MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Pickerell on June 03, 2014, 12:55
-
iStock’s sales seem to have been declining over the last few quarters. About 75% of iStock sales are at Midstock prices totaling roughly $180 million in 2013. There are indications that customers and creators are increasingly dissatisfied. One big questions is whether the decline is due to a generally higher priced offering, poor customer service including a less than optimal performing website, or both.
A year ago Yuri Arcurs observed that a rapidly growing percentage of his images were being licensed through low priced subscription offerings. He decided that if the trend continued eventually he would no longer be able to justify continued production of quality people images.
To get higher prices for his work his solution was to go exclusive with iStock and get an average 30 to 40 times the subscription price for each image licensed. I wanted to know how that is working out.
Yuri’s Numbers
With his original Yuri_Arcurs collection Yuri hit 1.5 million career downloads on iStock sometime in the first half of 2013. He is still listed as having 1.5 million plus downloads which means that he has had something less than additional 100,000 downloads in the last more than one year. When he went exclusive he had about 18,000 images in his non-exclusive collection on iStock.
After going exclusive iStock created a separate Yuri collection. His 1,257 best selling images from the Yuri_Arcurs collection were moved to the Yuri collection. All of them have been downloaded from iStock more than 200 times and 294 of this group have more than 1,000 downloads each. Currently the Yuri collection has had between 54,000 and 55,000 downloads since it was established. It is not clear why there are two collections as all the images in both collections are exclusive.
In the past year Yuri has added a huge number of new images to his collections, many of them produced by photographers who were trained at his 2012 boot camp in Cape Town. Yuri wholly owns all of these images. Now he has 123,751 images on iStock: 45,826 in Yuri_Arcurs and 77,925 in the Yuri collection.
I estimate that in 2013 there were about 179 million microstock images licensed worldwide at the following average price points:
Midstock 5,000,000 $35 to $50
Microstock 44,000,000 $6 to $7
Subscription 130,000,000 $1.25
I asked Yuri if the higher fees from the Vetta and Signature collections is making up for the lost subscription sales from Shutterstock and all other agencies he was dealing with prior to going exclusive.
Yuri’s Response
While not answering my question directly, Yuri provided some interesting insights on what he feels is the future of Midstock.
“Having just spent 3 days at GI in New York and today in Seattle with the IT exes I believe that very interesting things are in the pipeline for IS. Did I have a say in the upcoming changes... Yes - for sure. That being said. The GI top exe dev guys are highly competent and more flexible and agile towards change that I would have imagined. We are working on a set of core site improvements that will dramatically improve user experience and ultimately sales. Only thing that I can say now: Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself.
“Shutterstock might be in for a bit more competition than they expected, especially if GI has me project managing the develoment team and we utilize the two things GI has that nobody else has: 1. The best images in the world. 2. The best editors in the world. The best images displays that the world has ever seen is just around the corner. Watch this space!”
-
the two things GI has that nobody else has: 1. The best images in the world. 2. The best editors in the world.
Lol, ok.
-
I asked Yuri if the higher fees from the Vetta and Signature collections is making up for the lost subscription sales from Shutterstock and all other agencies he was dealing with prior to going exclusive.
Yuri’s Response
While not answering my question directly, Yuri provided some interesting insights on what he feels is the future of Midstock.
“Having just spent 3 days at GI in New York and today in Seattle with the IT exes I believe that very interesting things are in the pipeline for IS. Did I have a say in the upcoming changes... Yes - for sure. That being said. The GI top exe dev guys are highly competent and more flexible and agile towards change that I would have imagined. We are working on a set of core site improvements that will dramatically improve user experience and ultimately sales. Only thing that I can say now: Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself.
“Shutterstock might be in for a bit more competition than they expected, especially if GI has me project managing the develoment team and we utilize the two things GI has that nobody else has: 1. The best images in the world. 2. The best editors in the world. The best images displays that the world has ever seen is just around the corner. Watch this space!”
Hmm. I'd say Yuri could probably have shortened his answer to "No". Interesting that he goes on to say SS "might be in for a bit more competition than they expected" which rather concedes that they haven't had much competition recently.
Why does he think that image buyers want "the best images in the world" (which he obviously thinks are his work) and are prepared to pay the vast premium for them? Personally I believe images that are easily 'good enough' for buyers' needs, at a much more reasonable price, are likely to be the choice of most. That's how 'microstock' started remember?
I won't be sitting on my hands in anticipation of a huge turnaround from the decline at IS. If it were ever to happen it would certainly take far longer than 3 months.
My own income from IS in May was barely more than half what it was in May 2013 ... about one third what it was in May 2012 ... and hardly more than one quarter what it was in May 2009. In contrast my income at SS has risen almost exactly to compensate for IS's decline. There's no way those customers are going to be running back to IS to buy Yuri's expensive images.
-
Don't forget, there was a gameplan: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-arcurs-first-public-statement/msg333117/#msg333117 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-arcurs-first-public-statement/msg333117/#msg333117)
-
Sounds like he didn't see the increase in income that he was expecting and now wants to be more personally involved in the development of the site.
Looking at the recent problems istock has in just showing the sales data for the new subs, sending out wrong newsletters etc...the basics for the technology don't seem to be there. istock and getty are not technology companies, which is probably why he is pointing out that the top IT people are much better than the results we see in the way istock works.
So he is pushing them to become more competitive, which is probably good for istock.
If his income had taken of and he was making a lot more money by being exclusive he would have told us already, instead of promising us good results in a few months.
-
A triumph of hope over experience? Don't think so
-
I'm not on iStock anymore but it sounds like those of you who are may be in for more of those dreaded site changes and updates "for better sales performance" that always screw up the whole system.
Why would iStock think they can gain back the trust of those buyers they basically ran off as well as any of the contributors. These people must live in another world...lol
-
Don't forget, there was a gameplan: [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-arcurs-first-public-statement/msg333117/#msg333117[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-arcurs-first-public-statement/msg333117/#msg333117[/url])
Oh yes! Quite funny to read that now.
SS are probably preparing some gigantic slices of humble pie as we speak. They'll be useful in few months time when Yuri, single-handedly, fails to turn around the IS/Getty ship and he starts wondering what his options really are.
-
Yuri makes his project management of iStock/Getty's IT sound pretty amazing.
Maybe he'd do many of us a huge service and prove his project management skills by getting the transfer of jpegs from iStock to Getty working properly for once. They've been struggling away since 2010 with only limited and sporadic success.
If any teenager can cope with transfer jpgs from one site to another, I'm sure that Getty - the self proclaimed leader in image distribution - armed with Yuri over their shoulder, could get it sorted.
-
Sounds like he didn't see the increase in income that he was expecting and now wants to be more personally involved in the development of the site.
Looking at the recent problems istock has in just showing the sales data for the new subs, sending out wrong newsletters etc...the basics for the technology don't seem to be there. istock and getty are not technology companies, which is probably why he is pointing out that the top IT people are much better than the results we see in the way istock works.
So he is pushing them to become more competitive, which is probably good for istock.
If his income had taken of and he was making a lot more money by being exclusive he would have told us already, instead of promising us good results in a few months.
Yuri must have been absolutely delighted to have deliberately abandoned the 'subscription model' less than a year ago, on the basis that it didn't work for his business ... only to find that IS have started their own!
-
On October 12 I wrote:
Interesting factoid: "Yuri" is showing "greater than 25,000 sales" on 78,000 images since the new identity was created in April. I'm rather surprised to see that one of his top business images is selling in the 10cr-55cr price bracket.
Today that identity has "greater than 54,000 sales", which means that portfolio, which still has 78,000 images has achieved 19,000 sales in 37 weeks. Which is 513 sales per week = 26,704 sales per year, = approx. one sale for every three images over the course of a year.
So if you have 1,000 Yuri-quality images on iStock, you could expect to get about 350 sales a year, or a sale a day. Presumably a lot of them are priced at Vetta levels (I can't be bothered to try to estimate how many are and how many are not) but even so, the return on effort for a top exclusive doesn't look all that amazingly exciting to me. Perhaps that is why they have to allow him to sell on loads of other agencies as well as being "exclusive" with them.
It suggests to me that all the exclusive's sales are struggling. It looks as if I will sell about one file in two from my non-exclusive portfolio on iStock this year - obviously at a much lower price point than Yuri's.
-
Yuri must have been absolutely delighted to have deliberately abandoned the 'subscription model' less than a year ago, on the basis that it didn't work for his business ... only to find that IS have started their own!
But strangely, his 'special deal' didn't include getting his images removed from TS. ::)
-
the two things GI has that nobody else has: 1. The best images in the world. 2. The best editors in the world.
Lol, ok.
You sound sarcastic.
Maybe we should take this seriously, considering the giant strides IS+GI have made in the microstock business.........
-
Yuri is used to real time sales data, smooth upload processes and websites that actually work without many interruptions. I am sure getting his data two months late and full of errors is just as frustrating for him as it is for all contributors.
So if he keeps breathing down their neck and pushes them to modernise the place he will be doing something useful for all artists and probably the customers as well.
But how embarrassing for Getty that they can´t move forward and compete without him.
-
“Having just spent 3 days at GI in New York and today in Seattle with the IT exes I believe that very interesting things are in the pipeline for IS. Did I have a say in the upcoming changes... Yes - for sure.........
“Shutterstock might be in for a bit more competition than they expected, especially if GI has me project managing the develoment team
Sounds as if he is becoming a GI employee as well as a faux-exclusive. I wonder if the other sites will be happy to continue hosting the portfolio of someone managing another agency's site.
-
Yuri is used to real time sales data, smooth upload processes and websites that actually work without many interruptions. I am sure getting his data two months late and full of errors is just as frustrating for him as it is for all contributors.
So if he keeps breathing down their neck and pushes them to modernise the place he will be doing something useful for all artists and probably the customers as well.
But how embarrassing for Getty that they can´t move forward and compete without him.
I get the impression that Yuri's little visits to Getty HQ and Seattle was more of a crisis meeting than a cosy chat. My guess is the steady income of $1M per year, that he might reasonably have been expecting to earn from SS alone by now, is suddenly starting to look rather more attractive than his current projections. I wonder if his 'special deal' included a significant lock-in period?
-
What else is Yuri going to say? He is the unofficial spokesperson for GI/IS now. He would never come out and say the inevitable...that Istock has simply alienated too many buyers and has a technology team that keeps inventing bugs, so "watch out shutterstock, I hope your servers can handle the added buyer traffic once Istock launches its new site 3 months from now."
-
I don't follow Yuri but is he seriousy on the other agencies as well as shown as exclusive on iStock? If he is that is in and of itself double standards and only more dishonesty with iStock....thank God I'm not there any more. I wouldn't trust anything they say.
-
I wonder how many of the folks who constantly bag on Yuri are still using his model releases, etc?
He is more proactive than most of us and we still find reason to criticize. At least he is trying to bring about positive change, for himself if not the rest of us. The micros need competition, monopolies have never proven to be positive for anyone.
-
I think that he is finally gone from DT - http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info (http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info)
-
I wonder how many of the folks who constantly bag on Yuri are still using his model releases, etc?
He is more proactive than most of us and we still find reason to criticize. At least he is trying to bring about positive change, for himself if not the rest of us. The micros need competition, monopolies have never proven to be positive for anyone.
Yuri is in this for Yuri. Not for us little people. Any changes to Istock will be for his own benefit because we know that the masses will never make more money there, whatever he does. Istock isn't going to take a 25 cent subscription and magically make it $25. Whatever they do, if anything will be fore the benefit of a small subset of people but you can be dang sure that Istock will keep 99% of their collection in the cheap seats or they will never compete with shutterstock. If they are successful at making a cleaner, functional site, great, but that alone isn't going to bring back lost buyers. The ONLY way to create more mid stock pricing is to create mid stock collections, like vetta. That's been done already. So by focusing on mid stock, they leave out what shutterstock does so well.
For me my criticism of him is his manufactured statement to watch out shutterstock. That's what a press secretary says.
-
I wonder how many of the folks who constantly bag on Yuri are still using his model releases, etc?
He is more proactive than most of us and we still find reason to criticize. At least he is trying to bring about positive change, for himself if not the rest of us. The micros need competition, monopolies have never proven to be positive for anyone.
Yuri is in this for Yuri. Not for us little people. Any changes to Istock will be for his own benefit because we know that the masses will never make more money there, whatever he does. Istock isn't going to take a 25 cent subscription and magically make it $25. Whatever they do, if anything will be fore the benefit of a small subset of people but you can be dang sure that Istock will keep 99% of their collection in the cheap seats or they will never compete with shutterstock.
If they are successful at making a cleaner, functional site, great, but that alone isn't going to bring back lost buyers. The ONLY way to create more mid stock pricing is to create mid stock collections, like vetta. That's been done already. So by focusing on mid stock, they leave out what shutterstock does so well.
For me my criticism of him is his manufactured statement to watch out shutterstock. That's what a press secretary says.
And the sites do this because we have allowed them to do so!
Yuri is one the few photographers here that has actually and consistently tried to talk to the sites regarding the challenges we face. The rest of us just bend over and thank them for sticking it to us. We actually collectively praise sites who have not raised sub pricing in over 9 years!
-
istock has a subs program that is paying out less to even the exclusives than the indies make on SS. And they pay out a much lower rate to the indies than SS.
What makes you think Yuri wasn´t part of implementing that program as well? Or that he is driving for higher prices in any way?
I´d say it makes sense to assume that Yuri was involved or consulted when they created their subs program, because he has so much experience with sub sites.
I am all for having many agencies to choose from, but sadly for indies with 15% royalty and extremly low 28 cent subs (that don´t even count towards the credits) istock isn´t the first place to favor is it?
-
I wonder how many of the folks who constantly bag on Yuri are still using his model releases, etc?
He is more proactive than most of us and we still find reason to criticize. At least he is trying to bring about positive change, for himself if not the rest of us. The micros need competition, monopolies have never proven to be positive for anyone.
Yuri is in this for Yuri. Not for us little people. Any changes to Istock will be for his own benefit because we know that the masses will never make more money there, whatever he does. Istock isn't going to take a 25 cent subscription and magically make it $25. Whatever they do, if anything will be fore the benefit of a small subset of people but you can be dang sure that Istock will keep 99% of their collection in the cheap seats or they will never compete with shutterstock.
If they are successful at making a cleaner, functional site, great, but that alone isn't going to bring back lost buyers. The ONLY way to create more mid stock pricing is to create mid stock collections, like vetta. That's been done already. So by focusing on mid stock, they leave out what shutterstock does so well.
For me my criticism of him is his manufactured statement to watch out shutterstock. That's what a press secretary says.
And the sites do this because we have allowed them to do so!
Yuri is one the few photographers here that has actually and consistently tried to talk to the sites regarding the challenges we face. The rest of us just bend over and thank them for sticking it to us. We actually collectively praise sites who have not raised sub pricing in over 9 years!
Like Mantis said, Yuri looks out for Yuri. Look at the Google/iStock deal and what happened to fellow photogrpahers that stood up to iStock. Look at Sean for example. Many people feel he went behind their back and made a deal with iStock for his own good. Have you seen any positive changes with iStock since he did that? Like I said before, I am no longer with iStock, but from reading these forums it is still up to the same ol same ol. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Yuri is one the few photographers here that has actually and consistently tried to talk to the sites regarding the challenges we face.
I don't know if you have inside information on what Yuri has talked with the sites about, but I haven't seen any indication of any interest in the community of contributors as a whole or any actions on behalf of anyone other than himself and his business.
Which is fine. He doesn't owe anyone anything.
He comes here when he wants likes on his Facebook page, fans for his blog, etc. Otherwise you never hear squat from him beyond self promotion (which he is good at).
"Professionals deal with professionals" - he made his bed. Now he gets to lie in it.
-
"Professionals deal with professionals" - he made his bed. Now he gets to lie in it.
Let's hope his bed isn't a water bed with a large hole in it 8)
-
Yuri: "Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself."
Yikes, July, August, September ... we know what's often happened in previous Septembers. ::)
Note, he said, "changes", not 'improvements'.
No doubt he'll have leveraged some 'improvements' for himself, he's very good at that, but for οἱ πολλοί, ... :o
-
Yuri: "Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself."
Yikes, July, August, September ... we know what's often happened in previous Septembers. :-\ :o ??? ::)
Hahaha so true.
-
Yuri: "Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself."
Yikes, July, August, September ... we know what's often happened in previous Septembers. :-\ :o ??? ::)
Hahaha so true.
It's bizarre that Yuri thinks he can just breeze in there and turn around 5 years worth of mismanagement, falling sales and declining customers ... in just 3 months. It isn't going to happen. The business model and reputation (with customers and contributors alike) is probably wrecked beyond repair. Talk about re-arranging the deck chairs ...
-
On October 12 I wrote:
Interesting factoid: "Yuri" is showing "greater than 25,000 sales" on 78,000 images since the new identity was created in April. I'm rather surprised to see that one of his top business images is selling in the 10cr-55cr price bracket.
Today that identity has "greater than 54,000 sales", which means that portfolio, which still has 78,000 images has achieved 19,000 sales in 37 weeks. Which is 513 sales per week = 26,704 sales per year, = approx. one sale for every three images over the course of a year.
So if you have 1,000 Yuri-quality images on iStock, you could expect to get about 350 sales a year, or a sale a day. Presumably a lot of them are priced at Vetta levels (I can't be bothered to try to estimate how many are and how many are not) but even so, the return on effort for a top exclusive doesn't look all that amazingly exciting to me. Perhaps that is why they have to allow him to sell on loads of other agencies as well as being "exclusive" with them.
It suggests to me that all the exclusive's sales are struggling. It looks as if I will sell about one file in two from my non-exclusive portfolio on iStock this year - obviously at a much lower price point than Yuri's.
Sorry, but something is amiss in this calculation. Not being a great stock shooter, not working with great production expenses, best models etc, and so, not having "great quality images", I sell way more than 350 sales a year for every 1.000 photos. And when I say way more, I mean way more.
-
Duplicated.
-
If iStock can make midstock work, I don't think it will have been because of Yuri. But he won't let anything stop him from taking credit if it does happen, though.
I think iStock has a viable midstock offering. As amazing as it sounds even as I type it, I have to admit I'm somewhat impressed with how things have been going for me at iStock recently. I have a file that was accepted in early May and priced at 22 credits ($42 USD). Which I would ordinarily think is an insane price point for most of the work I upload there. But it's actually selling. I got 3 sales on that image in May, $21.82 in royalties.
It amazes me that anyone would buy my stuff at that price, but apparently people are willing to spend the money. Maybe there really is something left in the tanks for iStock and they can still surge in this midstock market.
-
maybe you need to join Yuri's team loop
he had 4k sales a day from 60k files at SS which is much less than 350 a day from 1000 files
anyway Yuri continues to be a funny guy, after reading his forecast I decided to quit SS and join iStock! ;D
-
maybe you need to join Yuri's team loop
he had 4k sales a day from 60k files at SS which is much less than 350 a day from 1000 files
anyway Yuri continues to be a funny guy, after reading his forecast I decided to quit SS and join iStock! ;D
Wnat you want, but I'm sure these IS figures are somewhat miscalculated and, so, are worthless.
-
Yuri’s Response
“Shutterstock might be in for a bit more competition than they expected, especially if GI has me project managing the develoment team and we utilize the two things GI has that nobody else has: 1. The best images in the world. 2. The best editors in the world. The best images displays that the world has ever seen is just around the corner. Watch this space!”
Yuri who? The one who's undecided between an Hasselblad and a mobile phone as the best camera in the world for stock? Very dependable as a project manager.
However, the part about the best editors in the world must be true: they are now accepting 100% of my images, how could I disagree? ;D
-
maybe you need to join Yuri's team loop
he had 4k sales a day from 60k files at SS which is much less than 350 a day from 1000 files
anyway Yuri continues to be a funny guy, after reading his forecast I decided to quit SS and join iStock! ;D
I think you'll find that BT's calculations for Yuri's port were based on 350/1000 sales per YEAR, not per day.
-
the two things GI has that nobody else has: 1. The best images in the world. 2. The best editors in the world.
Lol, ok.
Except that Pickerell was quoting Yuri saying that, which is odd, because Yuri's pictures are still in several places *, so he can't be including his images in 'the best images in the world'.
* Even the Dollar Photo Club:
(http://www.lizworld.com/YDPC.jpg)
-
If iStock can make midstock work, I don't think it will have been because of Yuri. But he won't let anything stop him from taking credit if it does happen, though.
I think iStock has a viable midstock offering. As amazing as it sounds even as I type it, I have to admit I'm somewhat impressed with how things have been going for me at iStock recently. I have a file that was accepted in early May and priced at 22 credits ($42 USD). Which I would ordinarily think is an insane price point for most of the work I upload there. But it's actually selling. I got 3 sales on that image in May, $21.82 in royalties.
It amazes me that anyone would buy my stuff at that price, but apparently people are willing to spend the money. Maybe there really is something left in the tanks for iStock and they can still surge in this midstock market.
Ad agencies (even small ones) are accustomed to paying thousands of dollars for an image, so $42 is a real bargain for them.
-
I wonder how many of the folks who constantly bag on Yuri are still using his model releases, etc?
He is more proactive than most of us and we still find reason to criticize. At least he is trying to bring about positive change, for himself if not the rest of us. The micros need competition, monopolies have never proven to be positive for anyone.
Yuri is in this for Yuri. Not for us little people. Any changes to Istock will be for his own benefit because we know that the masses will never make more money there, whatever he does. Istock isn't going to take a 25 cent subscription and magically make it $25. Whatever they do, if anything will be fore the benefit of a small subset of people but you can be dang sure that Istock will keep 99% of their collection in the cheap seats or they will never compete with shutterstock.
If they are successful at making a cleaner, functional site, great, but that alone isn't going to bring back lost buyers. The ONLY way to create more mid stock pricing is to create mid stock collections, like vetta. That's been done already. So by focusing on mid stock, they leave out what shutterstock does so well.
For me my criticism of him is his manufactured statement to watch out shutterstock. That's what a press secretary says.
And the sites do this because we have allowed them to do so!
Yuri is one the few photographers here that has actually and consistently tried to talk to the sites regarding the challenges we face. The rest of us just bend over and thank them for sticking it to us. We actually collectively praise sites who have not raised sub pricing in over 9 years!
What is stopping you to pack up your images from SS and broker the same Yuri deal with IS?
-
istock has a subs program that is paying out less to even the exclusives than the indies make on SS. And they pay out a much lower rate to the indies than SS.
What makes you think Yuri wasn´t part of implementing that program as well? Or that he is driving for higher prices in any way?
I´d say it makes sense to assume that Yuri was involved or consulted when they created their subs program, because he has so much experience with sub sites.
I am all for having many agencies to choose from, but sadly for indies with 15% royalty and extremly low 28 cent subs (that don´t even count towards the credits) istock isn´t the first place to favor is it?
Yuri has been asking the sites to raise pricing and sub pricing for years.
I am no fan of IS or its antiquated site. However I an under no illusion that shutterstock will do us any favors once it's qwest to become a monopoly is realized. Yuri is one contributors who early on asked shutterstock to look at image quality. They ignored him and today we can see the result of shutterstocks mindset. Today we can download images that should be midstock at a number of micro sites. They all should have promoted contributors from within, to brands like offset. Instead they devalued those images and anyone can pick them up for the price of a sub. Most recently they snubbed their best contributors over new contributors who produce images of similar quality and consequently offset has to compete with the best images on shutterstock.
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.
Yuri's 2005 response to the question - What's your favorite picture in your gallery?
(http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/files/2700_1129844395_3_169.jpg)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793)
Another example of image quality from one of microstocks most successful contributors at that time
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402)
Here are Yuris 2005 thoughts on SS's Royalties vs Image Quality
Snip
This sites image standards has to balance with payout prices for quality pictures.
As it is now, criteria for getting images approved have accelerated to a much stricter level but the payout is the same as before.
Development in picture quality standards should guide payouts pr picture!
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821)]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821
Some of his thought on subs
http://tinyurl.com/kveyd9q (http://tinyurl.com/kveyd9q)
-
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.
-
Shutterstock has not raised sub prices in 9 years.
You keep saying that ... but it's simply not true is it?
Why don't you actually research your facts before writing your lengthy, inaccurate and therefore pointless tirades?
-
Yuri's 2005 response to the question - What's your favorite picture in your gallery?
([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/files/2700_1129844395_3_169.jpg[/url])
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793[/url])
Another example of image quality from one of microstocks most successful contributors at that time
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402[/url])
Am I missing something here? That picture doesn't belong to Yuri
-
Whose is it, then?
-
Whose is it, then?
Somebody by the name of Logos? Is that Yuri?
-
maybe you need to join Yuri's team loop
he had 4k sales a day from 60k files at SS which is much less than 350 a day from 1000 files
anyway Yuri continues to be a funny guy, after reading his forecast I decided to quit SS and join iStock! ;D
I think you'll find that BT's calculations for Yuri's port were based on 350/1000 sales per YEAR, not per day.
yeah I read that but I was talking about loop's numbers which he now have changed to year
-
Whose is it, then?
Somebody by the name of Logos? Is that Yuri?
haven't you seen the avatar? ok he was slimmer before ;D
-
maybe you need to join Yuri's team loop
he had 4k sales a day from 60k files at SS which is much less than 350 a day from 1000 files
anyway Yuri continues to be a funny guy, after reading his forecast I decided to quit SS and join iStock! ;D
I think you'll find that BT's calculations for Yuri's port were based on 350/1000 sales per YEAR, not per day.
yeah I read that but I was talking about loop's numbers which he now have changed to year
Oh, shame, loop was my new hero. ;D
-
Whose is it, then?
Somebody by the name of Logos? Is that Yuri?
haven't you seen the avatar? ok he was slimmer before ;D
I have never followed Yuri and that certainly didn't look anything like him.....lol
Thanks for pointing that out ;)
-
just got my 41mp cell phone! I am ready for iStock now :D
-
just got my 41mp cell phone! I am ready for iStock now :D
no man, the new thing is scoopshot, look at the following task ;D
https://www.scoopshot.com/v2/task/wjdwghcwgvwkx (https://www.scoopshot.com/v2/task/wjdwghcwgvwkx)
-
Wow, he's a Microstock Millionaire!
That's amazing after nearly going bust more than once.
Wonder if he meant sales, profit or turnover? Only profit is sanity.
-
On October 12 I wrote:
Interesting factoid: "Yuri" is showing "greater than 25,000 sales" on 78,000 images since the new identity was created in April. I'm rather surprised to see that one of his top business images is selling in the 10cr-55cr price bracket.
Today that identity has "greater than 54,000 sales", which means that portfolio, which still has 78,000 images has achieved 19,000 sales in 37 weeks. Which is 513 sales per week = 26,704 sales per year, = approx. one sale for every three images over the course of a year.
So if you have 1,000 Yuri-quality images on iStock, you could expect to get about 350 sales a year, or a sale a day. Presumably a lot of them are priced at Vetta levels (I can't be bothered to try to estimate how many are and how many are not) but even so, the return on effort for a top exclusive doesn't look all that amazingly exciting to me. Perhaps that is why they have to allow him to sell on loads of other agencies as well as being "exclusive" with them.
It suggests to me that all the exclusive's sales are struggling. It looks as if I will sell about one file in two from my non-exclusive portfolio on iStock this year - obviously at a much lower price point than Yuri's.
Sorry, but something is amiss in this calculation. Not being a great stock shooter, not working with great production expenses, best models etc, and so, not having "great quality images", I sell way more than 350 sales a year for every 1.000 photos. And when I say way more, I mean way more.
There's nothing amiss with the calculation and if there is anything amiss with the data then it means that iStock are deliberately publishing low figures to confuse us - I doubt that they would go to that trouble.
I suspect that his collection is almost all Vetta and that the price is putting customers off. If your files are all Vetta then I will agree that something must be wildly wrong with the data.
Edit = Just checked and only a small percentage are Vettas, the bulk are scattered across all the collections with quite a lot in Main and a quarter of them in the second level (signature?). It does seem very odd that his sales are so low but it also seems odd that iStock would want to understate his sales as that would discourage, rather than encouraging other artists.
I note that the figures I give are in line with Jim's original post, noting that he had managed fewer than 100,000 sales on iStock in more than a year (presumably from his main account).
MAybe his market is simply flooded with similar stuff.
-
On October 12 I wrote:
Interesting factoid: "Yuri" is showing "greater than 25,000 sales" on 78,000 images since the new identity was created in April. I'm rather surprised to see that one of his top business images is selling in the 10cr-55cr price bracket.
Today that identity has "greater than 54,000 sales", which means that portfolio, which still has 78,000 images has achieved 19,000 sales in 37 weeks. Which is 513 sales per week = 26,704 sales per year, = approx. one sale for every three images over the course of a year.
So if you have 1,000 Yuri-quality images on iStock, you could expect to get about 350 sales a year, or a sale a day. Presumably a lot of them are priced at Vetta levels (I can't be bothered to try to estimate how many are and how many are not) but even so, the return on effort for a top exclusive doesn't look all that amazingly exciting to me. Perhaps that is why they have to allow him to sell on loads of other agencies as well as being "exclusive" with them.
It suggests to me that all the exclusive's sales are struggling. It looks as if I will sell about one file in two from my non-exclusive portfolio on iStock this year - obviously at a much lower price point than Yuri's.
Sorry, but something is amiss in this calculation. Not being a great stock shooter, not working with great production expenses, best models etc, and so, not having "great quality images", I sell way more than 350 sales a year for every 1.000 photos. And when I say way more, I mean way more.
There's nothing amiss with the calculation and if there is anything amiss with the data then it means that iStock are deliberately publishing low figures to confuse us - I doubt that they would go to that trouble.
I suspect that his collection is almost all Vetta and that the price is putting customers off. If your files are all Vetta then I will agree that something must be wildly wrong with the data.
Edit = Just checked and only a small percentage are Vettas, the bulk are scattered across all the collections with quite a lot in Main and a quarter of them in the second level (signature?). It does seem very odd that his sales are so low but it also seems odd that iStock would want to understate his sales as that would discourage, rather than encouraging other artists.
I note that the figures I give are in line with Jim's original post, noting that he had managed fewer than 100,000 sales on iStock in more than a year (presumably from his main account).
MAybe his market is simply flooded with similar stuff.
I've heard of folks giving up their crown but maybe the king has lost his crown before he had a chance to wear it...
-
I have a file that was accepted in early May and priced at 22 credits ($42 USD). Which I would ordinarily think is an insane price point for most of the work I upload there. But it's actually selling. I got 3 sales on that image in May, $21.82 in royalties.
Are you exclusive at Istock? AFAIK all non-exclusive stuff is at rock bottom price. Or is it different for illustrations?
-
Yuri’s Numbers
With his original Yuri_Arcurs collection Yuri hit 1.5 million career downloads on iStock sometime in the first half of 2013. He is still listed as having 1.5 million plus downloads which means that he has had something less than additional 100,000 downloads in the last more than one year. When he went exclusive he had about 18,000 images in his non-exclusive collection on iStock.
After going exclusive iStock created a separate Yuri collection. His 1,257 best selling images from the Yuri_Arcurs collection were moved to the Yuri collection. All of them have been downloaded from iStock more than 200 times and 294 of this group have more than 1,000 downloads each. Currently the Yuri collection has had between 54,000 and 55,000 downloads since it was established. It is not clear why there are two collections as all the images in both collections are exclusive.
Yes. All his "original" work he had already submitted while being non-exclusive was moved to a new account, first called "Urilux" and then renamed to "Yuri". Ever since the move of those images (including all his prior bestellers) the new downloads on those images are added to the profile page of the new account. So to me it reads: "With his 70,000 images he generated 54,000 new downloads within about a year"
The original "Yuri_Arcurs" account still gets fed with new images, though. The oldest image in that account is dated February 2013, so there was an overlap when his team had probably sent 60,000 images to iStock/Getty directly - those were added to the Yuri account - and at the same time maybe newly produced images continued to be uploaded to the existing account. That is my thought why the old account has so many pictures again.
In the new account, you can see that just 100 out of his 45,000 new images have generated more than 10 downloads. Roughly 8,000 images have had exactly 1 download, and about 4,000 images had more than 1. Using some guess work and statistics, you could assume that the downloads on this portfolio would add up to about 8,000 * 1 + 4,000 * 4 + 100 * 40 = 28,000 downloads. Give or take, maybe 30,000.
So my guesstimate would be that in total he had about 80-85,000 downloads on 115,000 images within the past year on iStock itself. Far from the download numbers we used to expect in microstock but considering that the average royalties paid to iStock exclusives are more in the range of $12-$15 these days plus IS exclusives are making an additional 10-30% of their royalties through the GI Sales, it's still more than a million dollars in revenue.
-
It's bizarre that Yuri thinks he can just breeze in there and turn around 5 years worth of mismanagement, falling sales and declining customers ... in just 3 months. It isn't going to happen. The business model and reputation (with customers and contributors alike) is probably wrecked beyond repair. Talk about re-arranging the deck chairs ...
Especially when with all his investment and publicity, he wasn't able to make enough of a 'go' of peopleimages to be able to keep at least his newest images off all agencies, and keep 100%. Even if it's selling well, but he had cash flow issues, it doesn't make him the ideal 'project manager'.
He wrote here that peopleimages is a getty 'partner' now (though there's no obvious indication of that on the site). I don't know if that's just a gloss or if he has to pay a token percentage to Getty for the privilege.
-
On October 12 I wrote:
Interesting factoid: "Yuri" is showing "greater than 25,000 sales" on 78,000 images since the new identity was created in April. I'm rather surprised to see that one of his top business images is selling in the 10cr-55cr price bracket.
Today that identity has "greater than 54,000 sales", which means that portfolio, which still has 78,000 images has achieved 19,000 sales in 37 weeks. Which is 513 sales per week = 26,704 sales per year, = approx. one sale for every three images over the course of a year.
So if you have 1,000 Yuri-quality images on iStock, you could expect to get about 350 sales a year, or a sale a day. Presumably a lot of them are priced at Vetta levels (I can't be bothered to try to estimate how many are and how many are not) but even so, the return on effort for a top exclusive doesn't look all that amazingly exciting to me. Perhaps that is why they have to allow him to sell on loads of other agencies as well as being "exclusive" with them.
It suggests to me that all the exclusive's sales are struggling. It looks as if I will sell about one file in two from my non-exclusive portfolio on iStock this year - obviously at a much lower price point than Yuri's.
Just shows that Yuri is as susceptible as most of the rest of us to the 'new files not selling' phenomenon (since late Sept 2012), and possibly the 'early sales penalty' (since late 2011 at least). Both issues which have been brought to iS's attention via their forums and Fb often, but they have no interest in resolving.
Mind you, I bet Yuri gets more than 40% - he almost certainly (I say with no empirical evidence) managed to negotiate a higher percentage along with his faux-exclusive deal.
-
Yuri’s Numbers
With his original Yuri_Arcurs collection Yuri hit 1.5 million career downloads on iStock sometime in the first half of 2013. He is still listed as having 1.5 million plus downloads which means that he has had something less than additional 100,000 downloads in the last more than one year. When he went exclusive he had about 18,000 images in his non-exclusive collection on iStock.
After going exclusive iStock created a separate Yuri collection. His 1,257 best selling images from the Yuri_Arcurs collection were moved to the Yuri collection. All of them have been downloaded from iStock more than 200 times and 294 of this group have more than 1,000 downloads each. Currently the Yuri collection has had between 54,000 and 55,000 downloads since it was established. It is not clear why there are two collections as all the images in both collections are exclusive.
Yes. All his "original" work he had already submitted while being non-exclusive was moved to a new account, first called "Urilux" and then renamed to "Yuri". Ever since the move of those images (including all his prior bestellers) the new downloads on those images are added to the profile page of the new account. So to me it reads: "With his 70,000 images he generated 54,000 new downloads within about a year"
The original "Yuri_Arcurs" account still gets fed with new images, though. The oldest image in that account is dated February 2013, so there was an overlap when his team had probably sent 60,000 images to iStock/Getty directly - those were added to the Yuri account - and at the same time maybe newly produced images continued to be uploaded to the existing account. That is my thought why the old account has so many pictures again.
In the new account, you can see that just 100 out of his 45,000 new images have generated more than 10 downloads. Roughly 8,000 images have had exactly 1 download, and about 4,000 images had more than 1. Using some guess work and statistics, you could assume that the downloads on this portfolio would add up to about 8,000 * 1 + 4,000 * 4 + 100 * 40 = 28,000 downloads. Give or take, maybe 30,000.
So my guesstimate would be that in total he had about 80-85,000 downloads on 115,000 images within the past year on iStock itself. Far from the download numbers we used to expect in microstock but considering that the average royalties paid to iStock exclusives are more in the range of $12-$15 these days plus IS exclusives are making an additional 10-30% of their royalties through the GI Sales, it's still more than a million dollars in revenue.
He made a million on Shutterstock as well as I believe, not counting his other 23 agencies. If thats the case, he might actually be making the same or less after his move to IS. Seems like a case of shooting himself in the foot.
-
I have a file that was accepted in early May and priced at 22 credits ($42 USD). Which I would ordinarily think is an insane price point for most of the work I upload there. But it's actually selling. I got 3 sales on that image in May, $21.82 in royalties.
Are you exclusive at Istock? AFAIK all non-exclusive stuff is at rock bottom price. Or is it different for illustrations?
Illustrations are priced higher depending on quality and complexity.
-
Mind you, I bet Yuri gets more than 40% - he almost certainly (I say with no empirical evidence) managed to negotiate a higher percentage along with his faux-exclusive deal.
Very, very unlikely. That's not how it works with Getty.
Instead they suck you in with fawning platitudes like "Professionals deal with professionals" __ and boy, did Yuri fall for that one or what!? Can't quite believe how naive he was. Bless!
-
Yuri’s Numbers
With his original Yuri_Arcurs collection Yuri hit 1.5 million career downloads on iStock sometime in the first half of 2013. He is still listed as having 1.5 million plus downloads which means that he has had something less than additional 100,000 downloads in the last more than one year. When he went exclusive he had about 18,000 images in his non-exclusive collection on iStock.
After going exclusive iStock created a separate Yuri collection. His 1,257 best selling images from the Yuri_Arcurs collection were moved to the Yuri collection. All of them have been downloaded from iStock more than 200 times and 294 of this group have more than 1,000 downloads each. Currently the Yuri collection has had between 54,000 and 55,000 downloads since it was established. It is not clear why there are two collections as all the images in both collections are exclusive.
Yes. All his "original" work he had already submitted while being non-exclusive was moved to a new account, first called "Urilux" and then renamed to "Yuri". Ever since the move of those images (including all his prior bestellers) the new downloads on those images are added to the profile page of the new account. So to me it reads: "With his 70,000 images he generated 54,000 new downloads within about a year"
The original "Yuri_Arcurs" account still gets fed with new images, though. The oldest image in that account is dated February 2013, so there was an overlap when his team had probably sent 60,000 images to iStock/Getty directly - those were added to the Yuri account - and at the same time maybe newly produced images continued to be uploaded to the existing account. That is my thought why the old account has so many pictures again.
In the new account, you can see that just 100 out of his 45,000 new images have generated more than 10 downloads. Roughly 8,000 images have had exactly 1 download, and about 4,000 images had more than 1. Using some guess work and statistics, you could assume that the downloads on this portfolio would add up to about 8,000 * 1 + 4,000 * 4 + 100 * 40 = 28,000 downloads. Give or take, maybe 30,000.
So my guesstimate would be that in total he had about 80-85,000 downloads on 115,000 images within the past year on iStock itself. Far from the download numbers we used to expect in microstock but considering that the average royalties paid to iStock exclusives are more in the range of $12-$15 these days plus IS exclusives are making an additional 10-30% of their royalties through the GI Sales, it's still more than a million dollars in revenue.
He made a million on Shutterstock as well as I believe, not counting his other 23 agencies. If thats the case, he might actually be making the same or less after his move to IS. Seems like a case of shooting himself in the foot.
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/ (http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/)
-
Yuri’s Numbers
With his original Yuri_Arcurs collection Yuri hit 1.5 million career downloads on iStock sometime in the first half of 2013. He is still listed as having 1.5 million plus downloads which means that he has had something less than additional 100,000 downloads in the last more than one year. When he went exclusive he had about 18,000 images in his non-exclusive collection on iStock.
After going exclusive iStock created a separate Yuri collection. His 1,257 best selling images from the Yuri_Arcurs collection were moved to the Yuri collection. All of them have been downloaded from iStock more than 200 times and 294 of this group have more than 1,000 downloads each. Currently the Yuri collection has had between 54,000 and 55,000 downloads since it was established. It is not clear why there are two collections as all the images in both collections are exclusive.
Yes. All his "original" work he had already submitted while being non-exclusive was moved to a new account, first called "Urilux" and then renamed to "Yuri". Ever since the move of those images (including all his prior bestellers) the new downloads on those images are added to the profile page of the new account. So to me it reads: "With his 70,000 images he generated 54,000 new downloads within about a year"
The original "Yuri_Arcurs" account still gets fed with new images, though. The oldest image in that account is dated February 2013, so there was an overlap when his team had probably sent 60,000 images to iStock/Getty directly - those were added to the Yuri account - and at the same time maybe newly produced images continued to be uploaded to the existing account. That is my thought why the old account has so many pictures again.
In the new account, you can see that just 100 out of his 45,000 new images have generated more than 10 downloads. Roughly 8,000 images have had exactly 1 download, and about 4,000 images had more than 1. Using some guess work and statistics, you could assume that the downloads on this portfolio would add up to about 8,000 * 1 + 4,000 * 4 + 100 * 40 = 28,000 downloads. Give or take, maybe 30,000.
So my guesstimate would be that in total he had about 80-85,000 downloads on 115,000 images within the past year on iStock itself. Far from the download numbers we used to expect in microstock but considering that the average royalties paid to iStock exclusives are more in the range of $12-$15 these days plus IS exclusives are making an additional 10-30% of their royalties through the GI Sales, it's still more than a million dollars in revenue.
He made a million on Shutterstock as well as I believe, not counting his other 23 agencies. If thats the case, he might actually be making the same or less after his move to IS. Seems like a case of shooting himself in the foot.
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).
[url]http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/[/url] ([url]http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/[/url])
Don't believe everything you read. Personally I doubt very much that his 'income' ever approached $3M .... and that's before expenses. In the same article he claims it is 'nearly impossible' to return a profit on a shoot inside of 30 months. I'm gutted if I'm not in profit within 30 days!
Classic case of "sales are vanity, profit is sanity".
It must be very difficult for Yuri now. If new images just aren't shifting on IS, as we've all experienced, then how long do you keep ploughing the big bucks into new shoots that aren't getting the sales to justify the cost?
-
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).
[url]http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/[/url] ([url]http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/[/url])
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.
-
I am a newbie. Heard Yuri's name once too often here on MSG. Just saw his photos on IS. Can't believe this guy made a million. What's so special about his photos ? Everybody's shots are like that. I think I just don't get it(I am stupid) and I just hurt a lot of people's feelings(sorry). Goofy, good you got a 41MP cell. I have 46 images on SS. 2 of them from my Nokia Pureview. My cell photos sold (three times) more than my D4 photos. So, it isn't the camera I just found out. It's the subject that's important and the best camera is the one that's always in your pocket :) Or maybe you were just kidding, sorry then ! BTW, Nikon 1 S1 on sale for $199 at BHphotovideo/amazon. Should I buy ? That's OT though.
-
I don't believe everything I read, I just believe it is interesting for this topic
-
I am a newbie. Heard Yuri's name once too often here on MSG. Just saw his photos on IS. Can't believe this guy made a million. What's so special about his photos ? Everybody's shots are like that.
Admittedly, he was in the right place at the right moment, his shots were technically better than many (not all) others and he made some good decisions in the past. Now, that microstock style is out of fashion, and libraries are full of similar and better (more natural-looking) images; that era is over.
-
Whatever that project he claims he is managing is about - if it does not include a substantial raise in non-exclusive commissions it will be a project I will continue to watch from the outside...
-
Whatever that project he claims he is managing is about - if it does not include a substantial raise in non-exclusive commissions it will be a project I will continue to watch from the outside...
Honestly, I think he knew his response to the OP would find its way here, and they (the man himself, IS/GI principals) wanted to see what kind of rise they could get out of us mere mortals. They are fresh out of ideas and I bet they rely on msg posts to get ideas as to how to strategically enhance their product. Nothing but my gut supporting this claim, but seems reasonable since we do occasionally get the "we're listening" emails.
-
Whatever that project he claims he is managing is about - if it does not include a substantial raise in non-exclusive commissions it will be a project I will continue to watch from the outside...
Honestly, I think he knew his response to the OP would find its way here, and they (the man himself, IS/GI principals) wanted to see what kind of rise they could get out of us mere mortals. They are fresh out of ideas and I bet they rely on msg posts to get ideas as to how to strategically enhance their product. Nothing but my gut supporting this claim, but seems reasonable since we do occasionally get the "we're listening" emails.
That may be true.
But I'm not holding my breath to see if they take up my proposal... 8)
-
Well, at least from now on whenever istock does a step in the right direction and improves, we know who to thank ;)
Maybe bringing back the 100% royalty day for exclusives was his idea as well. At least for the exclusives there will be some benefit if Yuri pushes for improvements that will benefit his portfolio.
-
Well, at least from now on whenever istock does a step in the right direction and improves, we know who to thank ;)
Maybe bringing back the 100% royalty day for exclusives was his idea as well. At least for the exclusives there will be some benefit if Yuri pushes for improvements that will benefit his portfolio.
I agree wholeheartedly. I do wish good things would happen there for the sake of those of us who have worked so hard to get images accepted there with weekly limits implemented, and for those of you who were on the * end of broken promises, changed systems, etc that have just simply eroded your sales. So I do wish that Yuri and his fairy dust works, but I am not holding my breath. Companies simply cannot just keep "trying things" and seeing what sticks, and that is tantamount to what Istock is doing/ has done. But deep down, me, you, everyone else who is serious about microstock would like to be wrong, see them do a reversal and thus enjoy the fruits of our hard work. But I won't be holding my breath.
-
Honestly you'd think as many years as iStock was in business that they would have someone that has some experience with website creation and the way it works. With all the updates and improvements it seems every time they do it, it is a total disaster. I guess they thought they were the king of the mountain and could rule the contributors for their own financial gain.
-
Mind you, I bet Yuri gets more than 40% - he almost certainly (I say with no empirical evidence) managed to negotiate a higher percentage along with his faux-exclusive deal.
Very, very unlikely. That's not how it works with Getty.
Instead they suck you in with fawning platitudes like "Professionals deal with professionals" __ and boy, did Yuri fall for that one or what!? Can't quite believe how naive he was. Bless!
Yuri (and Lise) probably get 45%. They got the level, and RC's have been granfathered the last years.
-
"Professionals deal with professionals" - he made his bed. Now he gets to lie in it.
Let's hope his bed isn't a water bed with a large hole in it 8)
Someone miss quoted me I never made the comment ""Professionals deal with professionals" - he made his bed. Now he gets to lie in it."
This is Jo Ann Snover's comment
I prefer to discuss problems and solutions.
-
I wonder how many of the folks who constantly bag on Yuri are still using his model releases, etc?
He is more proactive than most of us and we still find reason to criticize. At least he is trying to bring about positive change, for himself if not the rest of us. The micros need competition, monopolies have never proven to be positive for anyone.
Yuri is in this for Yuri. Not for us little people. Any changes to Istock will be for his own benefit because we know that the masses will never make more money there, whatever he does. Istock isn't going to take a 25 cent subscription and magically make it $25. Whatever they do, if anything will be fore the benefit of a small subset of people but you can be dang sure that Istock will keep 99% of their collection in the cheap seats or they will never compete with shutterstock.
If they are successful at making a cleaner, functional site, great, but that alone isn't going to bring back lost buyers. The ONLY way to create more mid stock pricing is to create mid stock collections, like vetta. That's been done already. So by focusing on mid stock, they leave out what shutterstock does so well.
For me my criticism of him is his manufactured statement to watch out shutterstock. That's what a press secretary says.
And the sites do this because we have allowed them to do so!
Yuri is one the few photographers here that has actually and consistently tried to talk to the sites regarding the challenges we face. The rest of us just bend over and thank them for sticking it to us. We actually collectively praise sites who have not raised sub pricing in over 9 years!
What is stopping you to pack up your images from SS and broker the same Yuri deal with IS?
Same old gang giving me - negative votes and bagging on my every comment.
Do you have any solutions?
To those who criticize. Step up to the plate with an intelligent plan instead of bagging on those who at least attempt to make a positive difference. Have any of you flown to speak to micro owners about the state of affairs, at least Yuri has been in discussion with the sites and if they had listened to him it would have been positive for all of us, whether that was his intent or not.
The IS site is a mess and has been for a long while, someone needs to step to the plate.
-
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.
-
Whose is it, then?
Logos is Yuri and yes the picture does belong to him. Image quality rose light years since 2005 when he posted his favorite photo.
-
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).
[url]http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/[/url] ([url]http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/[/url])
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.
-
Gbalex, you don't have a minus from me but I guess you got them because you attack everybody for talking about Yuri. His history shows he is out only for himself, plus he is a big bragger and nobody likes a bragger. If someone loudly talks about how much better they are than all others, those others naturally get some schadenfreude when he falls short. Its human nature.
-
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.
-
Gbalex, you don't have a minus from me but I guess you got them because you attack everybody for talking about Yuri. His history shows he is out only for himself, plus he is a big bragger and nobody likes a bragger. If someone loudly talks about how much better they are than all others, those others naturally get some schadenfreude when he falls short. Its human nature.
Yes I am guilty of this today. I guess I am just sick of attacks on other people here. Lets us hear your take on each subject but leave the petty crap and bickering out of the discussions.
Yes Yuri is a bragger and he brings some of this on himself. However as always he does bring positive to the plate and the put down gang leaves this part out.
It would nice if we could rise above the petty crap and elevate our discussions via the idiom. "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."
-
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 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!
-
Yep things swinging into action DeepMeta down due to problems at I Stock - Look out Crestock I stock are chasing your market share! :-\
-
Yep things swinging into action DeepMeta down due to problems at I Stock
But on the upside, we can upload directly again. ;D
In any case, very few new files are selling, and if they do, they're punished in the best match.
I've looked in loads of D and BD ports, and that seems virtually universal.
-
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!
;D
-
I have a theory.
I think iStock sales really started to drop when they got rid of the rating system.
I know many people hated it, and I know it was possible to game the system by having your friends vote for your images, but from my end as a buyer, I always loved that feature...at least for illustrations. I could click on the highest-rated search and invariably come up with the most impressive work. For ad agency buyers who see all the images on microstock as a bargain, it was a good way to get the best work, and new work, up front in the search results. New images of high quality could be found easily that way.
I never benefitted from the ratings as a contributor, btw, because my work is mediocre at best and hardly ever got good ratings.
-
It is hard to believe in any positive changes at iStock with my "Recoument" email from them hunting me every month ;D
-
I could click on the highest-rated search and invariably come up with the most impressive work.
.... or the favorite work of the Russian "gangs".
-
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!
;D
Capitalism never thinks beyond the next quarter's balance sheet
(http://www.newyorker.com/images/2012/11/26/cartoons/121126_cartoon_043_a16995_p465.gif)
http://tinyurl.com/a3luc5c (http://tinyurl.com/a3luc5c)
-
After going exclusive iStock created a separate Yuri collection. His 1,257 best selling images from the Yuri_Arcurs collection were moved to the Yuri collection. All of them have been downloaded from iStock more than 200 times and 294 of this group have more than 1,000 downloads each. Currently the Yuri collection has had between 54,000 and 55,000 downloads since it was established. It is not clear why there are two collections as all the images in both collections are exclusive.
@Jim: I think the reason for two portfolios is quite simple. most agencies allow only that a certain percentage of the search results comes from one portfolio, so the buyer gets a little variation. having two portfolios simply allows Yuri and IS to show more of his work in one search results page, especially for his "trademark keyworks" like lifestyle, business people and so on...
-
it seems yuri needed another more account on istock http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=11721662 (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=11721662)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
It would be awesome if they brought all that expertise to a better model. I'd love to have a fraction of that working to build my personal site or other sites.
-
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.
(http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco[/url)
-
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.
-
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 (http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco)
-
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
[url]http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco[/url])
Nobody forced these companies to do these things. They chose to do them. They don't have to do them to compete. IS cruised along just fine without subs for a long time.
As far as the benefit of undercutting macro, I've never sold in that market, so I'm not sure I'd be typing this if it was the only game in town.
-
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
[url]http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco[/url])
Nobody forced these companies to do these things. They chose to do them. They don't have to do them to compete. IS cruised along just fine without subs for a long time.
As far as the benefit of undercutting macro, I've never sold in that market, so I'm not sure I'd be typing this if it was the only game in town.
I agree collectively they could choose to keep pricing at a level which would be sustainable to contributors. However some of them have chosen to go down the road that leads to the point of no return for contributors.
In my opinion shutterstock has lead the way in this regard when it comes to subs and as you can see they admit they have used this strategy to successfully gain substantial market in the micro stock photography market.
As a result we see other microstock companies following suit so that they do not continue to lose market share to a contributors who purposely kept pricing low as a business strategy to capture a larger share of the micro market.
-
They started as a subsite, why submitting images then, and complain now about the same sub model?
-
it seems yuri needed another more account on istock [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=11721662[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=11721662[/url])
It is very interesting that only 33 of the 682 images in the PeopleImages collection are at Signature+ prices. 649 are at the lower priced Signature prices. Nothing in Vetta.
-
I agree collectively they could choose to keep pricing at a level which would be sustainable to contributors. However some of them have chosen to go down the road that leads to the point of no return for contributors.
In my opinion shutterstock has lead the way in this regard when it comes to subs and as you can see they admit they have used this strategy to successfully gain substantial market in the micro stock photography market.
As a result we see other microstock companies following suit so that they do not continue to lose market share to a contributors who purposely kept pricing low as a business strategy to capture a larger share of the micro market.
I think we essentially agree (for the most part). I just have trouble laying too much blame on any one agency. We all trusted these agencies with the moral/financial decisions of our businesses thinking that our best interests were their best interests as well. In hindsight, that seems like a really poor decision.
-
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
[url]http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco[/url])
So, why aren't IS and FT "forced" to pay 20-30% to contributors to compete instead of as low as 5-15% depending on the exchange rate.
As for undercutting the Macro market, that is how micro started, why expect a change from that?
Sure, I'd love for them to pay contributors more, but at least they haven't dropped their payment like a number of other sites.
-
it seems yuri needed another more account on istock [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=11721662[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=11721662[/url])
It is very interesting that only 33 of the 682 images in the PeopleImages collection are at Signature+ prices. 649 are at the lower priced Signature prices. Nothing in Vetta.
Wow __ those 682 images have only generated 8 sales in 2 months!
If they cost an average of $20 to produce and upload then they represent an investment of $13.6K. If the average commission earned per sale was $20 then the portfolio is generating about $80 per month. At that rate it would take over 14 years for Yuri to get his investment back. That's insane.
Even if you halved the production cost to $10 and doubled the average commission to $40 (both of which seem pretty unlikely) then it would still be nearly 4 years before Yuri turned a profit.
I just don't understand how this can be viable. Does anyone?
-
it seems yuri needed another more account on istock [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=11721662[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=11721662[/url])
It is very interesting that only 33 of the 682 images in the PeopleImages collection are at Signature+ prices. 649 are at the lower priced Signature prices. Nothing in Vetta.
Wow __ those 682 images have only generated 8 sales in 2 months!
If they cost an average of $20 to produce and upload then they represent an investment of $13.6K. If the average commission earned per sale was $20 then the portfolio is generating about $80 per month. At that rate it would take over 14 years for Yuri to get his investment back. That's insane.
Even if you halved the production cost to $10 and doubled the average commission to $40 (both of which seem pretty unlikely) then it would still be nearly 4 years before Yuri turned a profit.
I just don't understand how this can be viable. Does anyone?
Looks like although the user was set-up in April this year, the images were only uploaded this month, so it's probably too early to know how they're doing.
But from the OT it does sound like Yuri has concerns about iStock/Getty's sales performance.
-
George is right - I made the same mistake yesterday until I checked one of my own files and confirmed that iS use the American way of dating, so all the files in that port showing at this moment were uploaded on 6-4-14, meaning 4th June 2014, not 6th April.
We can be forgiven for not having this etched on our brains. For editorial files, they have:
Updated on year-month-date
but
Uploaded on month-date-year
-
George is right - I made the same mistake yesterday until I checked one of my own files and confirmed that iS use the American way of dating, so all the files in that port showing at this moment were uploaded on 6-4-14, meaning 4th June 2014, not 6th April.
We can be forgiven for not having this etched on our brains. For editorial files, they have:
Updated on year-month-date
but
Uploaded on month-date-year
Eight sales in five or six days from 600 images is still atrocious. It would work out at about 0.8 sales per image per year. The data set is too small to be accurate but it provides initial support for my earlier calculation that he is selling around one file in three per year.
It looks as if sales have collapsed in Yuriland.
-
My sales have also collapsed at IS. Could I have somehow found my way to Yuriland too?
-
It looks as if sales have collapsed in Yuriland.
My sales have also collapsed at IS. Could I have somehow found my way to Yuriland too?
Maybe Yuriland is the new reality for all of us.
-
It looks as if sales have collapsed in Yuriland.
My sales have also collapsed at IS. Could I have somehow found my way to Yuriland too?
Maybe Yuriland is the new reality for all of us.
"Relax, " said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! "
-
I like this quote from Yuri: "We are working on a set of core site improvements that will dramatically improve user experience and ultimately sales. Only thing that I can say now: Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself."
They should have made these "core site improvements" five years ago, but at least it's something. I hope it means a completely new server platform and I also hope they redesign the site at the same.
But after years of disappointments I'm still not expecting much. Every time they've said that HUGE changes are underway it's usually meant a new logo, a tiny design change, or a few removed features to desperately try and make the site a little faster...
-
I agree collectively they could choose to keep pricing at a level which would be sustainable to contributors. However some of them have chosen to go down the road that leads to the point of no return for contributors.
In my opinion shutterstock has lead the way in this regard when it comes to subs and as you can see they admit they have used this strategy to successfully gain substantial market in the micro stock photography market.
As a result we see other microstock companies following suit so that they do not continue to lose market share to a contributors who purposely kept pricing low as a business strategy to capture a larger share of the micro market.
I think we essentially agree (for the most part). I just have trouble laying too much blame on any one agency. We all trusted these agencies with the moral/financial decisions of our businesses thinking that our best interests were their best interests as well. In hindsight, that seems like a really poor decision.
I agree, to be honest I highlight shutterstock because so many people here, give the site a complete pass. I think offering a different point of view lends perspective that shutterstock is not blameless and its business decisions have also contributed to the devaluation of our assets.
I could not agree more regarding our misguided trust, if we had all realized where we were headed years ago I am sure the sites would have had far more pressure to hold up their end of the bargain when it comes to protecting the interests of contributors. If we continue to fail to hold the sites accountable we might as well move on.
-
It looks as if sales have collapsed in Yuriland.
My sales have also collapsed at IS. Could I have somehow found my way to Yuriland too?
Maybe Yuriland is the new reality for all of us.
That could be. I've given him cudos in the past from going "rags to riches". I think he deserves that respect. But beyond that his created his own business model that became unsustainable from a cost standpoint, or he simply felt that his margins weren't big enough. So enter "professionals deal with professionals". He struck a deal with Getty presumably to punch up his margins to pay for COGS and yield a profit. That promise by Getty (whatever it is) that Yuri would make X is obviously challenged, and we can see some of that by the multiple collections they are forming and the "new facelift of IS" in 3 months. But it's a factor of expectations. I am fairly certain that I (and many of you) would be giddy with 1/4 of what he was promised by Getty, let alone what he is actually getting today. If this assessment is correct, and Getty over promised and under delivered, then Yuri is in panic mode. He isn't too big to fail unless he lowers his expectations.
-
I agree collectively they could choose to keep pricing at a level which would be sustainable to contributors. However some of them have chosen to go down the road that leads to the point of no return for contributors.
In my opinion shutterstock has lead the way in this regard when it comes to subs and as you can see they admit they have used this strategy to successfully gain substantial market in the micro stock photography market.
As a result we see other microstock companies following suit so that they do not continue to lose market share to a contributors who purposely kept pricing low as a business strategy to capture a larger share of the micro market.
I think we essentially agree (for the most part). I just have trouble laying too much blame on any one agency. We all trusted these agencies with the moral/financial decisions of our businesses thinking that our best interests were their best interests as well. In hindsight, that seems like a really poor decision.
I agree, to be honest I highlight shutterstock because so many people here, give the site a complete pass. I think offering a different point of view lends perspective that shutterstock is not blameless and its business decisions have also contributed to the devaluation of our assets.
I could not agree more regarding our misguided trust, if we had all realized where we were headed years ago I am sure the sites would have had far more pressure to hold up their end of the bargain when it comes to protecting the interests of contributors. If we continue to fail to hold the sites accountable we might as well move on.
As far as I now SS started with a baseline subs business model. They have not (unless someone can tell me differently) done anything but go in the right direction in terms of pricing and commissions. If you look at Istock, backwards. Fotolia, backwards, RF123, backwards, etc. Just stating the obvious. Subs are here to stay, unfortunately but SS has done a good job of working to benefit the contributors, FAR MORE THAT ANY OTHER MICROSTOCK AGENCY.
-
As far as I now SS started with a baseline subs business model. They have not (unless someone can tell me differently) done anything but go in the right direction in terms of pricing and commissions. If you look at Istock, backwards. Fotolia, backwards, RF123, backwards, etc. Just stating the obvious. Subs are here to stay, unfortunately but SS has done a good job of working to benefit the contributors, FAR MORE THAT ANY OTHER MICROSTOCK AGENCY.
Some of my issues are more about ME than the agencies. As I've learned and evolved in micro, what I've come expect/want has changed. It frustrates me that agencies have changed more with me. I can't really blame them for that, but it still is frustrating none the less.
-
I agree collectively they could choose to keep pricing at a level which would be sustainable to contributors. However some of them have chosen to go down the road that leads to the point of no return for contributors.
In my opinion shutterstock has lead the way in this regard when it comes to subs and as you can see they admit they have used this strategy to successfully gain substantial market in the micro stock photography market.
As a result we see other microstock companies following suit so that they do not continue to lose market share to a contributors who purposely kept pricing low as a business strategy to capture a larger share of the micro market.
I think we essentially agree (for the most part). I just have trouble laying too much blame on any one agency. We all trusted these agencies with the moral/financial decisions of our businesses thinking that our best interests were their best interests as well. In hindsight, that seems like a really poor decision.
I agree, to be honest I highlight shutterstock because so many people here, give the site a complete pass. I think offering a different point of view lends perspective that shutterstock is not blameless and its business decisions have also contributed to the devaluation of our assets.
I could not agree more regarding our misguided trust, if we had all realized where we were headed years ago I am sure the sites would have had far more pressure to hold up their end of the bargain when it comes to protecting the interests of contributors. If we continue to fail to hold the sites accountable we might as well move on.
As far as I now SS started with a baseline subs business model. They have not (unless someone can tell me differently) done anything but go in the right direction in terms of pricing and commissions. If you look at Istock, backwards. Fotolia, backwards, RF123, backwards, etc. Just stating the obvious. Subs are here to stay, unfortunately but SS has done a good job of working to benefit the contributors, FAR MORE THAT ANY OTHER MICROSTOCK AGENCY.
I joined shutterstock shortly after they opened. I would not say that purposely keeping sub pricing at the same price for 8 or 9 years is NOT going in the right direction.
In the beginning shuttersock advertized that you could earn money from images sitting idle on your hard drive and the quality of images in the shuttersotck collection reflected this. Image quality is no where near what it was in 2004 yet shutterstock's sub pricing has remained unchanged.
I agree with Yuri's early comments that the distinct and rapid rise in picture quality standards should have guided contributor payout/royalty price per image! At the very least they could have split off higher end content to an Offset like model as quality rose beyond the low sub value that they purposely used to gain market share.
As an example here is an example of image quality in 2005 from one of shutterstocks leading contributors.
Yuri's 2005 response to the question - What's your favorite picture in your gallery?
(http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/files/2700_1129844395_3_169.jpg)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793)
Another example of image quality from Yuri, whose user name on the shutterstock forum was Logos.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402)
Here are Yuri's 2005 thoughts on SS's Royalties vs Image Quality
Snip
This sites image standards has to balance with payout prices for quality pictures.
As it is now, criteria for getting images approved have accelerated to a much stricter level but the payout is the same as before.
Development in picture quality standards should guide payouts pr picture!
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821)
-
Here are Yuri's 2005 thoughts on SS's Royalties vs Image Quality
Snip
This sites image standards has to balance with payout prices for quality pictures.
As it is now, criteria for getting images approved have accelerated to a much stricter level but the payout is the same as before.
Development in picture quality standards should guide payouts pr picture!
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821[/url])
But that was a fundamental misunderstanding of the free market. Price is driven by scarcity and demand, not by quality. It's only when high-quality items are in demand and scarce that their price is high. Internal competition among suppliers made very high quality work available in large volumes - larger volumes than the market can stand, going by the falling return per image.
Someone mentioned the concept of "too big to fail", but that will never be relevant because it only applies when failure would cause extreme damage to a national economy. Stock is never going to do that. In any case, in my view no image factory should ever go bankrupt because all the production costs are paid in advance and earnings trickle in later, so if the factory is sensitive to trends it can scale its operations up or down depending on how the market is developing. Even if it has to cease production altogether it would still exist as a shell, receiving residual income. It would only go bankrupt if it kept on paying to produce work even though it wasn't selling fast enough to cover costs, which could happen if the management refused to recognise changing realities.
Three years from now, the image factories may have stopped producing because of falling ROI, but their catalogue will still be earning for them.
-
They never gave you a raise in all that time?
I joined shutterstock shortly after they opened. I would not say that purposely keeping sub pricing at the same price for 8 or 9 years is NOT going in the right direction.
Yes I agree, image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?
Three years from now, the image factories may have stopped producing because of falling ROI, but their catalogue will still be earning for them.
Yup and so will people like LisaFX who built a nice, well designed collection, with years of work. Maybe not growing income or stable returns, but still income based on residuals for the work already done. The individual contributor is not gaining income or returns at this point. Well maybe some, but not, like it was in 2005 - 2009. Most people are seeing a drop, even when they are still working and adding more files.
Can someone tell me (since this is becoming a follow the bouncing Yuri thread) Yuri Arcurs Invests $1.2 Million in Scoopshot July 2013. So what's going on?
As far as iStock, I hope they do find something positive and bring more income return for all of us.
-
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?
Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?
-
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?
Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?
I would never applaud the fact that any of the micros used price undercutting to upsell its content to existing higher end customers by low balling the offerings of existing higher end competitors.
The move in 2008 to On Demand was buyer and not contributor benifit driven. In 2007, Jon toyed with creating a shutter stock brand that focus on "higher-priced photos" to start moving into Getty's market".
However in the end Jon chose to keep images which could have been included in higher end collections at sub and eventually on demand pricing levels; with the intent of gaining market share.
As you can see Jon knew full well that such mid level images had a market, yet he stiffed high end shutterstock contributors in leiu of calculated shutterstock market growth.
Snip
"Reports of the demise of traditional stock," Klein says, "are exaggerated."
But technology seems to favor his new competitors. "Our advantage is efficiency," says Shutterstock's Oringer. "And if Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why we can't we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?"
http://tinyurl.com/22vdhj (http://tinyurl.com/22vdhj)
Shutterstock Launches New "On Demand" Subscription to Serve Full Spectrum of Stock Image Buyers
World's largest subscription-based online stock photo agency debuts four new plans for customers who need limited quantities of images
New York, NY — Aug 5, 2008
Snip
Shutterstock's new On Demand plans are ideal solutions for stock image users who need quality images in limited quantities. Customers can download images anytime over a one-year period by paying a one-time fee of $49 or $229, depending on the quantity and resolution of the images desired. Within the plans, prices range from $4 per download for smaller sizes to $10 per download for the largest sizes and for vector images.
"We're always looking for ways to better serve the needs of our customers," said Shutterstock CEO and Founder Jon Oringer. "On Demand provides a flexible option for businesses and individuals who do not always need the volume of images provided by our original subscription plan. In the constantly changing online stock photography marketplace, the addition of On Demand allows us to cater to the full spectrum of stock photo users."
http://tinyurl.com/m7q8mvu (http://tinyurl.com/m7q8mvu)
Photo wars: A $2 billion business gets rough - The giants of the stock photo business--Getty Images and Corbis--are being challenged by a flock of tiny "microstock" agencies. And it's become a game that almost anyone can play, reports Business 2.0 Magazine.
Business 2.0 Magazine By Robert Levine, Business 2.0 Magazine
April 4 2007
Snip
Klein's initial plan for dealing with the microstock revolution was to buy into it. In early 2006 Getty purchased iStockphoto for $50 million. As he tells it, the revolution is a blessing in disguise. Most of iStockphoto's customers could never have bought an image before, and many probably simply copied what they needed. If Klein can bring them in the door with iStockphoto, he might get some of them to consider Getty's better images, and to this end he'll introduce a new line of photos that is more expensive than microstock but cheaper than the company's other offerings.
"Our aim is to provide imagery for every budget," Klein says. "I want as much share of each customer's wallet as possible."
Snip
"Reports of the demise of traditional stock," Klein says, "are exaggerated."
But technology seems to favor his new competitors. "Our advantage is efficiency," says Shutterstock's Oringer. "And if Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why we can't we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?"
Snip
David and the two Goliaths
In a Manhattan Starbucks, a continent and a sensibility removed from the Corbis and Getty offices, Tscheltzoff is describing how Fotolia is trying to play David to the industry Goliaths. The company offers 2.2 million images taken by 25,000 photographers, but it employs only 18 people--all but three of whom work from home.
"We IM and talk on Skype," says Tscheltzoff, a Frenchman who splits his time between New York City and Paris. When he needs to take a meeting, he says with a sweep of his hand, "this is my office." Today's rent is a small iced coffee, which he sips as he explains how his business works.
As he describes it, the microstock model is the picture of efficiency. Submissions pour in electronically from photographers, who get 50 percent or more of the proceeds of each sale. The company has few inventory concerns, no shipping issues, and hardly any operating costs. The business broke even after eight months, Tscheltzoff says. (He won't reveal much more, except that annual sales are less than $10 million.) The biggest expense is marketing: selling the company to both prospective contributors and potential customers.
"If you don't have buyers, you don't get photos," he says. "And if you don't have photos, you don't get buyers."
Next Net 25: Startups to watch
Other microstock sites--there are several large ones and dozens of smaller entries--tell a similar story, although the details differ.
Jon Oringer, founder and CEO of Shutterstock, based in New York City, sells low-cost photos by subscription--25 photos a day for $199 per month or $1,999 per year. The other large independent player is Dreamstime, based in Brentwood, Tenn., which operates more like Fotolia and has been profitable since launch, according to COO Jeff Prescott.
At all these sites, employees decide what photos to accept, but the contributors do much of the work of organizing the material--submitting their pictures with keywords that are then scanned by the sites' search engines.
"The margins are great," says Alan Meckler, CEO of Jupiter Images, which pioneered a low-cost subscription model before the microstocks arriv
http://tinyurl.com/22vdhj (http://tinyurl.com/22vdhj)
-
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?
Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?
Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.
Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.
If suppliers willingly sell to the distribution chain for low percentages, they can't complain. It's self determined, it's a personal decision. No one is holding our hand in the fire and saying, "you will produce and sell for pocket change and low commissions".
I don't care what agency it is (and I don't know why another IS thread turned into a bash SS thread?) People left IS and have dropped many others over trust, commission and basic income issues.
If IS can bring back some of the lost sales and profits for contributors that's going to make them a Microstock contender again, instead of a picked over carcase of what they once were.
Exclusives are the exception and I still say, the loyalty deserves to be rewarded. It's exclusive content as well and I find nothing wrong if IS gave them the better search placement. They already get paid more. Why not encourage people to be exclusive and make the site stand for something different in the Forrest of "every site has the same images from the same people".
My question is: Does Midstock sales mean anything to an Indy like myself? What are IS Midstock sales? I get 15% and for subs on IS I wonder if it's even that.
-
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?
Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?
Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.
Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Subscription Reality
In 2007 shutterstock charged buyers 21 cents per image downloaded and paid contributors 25 cents or 119% of each download
In 2014 shutterstock charges buyers 28 per image downloaded and pay's contributors .25 to .38 cents or 89% of each download for the first pay level and 117% of each download for the second pay level. This makes it clear why shutterstock works hard to gain new contributors and promote their images in buyer searches.
2007 25 photos a day for $199 per month or $1,999 per year or 21 cents per image
2014 25 photos a day for $299 per month or $2,559 per year or 28 cents per image
2007
$0.25 or 119% of each download
2014
$0.25 or 89% of each download
$0.33 or 117% of each download
$0.36 or 128% of each download
$0.38 or 135% of each download
2007 Shutterstock Royalty Schedule Photographers are paid 25 cents royalty
2008 Shutterstock Royalty Schedule Photographers are paid 25 cents to 30 cents if you have earned $500 or more in sales from Shutterstock
2014 Shutterstock Royalty Schedule
$0.25 @ 0 - $500 Lifetime earnings
$0.33 @ $500 - $3,000 Lifetime earnings
$0.36 @ $3,000 - $10,000 Lifetime earnings
$0.38 @ $10,000 + Lifetime earnings
-
Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.
It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.
SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP
I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!
-
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?
Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?
Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.
Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Subscription Reality
2007
$0.25 or 119% of each download
2014
$0.38 or 135% of each download
So not just a raise, but also a higher percentage of each download.
Subs went from $199 to $299 per year (a 50% increase).
Earnings per DL for top contributors went from .25 to .38 (a 50% increase).
-
Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.
It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.
SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP
I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!
Yeah! FYIGM! ;D
I guess there is still the question of whether you think there is or could be a better game in town. I know what my answer is.
-
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?
Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?
Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.
Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Subscription Reality
2007
$0.25 or 119% of each download
2014
$0.38 or 135% of each download
So not just a raise, but also a higher percentage of each download.
No it is the exact opposite, we receive a smaller or lower percentage for each download. And they have not raised sub prices since 2008.
We receive a smaller percentage even when you average all four royalty levels together which is .33 cents.
Even as an average which in reality the percentage is much higher than actual numbers; because only a very small percentage of contributors reach the top two pay tiers. Yet when you average those higher numbers into the equation, we still see a decrease in percentage earned in 2014.
In 2007 shutterstock charged buyers 21 cents per image downloaded and paid contributors 25 cents or 119% of each download
In 2014 shutterstock charges buyers 28 per image downloaded and shutterstock pay's contributors an average across all pay scales of .33 cents per image or 117% for each download for all pay levels combined. And 89% for each download for the first pay level which comprises the large majority of shutterstock contributors.
-
Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.
It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.
SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP
I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!
This type of thinking is consistent with the decisions you report in various forum threads and explains why you have no problem staying opted into DPC.
-
Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.
It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.
SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP
I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!
This type of thinking is consistent with the decisions you report in various forum threads and explains why you have no problem staying opted into DPC.
The penultimate quote to your previous one (cthoman) sums up RH perfectly. FYIGM.
Part-time snapper happy to screw all others in order to make a few pennies more for himself.
-
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?
Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?
Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.
Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Subscription Reality
2007
$0.25 or 119% of each download
2014
$0.38 or 135% of each download
So not just a raise, but also a higher percentage of each download.
No it is the exact opposite, we receive a smaller or lower percentage for each download. And they have not raised sub prices since 2008.
We receive a smaller percentage even when you average all four royalty levels together which is .33 cents.
Even as an average which in reality the percentage is much higher than actual numbers; because only a very small percentage of contributors reach the top two pay tiers. Yet when you average those higher numbers into the equation, we still see a decrease in percentage earned in 2014.
In 2007 shutterstock charged buyers 21 cents per image downloaded and paid contributors 25 cents or 119% of each download
In 2014 shutterstock charges buyers 28 per image downloaded and shutterstock pay's contributors an average across all pay scales of .33 cents per image or 117% for each download for all pay levels combined. And 89% for each download for the first pay level which comprises the large majority of shutterstock contributors.
Which earning category are you in?
-
Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.
It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.
SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP
I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!
This type of thinking is consistent with the decisions you report in various forum threads and explains why you have no problem staying opted into DPC.
The penultimate quote to your previous one (cthoman) sums up RH perfectly. FYIGM.
Part-time snapper happy to screw all others in order to make a few pennies more for himself.
I was sort of halfway kidding. We definitely tend to cannibalize each other, but at the same time certain business models work better for some contributors. That said, there's something to be said for continuing to push the industry to improve itself and not just being content with whatever bone it throws your way.
-
FYIGM was a new one for me. Here is the definition if I am not the only one...
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FYIGM (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FYIGM)
-
Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.
It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.
SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP
I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!
This type of thinking is consistent with the decisions you report in various forum threads and explains why you have no problem staying opted into DPC.
The penultimate quote to your previous one (cthoman) sums up RH perfectly. FYIGM.
Part-time snapper happy to screw all others in order to make a few pennies more for himself.
I'd call $24,000 a year and growing from microstock more than "pennies." How much do you make from stock photography, Ethan?
I've been through this once with you, and I'm only going to do it once more. I'm a full-time photographer. I just don't sink all my eggs into the stock photography basket. I prefer diversity in my income sources.
I'm sorry, but I don't see why I should care what photographers in mid stock are making. If their photos are superior one of a kind images, then they have nothing to worry about from me. If they can't produce better images than my typical stuff, then they shouldn't be in mid-stock to begin with.
-
FYIGM was a new one for me. Here is the definition if I am not the only one...
[url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FYIGM]www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FYIGM[/url] ([url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FYIGM[/url])
Yep, that's the one :)
-
And let's not forget the total hypocrisy of complaining about how Shutterstock works when you guys are just as happy to cash in the earnings you're getting. Put your money where your mouth is.
-
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?
Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?
Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.
Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Subscription Reality
2007
$0.25 or 119% of each download
2014
$0.38 or 135% of each download
So not just a raise, but also a higher percentage of each download.
No it is the exact opposite, we receive a smaller or lower percentage for each download. And they have not raised sub prices since 2008.
We receive a smaller percentage even when you average all four royalty levels together which is .33 cents.
Even as an average which in reality the percentage is much higher than actual numbers; because only a very small percentage of contributors reach the top two pay tiers. Yet when you average those higher numbers into the equation, we still see a decrease in percentage earned in 2014.
In 2007 shutterstock charged buyers 21 cents per image downloaded and paid contributors 25 cents or 119% of each download
In 2014 shutterstock charges buyers 28 per image downloaded and shutterstock pay's contributors an average across all pay scales of .33 cents per image or 117% for each download for all pay levels combined. And 89% for each download for the first pay level which comprises the large majority of shutterstock contributors.
Which earning category are you in?
Does it matter?
Instead of FYIGM, shouldn't we be thinking of the welfare of the industry in general?
The cold reality is that our percentage of earnings is dropping each year and our cost to produce image assets is rising, while shutterstock is content to undercut pricing for the entire industry by not raising sub prices since 2008.
That leaves us in the nasty position to see competitors follow suit with the likes of DPC in an attempt to garner market share.
I think it is time for us to step up to the plate and send a message to all of the sites that we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content. Fair compensation based on the real equity of our assets.
-
And who judges what "fair" is? I think what Shutterstock pays me is fair because I'd be earning zero off of stock without it. It's certainly more than enough to justify the time and effort I spend on the images I have there.
-
And let's not forget the total hypocrisy of complaining about how Shutterstock works when you guys are just as happy to cash in the earnings you're getting. Put your money where your mouth is.
It's not so much being unhappy. For me, it's more a realization that I'm probably making 50% of what I could or should be making. It took some experimenting to find the sweet spot in pricing and volume. Now that I have a general idea of what that is, I see how far off some agencies are from that.
Maybe, it is unrealistic to expect or hope that these agencies will care and do better. At the same time, I realize that it isn't very likely that the market and demand for my images will continue to grow. So, getting the agencies to change seems like the more achievable of two unachievable goals to increase my income. ;)
-
we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content.
And who is to gauge the 'quality' of our content?
Is it 'most sales' so an apple isolated on white or a business handshake might be 'top quality'.
Or rarity of subject?
Or cost to take (how would anyone know?)
Or ... ?
-
Does it matter?
Instead of FYIGM, shouldn't we be thinking of the welfare of the industry in general?
The cold reality is that our percentage of earnings is dropping each year, while shutterstock is content to undercut pricing for the entire industry by not raising sub prices since 2008.
That leaves us in the nasty position to see competitors follow suit with the likes of DPC in an attempt to garner market share.
I think it is time for us to step up to the plate and send a message to all of the sites that we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content. Fair compensation based on the real equity of our assets.
I don't think there's a person here who wouldn't love a better payout and wishes their work sold for higher prices.
But you seem focused on one site in particular--the one that brings in the most earnings for most of us and the one that's actually looking for ways to sell images for higher prices rather than lower. Not that I wouldn't mind if Oringer paid us a little better and was happy being a simple multimillionaire rather than a billionaire.
There are ways for micro sites to compete other than just slashing prices. That's a desperate move by companies lacking ideas. They're being reactive rather than proactive, and they're reacting a decade too late.
-
we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content.
And who is to gauge the 'quality' of our content?
It is 'most sales' so an apple isolated on white or a business handshake might be 'top quality'.
Or rarity of subject?
Or cost to take (how would anyone know?)
Or ... ?
That question has an easy answer. The market will decide. If your image is of such high quality that it can't be reproduced by someone more cheaply, then the market will pay you what you think you deserve for it.
Football players make a lot of money because they're the only ones who can play their sport at such a high level. They have a rare ability. Image makers who can make images on such a high level have nothing to worry about when it comes to microstock.
-
we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content.
And who is to gauge the 'quality' of our content?
It is 'most sales' so an apple isolated on white or a business handshake might be 'top quality'.
Or rarity of subject?
Or cost to take (how would anyone know?)
Or ... ?
That question has an easy answer. The market will decide. If your image is of such high quality that it can't be reproduced by someone more cheaply, then the market will pay you what you think you deserve for it.
Football players make a lot of money because they're the only ones who can play their sport at such a high level. They have a rare ability. Image makers who can make images on such a high level have nothing to worry about when it comes to microstock.
I thought that was the whole argument going on here that the market is not doing this and just selling images for whatever these companies decide is fair.
-
That question has an easy answer. The market will decide. If your image is of such high quality that it can't be reproduced by someone more cheaply, then the market will pay you what you think you deserve for it.
If that's the model you want, you have that option at Pixels.com and IIRC at Pond5, and probably others I don't know about.
-
Does it matter?
Instead of FYIGM, shouldn't we be thinking of the welfare of the industry in general?
The cold reality is that our percentage of earnings is dropping each year, while shutterstock is content to undercut pricing for the entire industry by not raising sub prices since 2008.
That leaves us in the nasty position to see competitors follow suit with the likes of DPC in an attempt to garner market share.
I think it is time for us to step up to the plate and send a message to all of the sites that we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content. Fair compensation based on the real equity of our assets.
I don't think there's a person here who wouldn't love a better payout and wishes their work sold for higher prices.
But you seem focused on one site in particular--the one that brings in the most earnings for most of us and the one that's actually looking for ways to sell images for higher prices rather than lower. Not that I wouldn't mind if Oringer paid us a little better and was happy being a simple multimillionaire rather than a billionaire.
There are ways for micro sites to compete other than just slashing prices. That's a desperate move by companies lacking ideas. They're being reactive rather than proactive, and they're reacting a decade too late.
From my perspective if you are going to work on improving the inequity of the situation, why would you choose to work at improving earnings at microsites which impact our earnings in a limited fashion. Meaning sites that have a small percentage of market share.
The fact that Jon has become a very wealthy on the strength and value of our hard work an assets is fine, however the spread between his earning and ours has become inordinate or disproportionally excessive!
Wealth and Income Distribution - Reality VS Perception
http://tinyurl.com/nvorqxf (http://tinyurl.com/nvorqxf)!
-
we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content.
And who is to gauge the 'quality' of our content?
It is 'most sales' so an apple isolated on white or a business handshake might be 'top quality'.
Or rarity of subject?
Or cost to take (how would anyone know?)
Or ... ?
That question has an easy answer. The market will decide. If your image is of such high quality that it can't be reproduced by someone more cheaply, then the market will pay you what you think you deserve for it.
Football players make a lot of money because they're the only ones who can play their sport at such a high level. They have a rare ability. Image makers who can make images on such a high level have nothing to worry about when it comes to microstock.
The buyer market lost its ability to decide, once the sites made search changes developed to serve content which would bring them the highest income per download; instead of letting buyers choose which content would be popular.
-
have you ever thought about other businesses?
are farmers getting as much as the supermarkets? are musicians getting as much as labels? are writers getting as much as publishers? are doctors getting as much as the company owner they work for?
unfortunately the world isn't ready to share the wealth created using other "work", what would you pay if you were Jon?
you can ask whatever you wish and I would love a few raises too but why would Jon be different from the rest of the world? not even going to talk about the direct competitors % royalties
solution: build your own SS and share the wealth you created or just be a normal business man and pay as much as your competitors like all agencies do
-
we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content.
And who is to gauge the 'quality' of our content?
It is 'most sales' so an apple isolated on white or a business handshake might be 'top quality'.
Or rarity of subject?
Or cost to take (how would anyone know?)
Or ... ?
That question has an easy answer. The market will decide. If your image is of such high quality that it can't be reproduced by someone more cheaply, then the market will pay you what you think you deserve for it.
Football players make a lot of money because they're the only ones who can play their sport at such a high level. They have a rare ability. Image makers who can make images on such a high level have nothing to worry about when it comes to microstock.
The buyer market lost its ability to decide, once the sites made search changes developed to serve content which would bring them the highest income per download; instead of letting buyers choose which content would be popular.
That's a load of baloney. All new files are treated the same regardless of who submits them unlike other sites that favor exclusives in their search even if nonexclusive images are better.
-
have you ever thought about other businesses?
are farmers getting as much as the supermarkets? are musicians getting as much as labels? are writers getting as much as publishers? are doctors getting as much as the company owner they work for?
unfortunately the world isn't ready to share the wealth created using other "work", what would you pay if you were Jon?
you can ask whatever you wish and I would love a few raises too but why would Jon be different from the rest of the world? not even going to talk about the direct competitors % royalties.
The reality of the situation is that in the US where many of these micro have set up shop, they are back to early 1900's income inequality levels and at the time the era watched the rise of much needed trade unions as a result of huge income gaps.
Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?
Is Wealth Inequality Rising in the U.S.?
http://tinyurl.com/kfxeyfh (http://tinyurl.com/kfxeyfh)
(http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/cassidy-chart-03.jpg)
CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners
http://tinyurl.com/p2lduk3 (http://tinyurl.com/p2lduk3)
The Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI) has today released its report highlighting the intense state of insecurity American workers are experiencing as they look forward—with ever increasing trepidation—to a retirement without sufficient money to see them through.
According to the data, American workers have very good reason to be afraid.
(http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2013/03/cbpp-income-inequality2.jpg)
http://tinyurl.com/dx48ya3 (http://tinyurl.com/dx48ya3)
Putting CEO Pay in Perspective
How much more do CEOs at America's highest-grossing companies earn compared to their workers? The size of the circles in this infographic illustrates the difference in pay between a CEO and his or her employees.
How Does CEO Pay Compare to Median Worker Salary? Roll over the info graphic in the page below to reveal details
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/ceo-worker-pay_n_5332039.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/ceo-worker-pay_n_5332039.html)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lVi8akh17-E/UjJyvvuckcI/AAAAAAAACEk/NjvB6-yS5-E/s1600/minwageus2.jpg)
-
All totally irrelevant.
-
Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?
what % should Jon pay us? 50%?
even that (which is a ton more than all stock agencies, talking about the ones with buyers) would still get us a few dollars and millions for him, its just a big business with tons of buyers and contributors
Jon will always be a Silicon Valley billionaire and we his little contributors, that will never change
-
Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?
what % should Jon pay us? 50%?
even that (which is a ton more than all stock agencies, talking about the ones with buyers) would still get us a few dollars and millions for him, its just a big business with tons of buyers and contributors
Jon will always be a Silicon Valley billionaire and we his little contributors, that will never change
I think it's Silicon Alley billionaire
'Valley' pertains to the Hayward, California area and surrounding areas in San Francisco, CA.
'Alley' pertains to New York.
:)
-
correct ethan, cheers!
-
Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?
what % should Jon pay us? 50%?
Actually, he might be poor if he paid us that much because the company wouldn't be making a profit. They could always raise prices though. I guess that is a question to ask yourself. If a company can't afford to pay you 50% with their expenses, are they charging enough to their customers.
-
I would guess, based on their history, that they tested different price points until they found the one that gave them the best returns. If you price too high you might lose customers, too low and you don't make enough profit.
-
I would guess, based on their history, that they tested different price points until they found the one that gave them the best returns. If you price too high you might lose customers, too low and you don't make enough profit.
I'm not sure if I believe that based on what the micro landscape looks like, but it could be.
-
Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?
what % should Jon pay us? 50%?
Actually, he might be poor if he paid us that much because the company wouldn't be making a profit. They could always raise prices though. I guess that is a question to ask yourself. If a company can't afford to pay you 50% with their expenses, are they charging enough to their customers.
They have publicly admitted that they have room to raise prices and have chosen not to do so, with the business objective of gaining market share.
This move affects its contributors livelyhoods because out expenses increase each and every year.
-
Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?
what % should Jon pay us? 50%?
even that (which is a ton more than all stock agencies, talking about the ones with buyers) would still get us a few dollars and millions for him, its just a big business with tons of buyers and contributors
Jon will always be a Silicon Valley billionaire and we his little contributors, that will never change
Bruce has stated publicly that 50% is fair, he is one of the few people who has the data to determine a fair rate.
I grew up in a company with a philosophy similar to Costco's thou they paid at a much higher scale. They believed that for a company to be truly successful you had to take good care of the people who powered it on a daily basis. That philosophy paid off. The company was merit shop or non union in a largely union industry. In its' 60 year history its employees never once considered unionizing because there they were taken care of and there was no need to organize. They did have much higher productivity levels compared to their unionized competitors and they took care of the companies interests because they cared about a company who cared about them.
In the end the above company is a Fortune 200 company with revenues of 3 Billion per year. The owner would be the first to tell you he did not accomplish this alone and you would be surprised to see how little he took from the company because he knew that his own success was tied to making sure his employees prospered.
You can see this same philosophy played out to a lesser degree between Costco and Walmart
Costco Shows You Can Have Low Prices and Decent Pay
http://www.moneytalksnews.com/2013/06/10/costco-shows-you-can-have-both-low-prices-and-decent-pay/#eDKpZVXml7QcYvfq.99 (http://www.moneytalksnews.com/2013/06/10/costco-shows-you-can-have-both-low-prices-and-decent-pay/#eDKpZVXml7QcYvfq.99)
Costco strongly believes in investing in its employees. The average pay at Costco is $20.89 an hour, compared with $12.67 an hour at Walmart, Businessweek says.
At Costco, 88 percent of employees have company-sponsored health insurance, Businessweek adds. Walmart says “more than half” of its do.
Then there’s how much their CEOs make. Last year, Costco’s CEO got:
a $650,000 salary.
A $200,000 bonus.
$4 million in stock options.
In contrast, Walmart’s CEO got:
a $1.3 million salary.
a $4.4 million bonus.
$13.6 million in stock options.
Since 2009, Costco’s stock price has doubled and its sales have grown 39 percent. While some chains are being undercut by Amazon, Costco isn’t. During the recession, while retail rivals were cutting jobs, the company gave its employees a $1.50 raise that cost nearly $20 million, Businessweek says.
Snip
On Thursday Costco reported earnings of $473 million, or $1.07 per share, on revenue of $25.23 billion.
-
I would guess, based on their history, that they tested different price points until they found the one that gave them the best returns. If you price too high you might lose customers, too low and you don't make enough profit.
As you know I have posted this many times and yet most ignore the facts.
Shutterstock has clearly stated that they know they could raise prices and they have chosen not to with the objective of keeping them low to gain market share.
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 then 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.
http://tinyurl.com/m6rlaq2 (http://tinyurl.com/m6rlaq2)
-
I would guess, based on their history, that they tested different price points until they found the one that gave them the best returns. If you price too high you might lose customers, too low and you don't make enough profit.
I'm not sure if I believe that based on what the micro landscape looks like, but it could be.
Just a guess. They seem to take a considered approach, testing things in spot markets before they roll them out. We do the same thing in advertising. Price tests are pretty common to determine best ROI.
-
Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?
what % should Jon pay us? 50%?
Actually, he might be poor if he paid us that much because the company wouldn't be making a profit. They could always raise prices though. I guess that is a question to ask yourself. If a company can't afford to pay you 50% with their expenses, are they charging enough to their customers.
They have publicly admitted that they have room to raise prices and have chosen not to do so, with the business objective of gaining market share.
This move affects its contributors livelyhoods because out expenses increase each and every year.
You could argue that it affects contributors' livelihoods by increasing their overall earnings because the company is growing, meaning more downloads. Perhaps that's why they're at the top of the earnings poll over to the right. Who knows?
-
Yes, SS and all the others also consider market share when they decide on pricing - which is a moot point to most contributors because they sell most everywhere.
-
Yes, SS and all the others also consider market share when they decide on pricing - which is a moot point to most contributors because they sell most everywhere.
Jon has stated that he doesn't see a point in image exclusivity but it would sure make things interesting if they started with it - it would also give more power to the photographer as we could more easily boycott other sites and still retain our income (if the exclusive deal made sense). It could make the agencies start to compete for the artists attention - wouldn't that be nice!
-
Yes, SS and all the others also consider market share when they decide on pricing - which is a moot point to most contributors because they sell most everywhere.
Jon has stated that he doesn't see a point in image exclusivity but it would sure make things interesting if they started with it - it would also give more power to the photographer as we could more easily boycott other sites and still retain our income (if the exclusive deal made sense). It could make the agencies start to compete for the artists attention - wouldn't that be nice!
Jon made that comment awhile ago, kinda like when Bill Gates said we would never need more that 640k of memory. Things change. Perhaps he is starting to "evolve". I can't personally see agencies surviving with any degree of profitability if something other than pricing doesn't change. I think image exclusivity will be the next big thing, and sooner than later.
-
I think agencies (the big ones) can have plenty of profitability with 70 to 85 and more percent of each sale.
-
I think agencies (the big ones) can have plenty of profitability with 70 to 85 and more percent of each sale.
Even the smaller sites seem to be sticking around, thus they must also be profitable.
We can see from shutterstocks balance sheet that even with the high rents they are paying at some of the most expensive real estate in the world they are quite profitable.
So much so that they can afford to stiff contributors by not raising prices since 2008, they are so profitable they chose to keep pricing stagnant for many years so that they can low ball competitors to gain a majority of market share.
Now it is a simple fact that if they cared about contributors they would raise prices, they know full well that the market is not going anywhere and that it can bear modest increases.
Since it is clear these sites do not care about their contributors, it is time for us to care about ourselves and take steps to protect our interests.
-
Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?
what % should Jon pay us? 50%?
Actually, he might be poor if he paid us that much because the company wouldn't be making a profit. They could always raise prices though. I guess that is a question to ask yourself. If a company can't afford to pay you 50% with their expenses, are they charging enough to their customers.
Well, I always wonder how apple app store can pay 70% to the developers and run a much bigger business than IS. Even vimeo's rate is 90%! They definitely have a bigger bandwidth demand etc etc. That makes the unattainable 45% IS royalty rate (and all the Microstock agencies rates) look a little bit unfair.
-
Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?
what % should Jon pay us? 50%?
Actually, he might be poor if he paid us that much because the company wouldn't be making a profit. They could always raise prices though. I guess that is a question to ask yourself. If a company can't afford to pay you 50% with their expenses, are they charging enough to their customers.
Well, I always wonder how apple app store can pay 70% to the developers and run a much bigger business than IS. Even vimeo's rate is 90%! They definitely have a bigger bandwidth demand etc etc. That makes the unattainable 45% IS royalty rate (and all the Microstock agencies rates) look a little bit unfair.
Apples and oranges. Every image has to be inspected and stored. The smaller the business the larger percentage of turnover the same advertising exposure costs etc. etc. etc.
If you want to know what % commission would wipe out profits you need to do the calculation from the published figures. Not that it matters.
-
ss will (probably) never introduce exclusivity - that would be race to the top with commission - fotolia, for example, to survive - would need to go with at least 80% commission for contributors - and big question is - would ft survive in new circumstances
if it happens - only two agencies will survive - ss and is - btw - with dollar photo club fotolia is tempting fate - if they don t change something with dpc - they will disappear one way or another
-
Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?
what % should Jon pay us? 50%?
Actually, he might be poor if he paid us that much because the company wouldn't be making a profit. They could always raise prices though. I guess that is a question to ask yourself. If a company can't afford to pay you 50% with their expenses, are they charging enough to their customers.
Well, I always wonder how apple app store can pay 70% to the developers and run a much bigger business than IS. Even vimeo's rate is 90%! They definitely have a bigger bandwidth demand etc etc. That makes the unattainable 45% IS royalty rate (and all the Microstock agencies rates) look a little bit unfair.
Apples and oranges. Every image has to be inspected and stored. The smaller the business the larger percentage of turnover the same advertising exposure costs etc. etc. etc.
If you want to know what % commission would wipe out profits you need to do the calculation from the published figures. Not that it matters.
Not really. Apps have to be tested and conform with far more detailed criteria than images do. Electronic books operate under the same 70% royalty and of course it is the publisher that sets the price not the selling agent. Same with iTunes.
If the 'agency agreement' works for apps, books and music then there's no reason at all why it couldn't work for images. The difference is simply where the market for each started from. Steve Jobs needed to entice the music industry to sell their catalogues via his new format so made them a good offer and then that became the standard for apps and books.
You can't really work backwards to "know what % commission would wipe out profits" because the current business model with the existing pricing architecture isn't the only way it could work.
For example there was a time that IS was selling images for $1 and paying 20% to everyone ... and yet were apparently still profitable. At that time, had they wanted to, they could have increased the price of images to say $1.50 and given all the extra money to artists. That would have ensured a royalty of nearly 50% without having incurred a significant cost increase to IS. Of course they did increase the prices by far more than that ... but Brucie-babe just chose to keep most of the money for himself rather than rewarding artists fairly.
Those of us that were around when IS introduced exclusivity know that had IS been just a bit more generous with the terms at the time, say 50-60%, then we'd almost all have gone with them. SS, DT and FT would barely have got off the ground and the market today could have been radically different for both IS and their contributors. If only IS had viewed contributors as valuable partners, rather than worthless suppliers to be screwed as far as possible, then things could have been very different.
Of course that didn't happen so instead SS had to tread the narrow tightrope between paying their contributors as much as possible (to prevent them going exclusive with IS) whilst remaining competitive on pricing. The big problem (for us and them) happened when DT and later FT decided to also enter the subs market. The annual and monthly cost of a subscription is big enough for customers to be price-concious and we the contributors have ended up being the squeezed suppliers in the middle of a battle for market share between SS, DT, FT and more lately TS. None of them have dared to significantly increase the prices of sub packages for years because of this. To some extent we independent contributors are partly to blame too because we have our own portfolios, effectively competing against ourselves, at each of the various agencies.
I know Gbalex likes to blame SS for everything bad in microstock but he is wrong. SS simply steered their ship through the tricky waters better than anyone else.
-
7 pages long and 7321 views l8er,
i ressurected this thread out the interesting blow by blow.
so, we r not happy campers.
two words come to mind
- CANVA
-STOCKSY
;)
-
On June 2rd this year
... Yuri provided some interesting insights on what he feels is the future of Midstock.
“Having just spent 3 days at GI in New York and today in Seattle with the IT exes I believe that very interesting things are in the pipeline for IS. Did I have a say in the upcoming changes... Yes - for sure. That being said. The GI top exe dev guys are highly competent and more flexible and agile towards change that I would have imagined. We are working on a set of core site improvements that will dramatically improve user experience and ultimately sales. Only thing that I can say now: Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself.
“Shutterstock might be in for a bit more competition than they expected, especially if GI has me project managing the develoment team and we utilize the two things GI has that nobody else has: 1. The best images in the world. 2. The best editors in the world. The best images displays that the world has ever seen is just around the corner. Watch this space!”
Gee, thanks for nothing, Yuri.
My sales, and those of most who are reporting, here, there and on the Fb groups I'm in, are even below those of the dismal summer months.
-
On June 2rd this year ... Yuri provided some interesting insights on what he feels is the future of Midstock.
“Having just spent 3 days at GI in New York and today in Seattle with the IT exes I believe that very interesting things are in the pipeline for IS. Did I have a say in the upcoming changes... Yes - for sure. That being said. The GI top exe dev guys are highly competent and more flexible and agile towards change that I would have imagined. We are working on a set of core site improvements that will dramatically improve user experience and ultimately sales. Only thing that I can say now: Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself.
“Shutterstock might be in for a bit more competition than they expected, especially if GI has me project managing the develoment team and we utilize the two things GI has that nobody else has: 1. The best images in the world. 2. The best editors in the world. The best images displays that the world has ever seen is just around the corner. Watch this space!”
Gee, thanks for nothing, Yuri.
My sales, and those of most who are reporting, here, there and on the Fb groups I'm in, are even below those of the dismal summer months.
I think Yuri meant HIS sales. He could give rats ass about us. And how is it that midstock and shutterstock are in that same message? Shutterstock is micro not mid. Yuri knows only one thing....what's best for him.
-
On June 2rd this year ... Yuri provided some interesting insights on what he feels is the future of Midstock.
“Having just spent 3 days at GI in New York and today in Seattle with the IT exes I believe that very interesting things are in the pipeline for IS. Did I have a say in the upcoming changes... Yes - for sure. That being said. The GI top exe dev guys are highly competent and more flexible and agile towards change that I would have imagined. We are working on a set of core site improvements that will dramatically improve user experience and ultimately sales. Only thing that I can say now: Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself.
“Shutterstock might be in for a bit more competition than they expected, especially if GI has me project managing the develoment team and we utilize the two things GI has that nobody else has: 1. The best images in the world. 2. The best editors in the world. The best images displays that the world has ever seen is just around the corner. Watch this space!”
Gee, thanks for nothing, Yuri.
My sales, and those of most who are reporting, here, there and on the Fb groups I'm in, are even below those of the dismal summer months.
I think Yuri meant HIS sales. He could give rats ass about us. And how is it that midstock and shutterstock are in that same message? Shutterstock is micro not mid. Yuri knows only one thing....what's best for him.
Agree Yuri is only about Yuri, which is fair enough, but I CAN'T believe he is happy with the direction things have gone. Hard to find anyone who doesn't think istock is a disaster now, and I think Yuri is no exception.
-
They need to close the gap between these two:
WAFFLE - to speak or write at length in a vague or trivial manner
RESULTS - a tangible occurrence or events following a process or action e.g. sales or profit
-
On June 2rd this year ... Yuri provided some interesting insights on what he feels is the future of Midstock.
“Having just spent 3 days at GI in New York and today in Seattle with the IT exes I believe that very interesting things are in the pipeline for IS. Did I have a say in the upcoming changes... Yes - for sure. That being said. The GI top exe dev guys are highly competent and more flexible and agile towards change that I would have imagined. We are working on a set of core site improvements that will dramatically improve user experience and ultimately sales. Only thing that I can say now: Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself.
“Shutterstock might be in for a bit more competition than they expected, especially if GI has me project managing the develoment team and we utilize the two things GI has that nobody else has: 1. The best images in the world. 2. The best editors in the world. The best images displays that the world has ever seen is just around the corner. Watch this space!”
Gee, thanks for nothing, Yuri.
My sales, and those of most who are reporting, here, there and on the Fb groups I'm in, are even below those of the dismal summer months.
I think Yuri meant HIS sales. He could give rats ass about us. And how is it that midstock and shutterstock are in that same message? Shutterstock is micro not mid. Yuri knows only one thing....what's best for him.
Agree Yuri is only about Yuri, which is fair enough, but I CAN'T believe he is happy with the direction things have gone. Hard to find anyone who doesn't think istock is a disaster now, and I think Yuri is no exception.
Only thing is that we don't know what his deal is with Getty. He is probably on a quite different commission structure than I.S. exclusives since they are using his "brand". He also may have positioning search favoritism over exclusives. He is allowed to sell on other micros as an exclusive, too. So I bet he is better off than we might think.
-
Only thing is that we don't know what his deal is with Getty. He is probably on a quite different commission structure than I.S. exclusives since they are using his "brand". He also may have positioning search favoritism over exclusives. He is allowed to sell on other micros as an exclusive, too. So I bet he is better off than we might think.
Well, it's not doing the sales of his "Yuri" persona on iStock much good even if he is getting special placing. The figures for the last year show an average sales rate of something like one sale every two years for that identity's images. That doesn't look like a good return on effort.
-
Only thing is that we don't know what his deal is with Getty. He is probably on a quite different commission structure than I.S. exclusives since they are using his "brand". He also may have positioning search favoritism over exclusives. He is allowed to sell on other micros as an exclusive, too. So I bet he is better off than we might think.
Well, it's not doing the sales of his "Yuri" persona on iStock much good even if he is getting special placing. The figures for the last year show an average sales rate of something like one sale every two years for that identity's images. That doesn't look like a good return on effort.
That may be true but we still don't know what his deal is and how much he is pulling outside of Getty/is. And he has at least two personas on Istock.
-
Essencial collection is being favored by the Best Match, I don't know how Yuri's pictures will make it
-
Essencial collection is being favored by the Best Match, I don't know how Yuri's pictures will make it
Yuri has almost 10,000 Essential files, under his 'Yuri' entity on iS: http://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/Yuri#50dc702 (http://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/Yuri#50dc702)
7,351 of these are Essential Photos:
http://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/Yuri#87c5dc9 (http://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/Yuri#87c5dc9)
(But only 3 Essentials in his Yuri_Arcurs persona.)
-
And, BTW, “The average price for one of my photo shoots is around $4,000,” Arcurs said. “But on a $4,000 shoot, we’re currently looking at about three years to see a return of investment.”
http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography (http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography)
-
And, BTW, “The average price for one of my photo shoots is around $4,000,” Arcurs said. “But on a $4,000 shoot, we’re currently looking at about three years to see a return of investment.”
[url]http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography[/url] ([url]http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography[/url])
That's way too long. I seem to remember him talking a couple of years back about microstock becoming unsustainable because it could take several months - maybe six, I'm not sure - to recoup shooting costs. If current sales suggest four years to recoup costs, within another couple of years that might have stretched out to eight years, it's an elastic calculation and I don't see how you can run a business with that sort of uncertainty on recouping costs... you've also got to look at the potential interest you lose (or have to pay, if borrowing to pay for shoots) by having your money tied up for that time.
-
And, BTW, “The average price for one of my photo shoots is around $4,000,” Arcurs said. “But on a $4,000 shoot, we’re currently looking at about three years to see a return of investment.”
[url]http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography[/url] ([url]http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography[/url])
That's way too long. I seem to remember him talking a couple of years back about microstock becoming unsustainable because it could take several months - maybe six, I'm not sure - to recoup shooting costs. If current sales suggest four years to recoup costs, within another couple of years that might have stretched out to eight years, it's an elastic calculation and I don't see how you can run a business with that sort of uncertainty on recouping costs... you've also got to look at the potential interest you lose (or have to pay, if borrowing to pay for shoots) by having your money tied up for that time.
It's nothing I'd consider, even briefly, but I'm particularly risk-averse. Maybe Yuri is particularly risk-embracing.
-
And, BTW, “The average price for one of my photo shoots is around $4,000,” Arcurs said. “But on a $4,000 shoot, we’re currently looking at about three years to see a return of investment.”
[url]http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography[/url] ([url]http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography[/url])
That's way too long. I seem to remember him talking a couple of years back about microstock becoming unsustainable because it could take several months - maybe six, I'm not sure - to recoup shooting costs. If current sales suggest four years to recoup costs, within another couple of years that might have stretched out to eight years, it's an elastic calculation and I don't see how you can run a business with that sort of uncertainty on recouping costs... you've also got to look at the potential interest you lose (or have to pay, if borrowing to pay for shoots) by having your money tied up for that time.
It's nothing I'd consider, even briefly, but I'm particularly risk-averse. Maybe Yuri is particularly risk-embracing.
I suspect he is simply stuck. I haven't noticed him doing risky things, on the contrary he goes out of his way to ensure that what he does is a success, but isn't the situation that he either carries on doing what he does and hopes to cover the costs or he stops production and lives on the considerable proceeds of his portfolio? He's already negotiated his faux exclusive deal in response to the problem of falling return per image, what more can he do?
BTW, it was interesting to see the marvellous new look of microstock in that article you posted included simply slapping a cross-processing filter over an image and calling it cool. I wonder if iStock would accept that from ordinary mortals. Maybe I'll send them a few to see what happens.
-
"In the Age of Instagram, how does stock photography compete with cheap and free?"
I'm not sure what the point of the article is. Instagram isn't licensing cheap and free images with model releases and legal guarantees.
"Arcurs, for example, tries to “shoot stuff that’s so hard to reproduce that it can’t really be copied.”"
Looking at IS, his latest work includes looks of images of arrows on white and about 500 similar and near duplicate mages of a pretty blonde model topless and in a towel and in active wear on white. I'm not sure how hard to reproduce that is.
-
Looking at IS, his latest work includes looks of images of arrows on white and about 500 similar and near duplicate mages of a pretty blonde model topless and in a towel and in active wear on white. I'm not sure how hard to reproduce that is.
It looks as if he has responded to the difficulty of recouping shooting costs by switching to simple vectors and isolated-on-white, which makes sense. It's what microstock should be, really.
-
Looking at IS, his latest work includes looks of images of arrows on white and about 500 similar and near duplicate mages of a pretty blonde model topless and in a towel and in active wear on white. I'm not sure how hard to reproduce that is.
It looks as if he has responded to the difficulty of recouping shooting costs by switching to simple vectors and isolated-on-white, which makes sense. It's what microstock should be, really.
Yuri thinks buyers will move back to IS just because he went there
-
Looking at IS, his latest work includes looks of images of arrows on white and about 500 similar and near duplicate mages of a pretty blonde model topless and in a towel and in active wear on white. I'm not sure how hard to reproduce that is.
It looks as if he has responded to the difficulty of recouping shooting costs by switching to simple vectors and isolated-on-white, which makes sense. It's what microstock should be, really.
Yuri thinks buyers will move back to IS just because he went there
Yes. His move sure has hurt SS just as he predicted. ::)
-
Looking at IS, his latest work includes looks of images of arrows on white and about 500 similar and near duplicate mages of a pretty blonde model topless and in a towel and in active wear on white. I'm not sure how hard to reproduce that is.
It looks as if he has responded to the difficulty of recouping shooting costs by switching to simple vectors and isolated-on-white, which makes sense. It's what microstock should be, really.
Yuri thinks buyers will move back to IS just because he went there
Yes. His move sure has hurt SS just as he predicted. ::)
He put SS almost out of business when he left, buyers followed Yuri in mass numbers :)
-
One good point
It looks as if he has responded to the difficulty of recouping shooting costs by switching to simple vectors and isolated-on-white, which makes sense. It's what microstock should be, really.
And another.
"In the Age of Instagram, how does stock photography compete with cheap and free?"
I'm not sure what the point of the article is. Instagram isn't licensing cheap and free images with model releases and legal guarantees.
But here's my answer. Yuri might be spending more than he makes in production and loses money on every shoot, but in the true Microstock tradition, he makes it up on volume. ::) {sarcasm alert, this is Humor}
If I need to explain, I will...
-
And, BTW, “The average price for one of my photo shoots is around $4,000,” Arcurs said. “But on a $4,000 shoot, we’re currently looking at about three years to see a return of investment.”
[url]http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography[/url] ([url]http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography[/url])
That's way too long. I seem to remember him talking a couple of years back about microstock becoming unsustainable because it could take several months - maybe six, I'm not sure - to recoup shooting costs. If current sales suggest four years to recoup costs, within another couple of years that might have stretched out to eight years, it's an elastic calculation and I don't see how you can run a business with that sort of uncertainty on recouping costs... you've also got to look at the potential interest you lose (or have to pay, if borrowing to pay for shoots) by having your money tied up for that time.
3 or 4 years to see profit is tough in microstock. That's about when my images start to decline in sales and sink in searches. I am tempted to think his claims are exaggerated as a marketing ploy. In fact, I take most everything Yuri says publicly as a marketing strategy. No disrespect. If I had half his marketing ability I would probably make twice what I do.
-
And, BTW, “The average price for one of my photo shoots is around $4,000,” Arcurs said. “But on a $4,000 shoot, we’re currently looking at about three years to see a return of investment.”
[url]http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography[/url] ([url]http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography[/url])
That's way too long. I seem to remember him talking a couple of years back about microstock becoming unsustainable because it could take several months - maybe six, I'm not sure - to recoup shooting costs. If current sales suggest four years to recoup costs, within another couple of years that might have stretched out to eight years, it's an elastic calculation and I don't see how you can run a business with that sort of uncertainty on recouping costs... you've also got to look at the potential interest you lose (or have to pay, if borrowing to pay for shoots) by having your money tied up for that time.
3 or 4 years to see profit is tough in microstock. That's about when my images start to decline in sales and sink in searches. I am tempted to think his claims are exaggerated as a marketing ploy. In fact, I take most everything Yuri says publicly as a marketing strategy. No disrespect. If I had half his marketing ability I would probably make twice what I do.
Fact: Istock is continuing to slow as each week passes, possibly as existing credits are used up.
-
It would be far more constructive, to band together and seriously address the issues that the sites have created for us, in lieu of bashing contributors who are attempting to find ways to survive in this business.
To be fair Yuri tried the above and failed. If we want things to change, we need to step up to the plate in mass.
-
It would be far more constructive, to band together and seriously address the issues that the sites have created for us, in lieu of bashing contributors who are attempting to find ways to survive in this business.
To be fair Yuri tried the above and failed. If we want things to change, we need to step up to the plate in mass.
To be fair, we really don't know what avenues he has explored and whether they have failed. If "stepping up to the plate" is code for a sort of unionised action, it isn't going to work. Even an outrage like the DPC only saw about a quarter of files pulled - probably the best quarter, but not enough to close down the site.
-
It would be far more constructive, to band together and seriously address the issues that the sites have created for us, in lieu of bashing contributors who are attempting to find ways to survive in this business.
To be fair Yuri tried the above and failed. If we want things to change, we need to step up to the plate in mass.
So true we should not be bashing contributors for doing what they have to do to survive in this business. But recently that happens a lot here. Check out the DPC and DP threads if you want to see people getting bashed. Not sure why its okay to criticize some small timers but not Yuri, who actually was big enough to help change things for everybody, but just went for himself.
-
It would be far more constructive, to band together and seriously address the issues that the sites have created for us, in lieu of bashing contributors who are attempting to find ways to survive in this business.
To be fair Yuri tried the above and failed. If we want things to change, we need to step up to the plate in mass.
To be fair, we really don't know what avenues he has explored and whether they have failed. If "stepping up to the plate" is code for a sort of unionised action, it isn't going to work. Even an outrage like the DPC only saw about a quarter of files pulled - probably the best quarter, but not enough to close down the site.
If you think you will fail and convince other contributors to believe the same fallacy you will certainly fail. It is a fact that there is a long line of other industries who have stepped up to the plate to protect their interests with positive results.
I have posted this information from Yuri before and he posted it here himself, you must have missed it
Snip
I would estimate that for the last three years I tried very hard to convince myself that microstock was in fact the right place for the professional photographer. After all, my photography carrier was born here. Perhaps exactly because of that, I tried so hard to disregard a growing mismatch between microstock and myself, in product refinement, sophistication and budget. As we grew in skills, as our company grew, our distribution partners in microstock did not. Some agencies where ok, but in total, as a mass and as a workplace, the picture was not nice.
Sometimes it felt like having a michelin restaurant inside a burger joint and at the same time having to match the prices. At some point the professional gets tired of selling 12 course testing menues at 0300AM at burger prices.
I tried everything I could for three years to inspire our microstock partners to close the gab. I submitted plans, did projection forecasts, showcased examples that worked, presented solutions and had literally hundreds of meetings.
I tried every kind of approach I could think of to get the micro agencies to raise prices just a bit and leave place for the kind of photographer both photographers and customers love. I spent literally months in airplanes. No Luck.
http://tinyurl.com/phnjox6 (http://tinyurl.com/phnjox6)
-
It would be far more constructive, to band together and seriously address the issues that the sites have created for us, in lieu of bashing contributors who are attempting to find ways to survive in this business.
To be fair Yuri tried the above and failed. If we want things to change, we need to step up to the plate in mass.
So true we should not be bashing contributors for doing what they have to do to survive in this business. But recently that happens a lot here. Check out the DPC and DP threads if you want to see people getting bashed. Not sure why its okay to criticize some small timers but not Yuri, who actually was big enough to help change things for everybody, but just went for himself.
LOL you are talking to someone who gets bashed often. Bashing other contributors in lieu of addressing the real culprits keeps us mired in the muck. Again we need to firmly step up to the plate and protect our assets and incomes. Our other choices are pointless and more importantly unprofitable.