Quote from: gbalex on June 03, 2014, 17:32

Yuri has been asking the sites to raise pricing and sub pricing for years.

Me too, although I assume they aren't listening. I have no problem with him going off and getting a good deal for himself, but he might have gotten more of what he wanted if he invited the rest of us to help. He was never going to get it done by himself because no ONE contributor is very important.

I agree, though at the time the frogs were happily soaking in the pot.  Luckily a group of Russians stepped up to change our collective mindset somewhat. I do think positive change is possible now.

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 04, 2014, 05:54

its way below than what he has doing, he was already at 3M back in 2012 (the year before going "exclusive")

� Income �way higher than $3 Million a year�, 8 figures in sight

Yuri licenses over 10 million individual images each and every year (which works out to about 5000 per day).

http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/

If such figures are true, when he found out that his high production costs were unsustainable for subs sites, the only sensible thing to do was to just shut down his unsustainable business and go solo, instead of signing the "professionals deal with professionals" deal and deleting his port from SS. He could have earned a few million dollars each year forever at no additional costs. Plus, a lot of free time to enjoy better things in photography and life than stock.

I never said this before because I thought it's not my business. But since he's now our self-proclaimed manager to save iStock and the world in 3 months I had to say it.

Decisions like this, and his mobile stock site, are enough for me not to trust him as a my project manager. Of course, I wish him to be very successful in everything he'll decide to do for himself - but just not for us, please. iStock are very able to take bad decisions by themselves, no need for a guru's help.

Personally I don't think Yuri has enough experience to develop a site as large as IS. However I have used both PP and IS as a buyer and found the buying experience superior at PP. Could be a simple as IS taking advantage of his experience producing his own site.

Quote from: cthoman on June 03, 2014, 17:50

Quote from: gbalex on June 03, 2014, 17:32

Yuri has been asking the sites to raise pricing and sub pricing for years.

Me too, although I assume they aren't listening. I have no problem with him going off and getting a good deal for himself, but he might have gotten more of what he wanted if he invited the rest of us to help. He was never going to get it done by himself because no ONE contributor is very important.

I agree, though at the time the frogs were happily soaking in the pot.  Luckily a group of Russians stepped up to change our collective mindset somewhat. I do think positive change is possible now.

That's a bit revisionist. By the time Yuri made his deal, the RC system was a few years old, other companies had royalty claw backs and many contributors had already opened up their own shops. Honestly, I thought he was late to the party.

I don't have a take on if Yuri can turn around Istock.  I hope he is able to do some good, but not sure its possible.  The investment company that runs Getty have shown they can do a lot of damage.  Maybe they will wise up, listen, and turn it around, but more likely just dress up the dog and sell it to the next owners.   

Yep things swinging into action DeepMeta down due to problems at I Stock - Look out Crestock I stock are chasing your market share! 

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 04, 2014, 13:04

I don't have a take on if Yuri can turn around Istock.  I hope he is able to do some good, but not sure its possible.  The investment company that runs Getty have shown they can do a lot of damage.  Maybe they will wise up, listen, and turn it around, but more likely just dress up the dog and sell it to the next owners.

I would agree with most of your points!

Then you are very smart and deserve a +1! 

It is hard to believe in any positive changes at iStock with my "Recoument" email from them hunting me every month 

it seems yuri needed another more account on istock http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=11721662

Quote from: gbalex on June 03, 2014, 17:32

Shutterstock has not raised sub prices in 9 years. Key execs at shutterstock are completely aware that Image quality has raised considerably in that time and yet they have made no adjustments because they are strictly going after market share to our detriment.

I don't see how it's to our detriment if it keeps increasing sales and my income, which it has. There are other stock sites out there that are cheaper than Shutterstock, but you don't see them dropping prices to match.

You also leave out the fact that Shutterstock has introduced different purchasing options including On Demand, Extended License, sensitive use and Single Image packages in addition to working with "Enterprise" clients, all of which have dramatically increased prices for certain uses and improved earnings from contributors exponentially. Shutterstock's SOD pricing and earnings are as close to midstock as any site.

Totally agree here. This is where Shutterstock's strength lies.  Finding customers, selling the value add of their various licensing options, aligning those options to a target markets and then marketing to them.  It's all about building trust, enhancing the customer experience, making the customers feel that they are getting value and this results in customer sustainment. And in the middle of adding customer value, they pushed up our revenue instead of take it all for themselves, something Oleg needs to learn.  SS success compared to, say, Fotolia, lies in superior vision followed by strategic and tactical alignment that INCLUDES its contributors as part of that broader strategy.

Quote from: robhainer on June 08, 2014, 13:50

Quote from: gbalex on June 03, 2014, 17:32

Shutterstock has not raised sub prices in 9 years. Key execs at shutterstock are completely aware that Image quality has raised considerably in that time and yet they have made no adjustments because they are strictly going after market share to our detriment.

I don't see how it's to our detriment if it keeps increasing sales and my income, which it has. There are other stock sites out there that are cheaper than Shutterstock, but you don't see them dropping prices to match.

You also leave out the fact that Shutterstock has introduced different purchasing options including On Demand, Extended License, sensitive use and Single Image packages in addition to working with "Enterprise" clients, all of which have dramatically increased prices for certain uses and improved earnings from contributors exponentially. Shutterstock's SOD pricing and earnings are as close to midstock as any site.

Totally agree here. This is where Shutterstock's strength lies.  Finding customers, selling the value add of their various licensing options, aligning those options to a target markets and then marketing to them. It's all about building trust, enhancing the customer experience, making the customers feel that they are getting value and this results in customer sustainment. And in the middle of adding customer value, they pushed up our revenue instead of take it all for themselves, something Oleg needs to learn.  SS success compared to, say, Fotolia, lies in superior vision followed by strategic and tactical alignment that INCLUDES its contributors as part of that broader strategy.

You guys seem to be oblivious to the fact that these "new areas of growth at shutterstock" are not new stock photography customers. Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living.

I have posted this many times, but it seems most are not reading between the lines or you are purposely overlooking the facts.  Tell me again why you are happy to see the value of photography assets drop thru the floor boards or in shutterstocks own words.

A. So in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.

B. It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.

It is beyond me why anyone would buy into this Kmart mentality.

Snip
Duck Swartz

So what�s changed in the marketplace that�s giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 years

So in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.

Snip

Duck Swartz

Talking about your present strategy longer term?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

We think we can raise the prices over the long term but we�re primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level.

We haven�t raised prices in many years and thats been a great strategy so far to grow.

Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board

It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.

Quote from: gbalex on June 08, 2014, 22:53

It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.

That seems kind of old. Those magnitudes don't really exist anymore. Most other agencies are cheaper now or the same deal.

Not so old, 6 or 7 months ago and as we can see Fotolia & IS were forced to make adjustments downward in order to compete. This has not been good for contributors as it degrades the value of the asset we pay for and produce.   

To put it further into perspective, Jon is talking about SOD's when he mention this phrase. "If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive."

Does anyone think it is beneficial in any way to undercut the existing macro market by 8 or 10 times?

Shutterstock's Management Presents at the Goldman Sachs US Emerging/SMID Cap Growth Conference
http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco