MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Another Massive Best Match Shift  (Read 246849 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lagereek

« Reply #175 on: December 24, 2011, 05:33 »
0
Christian, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about spreading stuff around. The most scientific microstocker alive is Arcurs, he calculates everything to maximise profit, and he believes in supplying every single site he can.

Hi Paul!  and merry christmas!

Yep!  but in Yuris place thats easy to do! since hes got billions of shots further more he has staff and everything, putting a few people to upload and everything.

Us!  mortals, will have to find other ways and I can think of better things to do then spend 24 hours/day in front of a computer. See, comparing any of us to Yuri, is in fact a bit dangerous and misleading, he is an institution, we others are just contributors.

In any case, this is the strategy I have applied for 25 years and well,  I have survived.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #176 on: December 24, 2011, 05:47 »
0
people still find files by doing search by downloads. New files will never be found.
If someone is capable of searching by downloads, why are they not capable of searching by age?

« Reply #177 on: December 24, 2011, 07:42 »
0
they can search by age but this will also get mostly excusive images nowdays. lol

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #178 on: December 24, 2011, 08:03 »
0
they can search by age but this will also get mostly excusive images nowdays. lol
Must depend on the search. By age:
business: at this moment, the top 23 are all indie
Health, at this moment, top 20 are indie
New York has 3 exclusives on the top line, otherwise about the top 30 or 40 are mostly indie, although that is skewed slightly by batches of videos by two indies having come through all at once.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #179 on: December 24, 2011, 08:07 »
0
Christian, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about spreading stuff around. The most scientific microstocker alive is Arcurs, he calculates everything to maximise profit, and he believes in supplying every single site he can.


Yep, that seems to be working great for Yuri.

« Reply #180 on: December 24, 2011, 08:09 »
0
they can search by age but this will also get mostly excusive images nowdays. lol
Must depend on the search. By age:
business: at this moment, the top 23 are all indie
Health, at this moment, top 20 are indie
New York has 3 exclusives on the top line, otherwise about the top 30 or 40 are mostly indie, although that is skewed slightly by batches of videos by two indies having come through all at once.

Yes, it seems that someone is confusing wishes with reality, lol

« Reply #181 on: December 24, 2011, 08:59 »
0
Christian, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about spreading stuff around. The most scientific microstocker alive is Arcurs, he calculates everything to maximise profit, and he believes in supplying every single site he can.


Yep, that seems to be working great for Yuri.


If he thought he would be making more with fewer sites then he would change his strategy. The fact his sales started to drop doesn't mean he's got it wrong about supplying everyone, it may just mean that his is a victim of the steady flood of images that are trying to swamp his out. 

« Reply #182 on: December 24, 2011, 09:01 »
0
matbe now but reality is less indie uploads and more exclusives mean a exclusives will domoniate all searches. That is reality. Not one I like but a reality nonetheless. If nothing changes all searches will be dominated by exclusive content.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #183 on: December 24, 2011, 09:24 »
0
Christian, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about spreading stuff around. The most scientific microstocker alive is Arcurs, he calculates everything to maximise profit, and he believes in supplying every single site he can.


Yep, that seems to be working great for Yuri.


If he thought he would be making more with fewer sites then he would change his strategy.

His post asking questions would seem to indicate he doesn't know what the cause of the problem is or how widespread it is. I would guess he is trying to figure out if something can be changed in his strategy because the current one isn't producing the expected results.

Quote
The fact his sales started to drop doesn't mean he's got it wrong about supplying everyone, it may just mean that his is a victim of the steady flood of images that are trying to swamp his out.  

That's one possibility. But if IS sales are dropping more than others while some sites show a slight increase what would that indicate? Maybe that buyers are moving from higher priced IS to cheaper sites? And that would support the idea that spreading images all over the place at different price points is hurting contributors. If contributors didn't offer images cheaper elsewhere the buyers would have nowhere else to buy them.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 09:28 by PaulieWalnuts »

« Reply #184 on: December 24, 2011, 10:32 »
0
Christian, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about spreading stuff around. The most scientific microstocker alive is Arcurs, he calculates everything to maximise profit, and he believes in supplying every single site he can.

It is presumptuous to assume exclusives at istock have made miscalculations in terms of maximizing profits.

There are two people with direct knowledge and a perfect comparable sample size to nail down the "which one is better"  independent or exclusive to istock.  It is the aforementioned Yuri and Lise Gagne.  If these two giants of the stock photo world would reveal their total earnings it would settle this question of which decision has been better in the last 6 years.  One has had a better bottom line on the balance sheet.  I wonder if they have privately compared notes?

I know by the comparing of incomes of large independents revealed on here it seems like the exclusives have made a lot more of this period of time. 

lagereek

« Reply #185 on: December 24, 2011, 11:00 »
0
Amazing!  every time this comes up, people start to compare the whole thing to Yuri and Lise?  would you compare a little high-st Mac shop to the actual Apple corporation?
Lise started right in the beginning, 50% of her first two year stuff wouldnt even pass todays quality-control. Yuri has got a full fledged educated staff, studios, the lot.
Yuri can afford to make mistakes but the ordianry contributor, can not. I find it a bit naive (sorry) to always compare or quote the absoloute heights of any industries. Just because it worked for them, is no guarantee at all it would work for anyone else.

« Reply #186 on: December 24, 2011, 11:30 »
0
Amazing!  every time this comes up, people start to compare the whole thing to Yuri and Lise?  would you compare a little high-st Mac shop to the actual Apple corporation?
Lise started right in the beginning, 50% of her first two year stuff wouldnt even pass todays quality-control. Yuri has got a full fledged educated staff, studios, the lot.
Yuri can afford to make mistakes but the ordianry contributor, can not. I find it a bit naive (sorry) to always compare or quote the absoloute heights of any industries. Just because it worked for them, is no guarantee at all it would work for anyone else.

Correct indeed. the comparison is futile.
A good comaparison would be an exclusive turning indie (or vice versa) and comparing revenue after his portfolio is uploaded every where else.

wut

« Reply #187 on: December 24, 2011, 11:32 »
0

There are two people with direct knowledge and a perfect comparable sample size to nail down the "which one is better"  independent or exclusive to istock.  It is the aforementioned Yuri and Lise Gagne.  If these two giants of the stock photo world would reveal their total earnings it would settle this question of which decision has been better in the last 6 years.  One has had a better bottom line on the balance sheet.  I wonder if they have privately compared notes?

I know by the comparing of incomes of large independents revealed on here it seems like the exclusives have made a lot more of this period of time. 

Lise surely made a lot more, if we're talking about nett earnings, which really matter. Yuri gets only what's left after he pays out those 100 salaries, rents/mortgages for 3 (or is it 4 studios), he's flying in models from all over the world, there can't be much left after all that (procentually that is). I don't think it's a bold statement SJLocke, with his more or less low/mid budget shoots (no pro models, no super locations and props) nets a lot more than Yuri. I think it's more important for Yuri to be the star of MS everybody is talking about, than to earn more than everybody else. He loves being in the spotlight. Though I must say, he is a nice guy, giving free advice (of course there his own agenda behind it, but still), helping ppl etc. He replied to an IS sitemail, which really surprised me. He must be getting tons of msges. And he actually took the time to give me a decent, real reply. I doubt I'd be getting a reply from most of the other top contributors.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #188 on: December 24, 2011, 11:38 »
0

 SJLocke, with his more or less low/mid budget shoots (no pro models, no super locations and props) nets a lot more than Yuri.
quote]
Sean can speak for himself, but I believe he pays most of his models, hires locations like aircraft and supermarkets that must cost a pretty penny and once said he'd bought a prop for shoot that had cost in the high hundreds of dollars.

But yes, net earnings (also taking into account tax and tax deductions) is the only important figure. If your gross is huge and your net only moderate, all you're doing is channelling money and energy into the agent/s pocket/s.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 11:40 by ShadySue »

wut

« Reply #189 on: December 24, 2011, 12:01 »
0

 SJLocke, with his more or less low/mid budget shoots (no pro models, no super locations and props) nets a lot more than Yuri.
Sean can speak for himself, but I believe he pays most of his models, hires locations like aircraft and supermarkets that must cost a pretty penny and once said he'd bought a prop for shoot that had cost in the high hundreds of dollars.

But yes, net earnings (also taking into account tax and tax deductions) is the only important figure. If your gross is huge and your net only moderate, all you're doing is channelling money and energy into the agent/s pocket/s.

Sean did speak for himself, saying exactly that, at least regarding models (real ppl, not high end models), when it comes to other things, he at least said something along those lines. I'd never dare to make something like that up, or express my opinions as facts. Few hundred dollar props? Well that's not more than mid budget, now is it? Yuri's are in the thousands, regularly ;) . Supermarkets and aircraft could be free, he could give them the photos afterwards as a compensation. I never paid for a location, though I must say it really is a LOT of work to a deal like that out. So I do it 2-3 times a year at most. But then again I shoot a lot less than Sean.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #190 on: December 24, 2011, 12:12 »
0
Few hundred dollar props? Well that's not more than mid budget, now is it?
It's all relative. I once bought a prop that cost about 4, but only because I could eat it afterwards.  :D

« Reply #191 on: December 24, 2011, 12:13 »
0
I do pay my models, but they aren't agency models, nor do I fly them in from anywhere, and most of the time they do their own makeup.    Locations costs a couple of hundred, or trade for images.  Props are reused as much as possible.  I don't travel to shoot - I don't see the need.  I'm intent on keeping my costs down so my net is as large as possible.  I'd say my costs are around %5 or so of my gross.  I'm sure Lisafx is the same as well as many of the others here.  Lise uses her husband for a lot of her stuff - her locations used to be her apartment.  If I wanted to work a lot more and make a lot less, I'd follow a different model.

wut

« Reply #192 on: December 24, 2011, 12:21 »
0
I do pay my models, but they aren't agency models, nor do I fly them in from anywhere, and most of the time they do their own makeup.    Locations costs a couple of hundred, or trade for images.  Props are reused as much as possible.  I don't travel to shoot - I don't see the need.  I'm intent on keeping my costs down so my net is as large as possible.  I'd say my costs are around %5 or so of my gross.  I'm sure Lisafx is the same as well as many of the others here.  Lise uses her husband for a lot of her stuff - her locations used to be her apartment.  If I wanted to work a lot more and make a lot less, I'd follow a different model.

I'm glad we've (you really) cleared things up. And yes, I think that's the best approach to MS. Even if I were big, I'd still keep it small, I wouldn't change much regarding how I get down to this MS business. I'd only use better models, because a good model really makes a big, if not huge difference. I also like doing things simple, wether I do some personal projects or MS. When I overcomplicate things (locations that are hard to get, multiple models, complicated concepts), things never really add up, results are not good, photos don't sell and I'm in a bad mood because of all that (so much work and so poor results).

wut

« Reply #193 on: December 24, 2011, 12:26 »
0
Few hundred dollar props? Well that's not more than mid budget, now is it?
It's all relative. I once bought a prop that cost about 4, but only because I could eat it afterwards.  :D

Lol, nice one.

That being said, I never payed a model more than 30 EUR (but I also never shoot more than 3h, at least not if I'm shooting alone). And I also never spent more than 15 EUR for props, it was usually food as well (which we ate afterwards, so it's not really an expense).

« Reply #194 on: December 24, 2011, 13:57 »
0
Christian, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about spreading stuff around. The most scientific microstocker alive is Arcurs, he calculates everything to maximise profit, and he believes in supplying every single site he can.

It is presumptuous to assume exclusives at istock have made miscalculations in terms of maximizing profits.

......

I know by the comparing of incomes of large independents revealed on here it seems like the exclusives have made a lot more of this period of time. 


I wasn't accusing exclusives of making miscalculations, I was responding to the statement "There is still a fundamental law in all stock-photography, Internet based or not: dont spread your images around, just for the sake of quantity!  its proved over decades that it does have a negative effect and depending on each agencies structure and policy,  the images start to lose credibillity and selling power."

I don't see Yuri as having lost credibility and selling power. Does anyone think he has?

The particular circumstances of each individual make everyone's best choice unique. I'm not even trying to pursue a maximum-profit route, for example. I suspect fame matters more to Yuri than it does to Sean; Lise seems quite private so Yuri's glitzy self-promotion wouldn't suit her. Some people don't have time to upload to many sites others have been concerned about the "eggs in one basket" syndrome (that rather than maximising earnings has been a major reason for people staying independent).

So my comment wasn't about relative profitability of independence or exclusivity, it was about whether, in theory, total exposure everywhere would be less profitable and credible than sticking to a selected few sites. I wasn't even thinking about the iS exclusive benefits, which are a special case that have nothing to do with Christian's "fundamental law in all stock photography".

« Reply #195 on: December 24, 2011, 14:19 »
0
I'm surprised more people are not ranting as independents are now buried - it seems like a pretty big deal for independents who use to have some popular photos at istock.  That is quite a shuffle - I would have guessed it would have been wise to keep a few independent files up front if they are relevant and popular for buyers and for independents to keep them engaged. Dang

Yes I had a few that made me some money, and they probably won't any more.  But the ranting is over because I stopped submitting to IS long ago.  I'm keeping my account open in hopes IS is sold, or some other miracle occurs, and it somehow morphs into something that makes sense.   I don't expect that to happen so sometime in the coming year, I'll probably close the account. 

« Reply #196 on: December 24, 2011, 14:45 »
0
I do pay my models, but they aren't agency models, nor do I fly them in from anywhere, and most of the time they do their own makeup.    Locations costs a couple of hundred, or trade for images.  Props are reused as much as possible.  I don't travel to shoot - I don't see the need.  I'm intent on keeping my costs down so my net is as large as possible.  I'd say my costs are around %5 or so of my gross.  I'm sure Lisafx is the same as well as many of the others here.  Lise uses her husband for a lot of her stuff - her locations used to be her apartment.  If I wanted to work a lot more and make a lot less, I'd follow a different model.

Your cost might also include "benefits" which equal zero at istock.  Normal benefits (bonus, health insurance, retirement, etc.) on a salary job add up to 40% above your salary.  I would say that is definitely at cost at istock.

« Reply #197 on: December 24, 2011, 15:01 »
0
He also has to pay mortgage and feed his kids. that is not a business expense and has nothing to do with the business expense. if he pays himself a salary (as an LLC) then I am sure he gets all benefits possible...

« Reply #198 on: December 24, 2011, 15:02 »
0
I include my health insurance in my costs, but not retirement.  Disney and Boeing didn't really help out much in that regards.

lagereek

« Reply #199 on: December 24, 2011, 15:14 »
0
Christian, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about spreading stuff around. The most scientific microstocker alive is Arcurs, he calculates everything to maximise profit, and he believes in supplying every single site he can.

It is presumptuous to assume exclusives at istock have made miscalculations in terms of maximizing profits.

......

I know by the comparing of incomes of large independents revealed on here it seems like the exclusives have made a lot more of this period of time. 


I wasn't accusing exclusives of making miscalculations, I was responding to the statement "There is still a fundamental law in all stock-photography, Internet based or not: dont spread your images around, just for the sake of quantity!  its proved over decades that it does have a negative effect and depending on each agencies structure and policy,  the images start to lose credibillity and selling power."

I don't see Yuri as having lost credibility and selling power. Does anyone think he has?

The particular circumstances of each individual make everyone's best choice unique. I'm not even trying to pursue a maximum-profit route, for example. I suspect fame matters more to Yuri than it does to Sean; Lise seems quite private so Yuri's glitzy self-promotion wouldn't suit her. Some people don't have time to upload to many sites others have been concerned about the "eggs in one basket" syndrome (that rather than maximising earnings has been a major reason for people staying independent).

So my comment wasn't about relative profitability of independence or exclusivity, it was about whether, in theory, total exposure everywhere would be less profitable and credible than sticking to a selected few sites. I wasn't even thinking about the iS exclusive benefits, which are a special case that have nothing to do with Christian's "fundamental law in all stock photography".

Hi! Paul and merry x-mas!

well its not my fundamental law, its actually Ian Ogilvies of O&M, refering to products saleabillity in promotion and advertising. Anyhow I think its a serious mistake and very misleading to think in terms of that only because its worked beautyfully for Yuri and Lise (gange) to assume thats the formula for everybody. Much of their success lies in the fact they were early starters, well at least Lise was.

Today, 12 years later it would be suicidal to even think in those terms and especially since we now know that some agencies cant even be trusted. I mean, honestly, if it wasnt for some 3 agencies only, I would happily quit micro tomorrow.
Im beginning to think in the terms its a bit of a mugs-game, really.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
20995 Views
Last post February 26, 2011, 04:42
by ShadySue
120 Replies
39265 Views
Last post May 11, 2011, 16:22
by Jo Ann Snover
240 Replies
58305 Views
Last post September 24, 2011, 10:24
by nataq
69 Replies
28510 Views
Last post November 15, 2011, 08:17
by ShadySue
Best Match shift 27 Jan 12

Started by michealo « 1 2  All » iStockPhoto.com

48 Replies
32123 Views
Last post February 02, 2012, 16:03
by StanRohrer

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors