011, 10:05 »

Quote from: qwerty on January 26, 2011, 06:58

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.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #122 on:** January 26, 2011, 10:27 »

Quote from: Microbius on January 26, 2011, 03:58

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 25, 2011, 19:52

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.

Blufish · « **Reply #123 on:** January 26, 2011, 10:27 »

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.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #124 on:** January 26, 2011, 13:36 »

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

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: yuri interview on John Lund (Read 36772 times)

ShadySue

Microbius

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

No Longer Cares

grp_photo

No Longer Cares

Jonathan Ross

Sean Locke Photography

jbarber873

Jonathan Ross

Microbius

BaldricksTrousers

rubyroo

RT

BaldricksTrousers

qwerty

MikLav

Yuri_Arcurs

Yuri_Arcurs

Opla

BaldricksTrousers

jbarber873

Blufish

Jonathan Ross

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors