MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My View on the future of IStock as a full-time non-exclusive microstocker  (Read 47875 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

michealo

« Reply #150 on: February 28, 2009, 16:37 »
0
I don't get rejections for keywords. My keywords are checked two times before they go for inspection on Istock:
1. first keywording. outsourced, India
2.second keyword check by australian company.

You outsource keywording to a company in India and then you outsource the same thing to another company in Australia ... ummmm I just use common sense and do it while sitting on the couch while watching the sci-fi channel. LMAO

I think maybe thats why Yuri is world number one in microstock and you aren't ....

Sales numbers does not necessarily equal success.  My measure is gross-costs=profit .  If it isn't cost effective to outsource twice, then it may not be a good move depending on one's situation.  Sitting on the couch may pay off more and be a wiser move.

Sean,

I'd admire your success on IS but just his sales alone on IS would cover his image production costs, and he submits to at least 15 other sites ....

And not being dependent on one outsourcing supplier is pretty savvy


« Reply #151 on: February 28, 2009, 17:25 »
0
... but just his sales alone on IS would cover his image production costs, and he submits to at least 15 other sites ....

And not being dependent on one outsourcing supplier is pretty savvy


How can you possibly know what "his image production costs" are unless you happen to be his accountant?

Yuri has stated previously that he has taken very little himself but ploughs almost all of it all back in as investment to the business. To his credit Yuri certainly thinks big __ very big __ but that's not always best when it comes to spending.

I'd buy shares in SJL Corporation in preference to Yuri Plc anyday. From his blogs, with regard to his spending on equipment & models, Sean's earnings to capital invested ratio must be truly eye-watering __ and that's good business.

You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king". Yuri's preoccupation with being 'No1 Microstocker' comes to mind.

michealo

« Reply #152 on: February 28, 2009, 17:54 »
0
How can you possibly know what "his image production costs" are unless you happen to be his accountant?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He quoted them here previously

Yuri has stated previously that he has taken very little himself but ploughs almost all of it all back in as investment to the business.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reinvesting profits is not akin to not making them in the first place

To his credit Yuri certainly thinks big __ very big __ but that's not always best when it comes to spending.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Yuri's sponsorship deal with Hasselblad is indicative of his ability to manage costs.

I'd buy shares in SJL Corporation in preference to Yuri Plc anyday. From his blogs, with regard to his spending on equipment & models, Sean's earnings to capital invested ratio must be truly eye-watering __ and that's good business.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evaluating a business solely on ROCE is of little value, its one tool among many.

You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king".

And equally apt is the when the tide goes out we will see who is swimming naked....


« Reply #153 on: February 28, 2009, 19:20 »
0
How can you possibly know what "his image production costs" are unless you happen to be his accountant?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He quoted them here previously

Where exactly?

Yuri has stated previously that he has taken very little himself but ploughs almost all of it all back in as investment to the business.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reinvesting profits is not akin to not making them in the first place

Yes it is. Profit is what you walk away with. Profit is not the wages you paid last year or a load of second-hand gear. What planet are you on? It is not understanding such a simple principle that has got the world into such a crisis. 'Paper profits' count for nothing at all until they are realised.

To his credit Yuri certainly thinks big __ very big __ but that's not always best when it comes to spending.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Yuri's sponsorship deal with Hasselblad is indicative of his ability to manage costs.

Really? I thought Yuri later said they didn't actually give him the gear for free?

I'd buy shares in SJL Corporation in preference to Yuri Plc anyday. From his blogs, with regard to his spending on equipment & models, Sean's earnings to capital invested ratio must be truly eye-watering __ and that's good business.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evaluating a business solely on ROCE is of little value, its one tool among many.

Yes but it is by far the most straight-forward and easily understood tool __ and, more to the point it tells the real story. Which other tools would you recommend and how would that change the equation in Yuri's favour?

You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king".

And equally apt is the when the tide goes out we will see who is swimming naked....

With that well-worn cliche you've just emphasised how much stronger the low-cost, high-profit model is, particularly at times of financial uncertainty. Much better surely than the high-spending, hope-to bloody-hell-the-future-sales-can-keep up-with-us model?


michealo

« Reply #154 on: February 28, 2009, 20:13 »
0
How can you possibly know what "his image production costs" are unless you happen to be his accountant?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He quoted them here previously

Where exactly?

Try a forum search ....

Yuri has stated previously that he has taken very little himself but ploughs almost all of it all back in as investment to the business.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reinvesting profits is not akin to not making them in the first place

Yes it is. Profit is what you walk away with. Profit is not the wages you paid last year or a load of second-hand gear. What planet are you on? It is not understanding such a simple principle that has got the world into such a crisis. 'Paper profits' count for nothing at all until they are realised.

No it isn't, profits are merely an accounting concept. Even you yourself puts them behind cash in your quotation.
And the financial crisis is a result of monetary policy, negative real interest rates, the elimination of moral hazard and the inability financial institutions to understand or value derivatives of not the inability to understand the concept of a profit.


To his credit Yuri certainly thinks big __ very big __ but that's not always best when it comes to spending.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Yuri's sponsorship deal with Hasselblad is indicative of his ability to manage costs.

Really? I thought Yuri later said they didn't actually give him the gear for free?

I'd buy shares in SJL Corporation in preference to Yuri Plc anyday. From his blogs, with regard to his spending on equipment & models, Sean's earnings to capital invested ratio must be truly eye-watering __ and that's good business.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evaluating a business solely on ROCE is of little value, its one tool among many.

Yes but it is by far the most straight-forward and easily understood tool __ and, more to the point it tells the real story. Which other tools would you recommend and how would that change the equation in Yuri's favour?
I am not trying to change an equation in anyones favour, but if you must know increase in book value

You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king".

And equally apt is the when the tide goes out we will see who is swimming naked....

With that well-worn cliche you've just emphasised how much stronger the low-cost, high-profit model is, particularly at times of financial uncertainty. Much better surely than the high-spending, hope-to bloody-hell-the-future-sales-can-keep up-with-us model?
Well having 16 distributers with different price points and strengths in different geographical regions would seem to be more resilient than depending on one agency.
And even if photographer Y has 3 times the cost per image created of photographer S, if it is sold through 16 channels I would wager that the more money is made.....



[/color]




« Reply #155 on: February 28, 2009, 20:28 »
0
How can you possibly know what "his image production costs" are unless you happen to be his accountant?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He quoted them here previously

Where exactly?

Try a forum search ....

In other words you're just making it up

Yuri has stated previously that he has taken very little himself but ploughs almost all of it all back in as investment to the business.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reinvesting profits is not akin to not making them in the first place

Yes it is. Profit is what you walk away with. Profit is not the wages you paid last year or a load of second-hand gear. What planet are you on? It is not understanding such a simple principle that has got the world into such a crisis. 'Paper profits' count for nothing at all until they are realised.

No it isn't, profits are merely an accounting concept.

That's possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Profits are not a 'concept'. God is a concept. I can touch profits, stick them in my underpants and then go and spend them on shiny things. I can't do any of those things with 'concepts'.

To his credit Yuri certainly thinks big __ very big __ but that's not always best when it comes to spending.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Yuri's sponsorship deal with Hasselblad is indicative of his ability to manage costs.

Really? I thought Yuri later said they didn't actually give him the gear for free?

I'd buy shares in SJL Corporation in preference to Yuri Plc anyday. From his blogs, with regard to his spending on equipment & models, Sean's earnings to capital invested ratio must be truly eye-watering __ and that's good business.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evaluating a business solely on ROCE is of little value, its one tool among many.

Yes but it is by far the most straight-forward and easily understood tool __ and, more to the point it tells the real story. Which other tools would you recommend and how would that change the equation in Yuri's favour?
I am not trying to change an equation in anyones favour, but if you must know increase in book value

What? There you go on about unrealised, conceptual 'value' again.

You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king".

And equally apt is the when the tide goes out we will see who is swimming naked....

With that well-worn cliche you've just emphasised how much stronger the low-cost, high-profit model is, particularly at times of financial uncertainty. Much better surely than the high-spending, hope-to bloody-hell-the-future-sales-can-keep up-with-us model?
Well having 16 distributers with different price points and strengths in different geographical regions would seem to be more resilient than depending on one agency.
And even if photographer Y has 3 times the cost per image created of photographer S, if it is sold through 16 channels I would wager that the more money is made.....

[/color]

At last we have something we can agree on. Being exclusive is a sure-fire way of maximising risk and minimising 'profit' __ the real stuff you can spend on wine, women and further investments.




« Reply #156 on: March 01, 2009, 02:06 »
0
Interesting way of posting , first it was  red , than you added green then blue so it has to be something about RGB.  ;D








yecatsdoherty

« Reply #157 on: March 01, 2009, 02:21 »
0
michaelo...try to ignore the bait ;-) your answers were perfectly reasonable.

my two cents: I have looked at the "stars" of microstock pretty carefully these days in the context of my own research and, to quote from one of my favourite plays, sometimes it seems like there's something rotten in the state of Denmark ;-) the talent certainly is there, and the ability and the marketing genius.....but the saturation of the industry is not going to help anyone. I am pretty fabulous at coordinating too, even if I had the money, I'm not about to open a studio, hire a team of people, outsource my keywording and my uploading, and call myself a photographer. this is an issue I have only recently learned a whole lot about...and it was a big eye opener. jokes aside, nothing personal about anyone....but from a professional perspective, I could never put my name on anything unless I produced every little part of it.

imagine a world renowned author who named some characters, wrote out a plot outline and then handed over the skeleton to a team of authors, editors and artists to write and market the book? this happens, and the publishers make millions. but entirely at the expense of literature produced by hard working, talented and deserving authors who would never sell their souls in order to be #1. I mean My Life by Bill Clinton...come on, an utter piece of garbage...why not just call it The Cigar Chronicles. I'd like to think that for most of us the art of photography and putting our names on our art means that it is ours...unequivocally, entirely.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2009, 02:46 by yecatsdoherty »

« Reply #158 on: March 01, 2009, 04:21 »
0
Sure but consider this: yuri fires all the people that help him, stops producing new images and alone starts to edit and keyword all those images sitting on his HDD that are probably better than 90% of the images on stock sites but just didn't get chosen because of his dedication to perfection. Who will have the biggest profits then?

PS: Ofc in the long run he would have to start producing new images, but who knows which approach is better in the long run?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2009, 04:23 by LostOne »

michealo

« Reply #159 on: March 01, 2009, 04:53 »
0
Gostwyck

As you are unable to perform a simple forum search here is the link to Yuri's post where he details production costs

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/are-things-going-well-in-microstock/msg30034/#msg30034

Once again profit is merely an accounting concept, by revaluing an asset on their balance sheet a business can post a loss or profit on their profit and loss account, it doesn't change the fundamentals of the business

And book value is the value a business has if it is liquidated right now, it the least conceptual metric there is.

But accounting probably isn't your forte.

And I didn't agree with you on the last point.

tan510jomast

« Reply #160 on: March 01, 2009, 08:00 »
0
Interesting way of posting , first it was  red , than you added green then blue so it has to be something about RGB.  ;D

now if only gostwyck and michaelo could continue in CMY , we will finally get to the bottom of thing...
using both the additive and subtractive colours  ;D
seriously, good point michaelo  ;)

« Reply #161 on: March 01, 2009, 08:46 »
0
I'd admire your success on IS but just his sales alone on IS would cover his image production costs, and he submits to at least 15 other sites ....

So, thanks to you pulling up your quote, I can tell you his production costs do not cover his image production costs. :)  Well, eventually, they might.

« Reply #162 on: March 01, 2009, 08:59 »
0
$20 per image and 720 hours I can see the problem.
if your costs are that high and your getting 20% or 30 cents that's a lot of sales to get to start to break even.

It will be about 4 years before he can get them onto Istock along with the million he must have waiting in the que to get on there.

michealo

« Reply #163 on: March 01, 2009, 09:09 »
0
I'd admire your success on IS but just his sales alone on IS would cover his image production costs, and he submits to at least 15 other sites ....

So, thanks to you pulling up your quote, I can tell you his production costs do not cover his image production costs. :)  Well, eventually, they might.

Sean,

Yuri has 3985 files on IS,
If each cost $20 to shoot thats $79,160,
He has 519139 dls
He would only have to make an average of 15c per download to cover the costs ...

« Reply #164 on: March 01, 2009, 09:17 »
0
15 cents per download would cover those thousand but you need to remember the 10,000 that he can't get on there need to be included as well

I'm sure he makes a profit but Just think he might have outgrown the pond and needs to expand into RM,Macro etc for the expensive shoots.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2009, 09:20 by qwerty »

« Reply #165 on: March 01, 2009, 09:45 »
0
Yuri has 3985 files on IS,
If each cost $20 to shoot thats $79,160,
He has 519139 dls
He would only have to make an average of 15c per download to cover the costs ...

I'm not saying you won't make money eventually, just that I don't think those costs and overhead are necessarily the smartest way to do things.  And from that post you can see the problems.

"Doing this kind of production for microstock is not worth it, and looking at it from an investment point of view, it is time to downscale or find new waterswith higher prices."
« Last Edit: March 01, 2009, 09:52 by sjlocke »

« Reply #166 on: March 01, 2009, 14:08 »
0
One thing I can say: sometimes I am editing images, and then I think "Oh hell, now comes the tedious process of keywording".  So outsourcing it doesn't seem a very bad idea, especially when you have hundreds of images to keyword and someone doing that for you for little money.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #167 on: March 01, 2009, 18:00 »
0
I'd admire your success on IS but just his sales alone on IS would cover his image production costs, and he submits to at least 15 other sites ....

So, thanks to you pulling up your quote, I can tell you his production costs do not cover his image production costs. :)  Well, eventually, they might.

Sean,

Yuri has 3985 files on IS,
If each cost $20 to shoot thats $79,160,
He has 519139 dls
He would only have to make an average of 15c per download to cover the costs ...

That $40,000 was for just for 3 months shoot producing 2,000 images (likely not including amortized equipment costs), of which he has a max of 100 on iStock. Also read the part where he says his income hasn't increased even with his new uploads. He's spending $160,000 per year to SIMPLY MAINTAIN HIS EARNINGS (which are actually down 5% according to his post). I hope for his sake that it has more to do with the economic downturn, but I have a feeling he's hit diminishing marginal returns and then some. Your math appears to be way off because you can't use 40,000/2,000 to arrive at the actual cost per image on iStock. $160,000 per year for 3 1/2 years for a total of 3985 files on iStock does not equal $20 per photo, and even that can't be accurate because we don't know what his expenses were in previous years.

Yuri treats this as a business, and as a business person he is understandably worried about the negative ROI he is experiencing.

This thread wasn't meant to be an endless debate about Yuri was it? The thread was suppose to be about your views of your future right?

yecatsdoherty

« Reply #168 on: March 01, 2009, 18:41 »
0
does anyone really believe they know Yuri's (or anyone else's) real numbers? the whole discussion seems a bit ridiculous to me. Yuri sppears to be an industry all on his own. and it wouldn't be a bad thing for microstockers if he moved homogenously toward RM and traditional stock. I doubt his approach or success can be compared to anything any of us do.

his example aside, any company under the guise of an individual photographer presents a real threat to the microstock industry. there are probably a number of companies out there generating tons of 3D and vectors too and saturating . out of microstock databases. I would hope iStock and other companies would advocate on our behalf to protect all of our interests. that would be the long-term, smart thing to do IMO.

viewing these types of industry approaches as a means to short-term gain is a big mistake because of the projected impact it would have on the industry, buyers namely becoming bored and frustrated with swamps full of similar images. someone tried to tell me this over a year ago and I didn't get it. I've learned a lot since then and now I see what they were saying.

this has a lot to do with the future of microstock...how iStock and other agencies handle this issue will determine how successful we can expect to be competing with 'group contributors'. I think microstock will ultimately replace traditional stock models. I think microstock will become the new convention. but I'm still fairly new with only a few years in the industry, I'm sure there's a whole lot that I am missing.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2009, 18:48 by yecatsdoherty »

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #169 on: May 03, 2009, 18:54 »
0
In terms of production cost. I plan for about 20% profit at the end of the year.
I wanted to do this big scale, even if that would make me get a smaller profit. I feel ok about that. People like Andres R and others might have a profit at the same level as mine or even higher because of choosing a less costly business model.

helix7

« Reply #170 on: May 04, 2009, 00:20 »
0
In terms of production cost. I plan for about 20% profit at the end of the year.
I wanted to do this big scale, even if that would make me get a smaller profit. I feel ok about that. People like Andres R and others might have a profit at the same level as mine or even higher because of choosing a less costly business model.

Yuri, I have to ask: Why do you continue to do it then? At some point wouldn't it be better to scale back the production, cut costs dramatically, and just produce a smaller number of images while continuing to bring in nice profits from all of the images you already have in the market? You already have the name recognition, the exposure, the notoriety of being the top microstock producer, not to mention the impressive daily income that your current image collection provides. Will there come a time when you decide to cut back the production side of the business to ramp up the profits? I have to imagine that you could even shut down production completely and live comfortably off the profits for many years to come.



tan510jomast

« Reply #171 on: May 05, 2009, 20:04 »
0
In terms of production cost. I plan for about 20% profit at the end of the year.
I wanted to do this big scale, even if that would make me get a smaller profit. I feel ok about that. People like Andres R and others might have a profit at the same level as mine or even higher because of choosing a less costly business model.

When are we going to start your own  microstock site?

DanP68

« Reply #172 on: May 05, 2009, 21:50 »
0
The major contributors can't form their own site unless they accept they will never sell elsewhere again.  Shutterstock isn't going to let Serban contribute anymore than iStock will welcome Jon Oringer's collection.  As soon as Yuri, AndresR, or Iofoto start their own microstock agency (not the same as selling your own images on your own site obviously), they become a competitor and will no longer be welcome elsewhere.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
13168 Views
Last post March 05, 2007, 17:20
by madelaide
8 Replies
5082 Views
Last post August 30, 2007, 03:02
by leaf
4 Replies
2846 Views
Last post September 15, 2009, 21:49
by bad to the bone
16 Replies
6648 Views
Last post February 01, 2010, 10:17
by FD
4 Replies
2991 Views
Last post January 14, 2014, 14:06
by runeer

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle