Author Topic: the END of microstock !!! (Read 21256 times)

falstafff · « **Reply #75 on:** May 19, 2013, 17:11 »

Yuri has gone with IS. The Getty corporation looks after IS and pretty much do what they want. Their global turnover makes all the rest including SS seem poor and microscopic.
Well Yuris decision do not seem such a bad deal to me. He has chosen to go with size and money. Had I been given the choice I would probably go the same way. Getty have a proven track history of 25 years, never mind investors and morals on this one. They still have 25 years on the neck. The micro industry has what? nine or ten years? to me that would not be enough.
Thats me though I am sure the majority here have other thoughts.

gostwyck · « **Reply #76 on:** May 19, 2013, 18:11 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 19, 2013, 17:11

Yuri has gone with IS. The Getty corporation looks after IS and pretty much do what they want. Their global turnover makes all the rest including SS seem poor and microscopic.
Well Yuris decision do not seem such a bad deal to me. He has chosen to go with size and money. Had I been given the choice I would probably go the same way. Getty have a proven track history of 25 years, never mind investors and morals on this one. They still have 25 years on the neck. The micro industry has what? nine or ten years? to me that would not be enough.
Thats me though I am sure the majority here have other thoughts.

The Harvard Business School reckons that the average business has a lifespan of about 40 years. That's usually about as long as it takes to start, grow, become market-leader, become complacent ... and then slowly die.

There's absolutely no doubt that Getty have been in serious decline for several years. That's why their stock value plummeted and the shareholders were happy to sell out to H&F for a fraction of the price a year or two earlier. If later H&F had genuinely 'rescued' Getty then they could have had another IPO, got all their money back and also retained a significant stake as their 'profit'. They didn't because they couldn't. The books wouldn't have stood up to the scrutiny of the market. Instead they were 'sold' with Getty family and management actually stumping up almost half of the cash.

Shutterstock, on the other hand, is experiencing massive growth and probably has at least another decade of growth to come.

If you had the choice to buy stock in either business would you really choose Getty over SS? I wouldn't. You'd have to be mad to do so. For exactly the same reason I wouldn't put my entire portfolio with Getty either.

If Yuri's father's report is correct and Yuri averages 3000-4000 sales per day at SS then, at an average RPD of 75c, it should generate about $1M per annum. That's not bad is it? With a portfolio of 60K images it's an average of $16.7 per image year ... and SS will probably be less than 50% of his total income. Will Getty really be paying him more than $2M per annum and, if so, for how long? According to published reports Getty themselves only have total annual revenue of about $950M and that includes all their interests, not just stock imagery. Is it possible that they'd be offering more than $2M in annual royalties just to one contributor? Can't see it myself. The numbers just don't stack up.

gillian vann · « **Reply #77 on:** May 19, 2013, 18:14 »

Quote from: Xanox on May 19, 2013, 13:21

they're so cheap they can be used for silly corporate brochures for internal use.

we differ here, cos I think those "silly" brochures and end of year reports every big company has to do for its shareholders is my bread and butter. I shoot corporate profile pics and other bits and pieces for their "silly" websites too.

Silly me, I should just wait for a big fish to come knocking and only work for $1000 per shoot.... ? meanwhile I've got 4 universities in my city churning out photography students all willing to work for free.

I think the cheapness and improved technology for SLRs has also contributed to the decline in the value of our work. A lot of corporates take staff shots outside in the lunchbreaks...

loop · « **Reply #78 on:** May 19, 2013, 18:17 »

Quote from: shudderstok on May 19, 2013, 15:20

Quote from: sharpshot on May 19, 2013, 14:34
It seems inevitable that Xanox will get banned here one day, I just hope it's tomorrow I don't mind people having different opinions but when they attack others and keep posting the same uninformed drivel, I don't see why we have to put up with them for so long here?

some of what Xanox posts here is pure drivel, albeit I do think the overall theme he is trying to convey is more accurate than many of you understand. The stock industry is in decline overall from a contributors point of view, and I sadly agree with Xanox that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Xanox obviously comes from an era when stock photography had value, way before the days of microstock and photographers jumping up and down with joy by selling a photo hundreds of times for 0.25c a crack and I totally agree with many of his posts, not all of them, but many of them.

... and before RF stock had value, RM stock had value, and before RM had value people comissinoned the photos needed... ad infinitum Times change, no matter if there are people blind to this fact. I'm glad I took the micro ship; now prices are rising (at least at IS, where I'm exclusive) and I'm there, and I'm selling. I wouldn't be anywhere without microstock; I didn't had the money, nor the "contacts", nor the knowledge (then) to get in at Corbis, Getty, etc. Sometimes I suspect that the real resentment comes from the fact that microstock opened a door that was tightly closed, and that many people has come in through this door, some of them staying at subs, some at mid-stock, some reaching macro, but all of them taking the places of some others that were living in the fantasy of being protected by an impregnable fortress.

ShadySue · « **Reply #79 on:** May 19, 2013, 18:18 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 19, 2013, 18:11

According to published reports Getty themselves only have total annual revenue of about $950M and that includes all their interests, not just stock imagery. Is it possible that they'd be offering more than $2M in annual royalties just to one contributor? Can't see it myself. The numbers just don't stack up.

It wouldn't be $2M of their existing $950M, it would be $2M out of whatever extra money he brings them.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #80 on:** May 19, 2013, 18:21 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 19, 2013, 17:11

The Getty corporation looks after IS and pretty much do what they want.

They certainly don't.

ShadySue · « **Reply #81 on:** May 19, 2013, 18:23 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 19, 2013, 18:21

Quote from: falstafff on May 19, 2013, 17:11
The Getty corporation looks after IS and pretty much do what they want.

They certainly don't.

One out of two, though.

gostwyck · « **Reply #82 on:** May 19, 2013, 18:26 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 19, 2013, 18:18

Quote from: gostwyck on May 19, 2013, 18:11
According to published reports Getty themselves only have total annual revenue of about $950M and that includes all their interests, not just stock imagery. Is it possible that they'd be offering more than $2M in annual royalties just to one contributor? Can't see it myself. The numbers just don't stack up.
It wouldn't be $2M of their existing $950M, it would be $2M out of whatever extra money he brings them.

Not necessarily. If a Getty customer happens to choose a Yuri image over another image they most likely will have spent the same money anyway. All of what Yuri sells is not going to be 'new money'. Just as SS are unlikely to lose customers or business without Yuri. Buyers will just choose different images.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #83 on:** May 19, 2013, 19:05 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 19, 2013, 18:11

If Yuri's father's report is correct and Yuri averages 3000-4000 sales per day at SS then, at an average RPD of 75c, it should generate about $1M per annum. That's not bad is it? With a portfolio of 60K images it's an average of $16.7 per image year ... and SS will probably be less than 50% of his total income.

*more numbers

SS reported 22.3 Million downloads on first 4 months of 2013 which makes 185833 per day

4000 / 185833 x 100 = 2.15%

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-first-quarter-2013-200500835.html

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #84 on:** May 19, 2013, 21:49 »

Why would yuri jump ship for less money

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #85 on:** May 19, 2013, 22:04 »

which correspond to one picture sold every 2 sec in average, I think Istock used to make the same claim, I wonder where they stand now.....

luissantos84 · « **Reply #86 on:** May 19, 2013, 22:16 »

Quote from: MicrostockExp on May 19, 2013, 22:04

which correspond to one picture sold every 2 sec in average, I think Istock used to make the same claim, I wonder where they stand now.....

actually that increased a lot

1 day = 60 x 60 x 24 = 86400 seconds

86400 / 185833 = 2.15 downloads per second

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #87 on:** May 19, 2013, 23:09 »

oh yes I calculate the inverse:) that's a lot....

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #88 on:** May 20, 2013, 00:30 »

So should I put away my tin foil hat?

falstafff · « **Reply #89 on:** May 20, 2013, 01:12 »

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 19, 2013, 21:49

Why would yuri jump ship for less money

Ofcourse he doesnt jump ship for less money. Ofcourse he has cut a deal for himself and quite rightly so the Getty empire is probably the only one who can accomodate him on this but he is not going to reveal any facts in any forums, thats for sure. He is far from the only one going this way. I know of some other stock photographers with very large portfolios who are thinking in same terms, perhaps not big enough to cut any deals but considering exclusivity, not with Istock but Getty.

Who knows? maybe this Getty/Yuri business will spark off a new trend?

Xanox · « **Reply #90 on:** May 20, 2013, 01:30 »

Quote from: gillian on May 19, 2013, 18:14

Silly me, I should just wait for a big fish to come knocking and only work for $1000 per shoot....

i'm glad for you, but don't you feel it's even more unfair to microstockers ?

you get your 1000$ and then you buy a dozen micro images for the brochure for how much exactly ? 10$ ? 20$ ? that means no more than 5% of your production costs, no big deal indeed !

this is precisely the point i was trying to make, everyone want to get paid fairly but when it's stock photos turn nobody want to spend more than a few dozens bucks.

Xanox · « **Reply #91 on:** May 20, 2013, 01:39 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 20, 2013, 01:12

Who knows? maybe this Getty/Yuri business will spark off a new trend?

but why you keep thinking it's Yuri alone, he's an agency now with dozens of photographers under his belt.
no idea if they work as full time employees or if they're all contractors but judging from his last interviews he's not even shooting anymore, now he's just the CEO, the boss managing the whole "factory".

he has more than 100K images on sale on PeopleImages, but his own ones are maybe no more than 20-30K.
in a few years with such an army of photographers working for him he can certainly reach 2-300K images in portfolio, but we dont know if Getty is going to take the whole package or just picking up the best ones, it all depends on their agreement, maybe a slice of the pie will go to Getty RF/RM and the rest will be "dumped" to iStock ? we will see.

topol · « **Reply #92 on:** May 20, 2013, 01:41 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 19, 2013, 17:11

Yuri has gone with IS. The Getty corporation looks after IS and pretty much do what they want. Their global turnover makes all the rest including SS seem poor and microscopic.
Well Yuris decision do not seem such a bad deal to me. He has chosen to go with size and money. Had I been given the choice I would probably go the same way. Getty have a proven track history of 25 years, never mind investors and morals on this one. They still have 25 years on the neck. The micro industry has what? nine or ten years? to me that would not be enough.
Thats me though I am sure the majority here have other thoughts.

No they don't make look others poor, because they are shrinking, loosing against the competition. If this wasn't the case why did they bother buying istock, and squeezing contributors? Anyway, even if that was the situation, it was the same years and years ago, so why wasn't Yuri wit them already?

Xanox · « **Reply #93 on:** May 20, 2013, 01:50 »

Quote from: elvinstar on May 19, 2013, 16:32

Quote from: Xanox on May 19, 2013, 08:27
maybe the issue here is that microstock is a magnet for cheap-as-s customers that see micros as a godsend for their fly-by-night operations advertised on craigslist for a pittance?

Just because a business doesn't have thousands to spend on stock images, that makes them fly-by-night?

I'm a web developer full-time (microstock is and always has been a part-time thing for me) who makes a living serving small Mom-and-Pop business with small budgets. Microstock allows me to incorporate images into their designs that make their businesses look appealing.

These people don't have design staff and often don't have an advertising budget.

The point is that there are enough of these small businesses to keep me and many more like me feeding our families. I (and other designers/developers near my price-point) would never purchase from macro agencies anyway. It's mircostock or nothing for lots of folks.

well you will read the very same discussions on web design forums.

indeed, these clients are fly-by-night, but there's always somebody willing to work for a pittance, students, hobbyists, whatever.

nothing will change as long as they can always find some fools making a whole web site including images and all for a few hundreds bucks.

if these cheapskates have no budgets they should not even considered as potential clients.
simple as that.

let them open a free blog on Wordpress or Blogspot with stolen images and good luck, they dont deserve anything else than that.

Xanox · « **Reply #94 on:** May 20, 2013, 01:56 »

Quote from: topol on May 20, 2013, 01:41

No they don't make look others poor, because they are shrinking, loosing against the competition. If this wasn't the case why did they bother buying istock, and squeezing contributors? Anyway, even if that was the situation, it was the same years and years ago, so why wasn't Yuri wit them already?

the micro industry set a new standard for low prices, we dont know if from now on prices will stay the same or go upwards but they can even go downward another bit as long as contributors dont care, it will be balanced with some more marketing fud and bonus points or whatever but if they can do it they will do it !

so indeed the agencies are here to stay .. 10 yrs for sure, 20 yrs i dont know.

but the photographers ? hmm that's another story.

even Bloomberg yesterday was telling fresh graduates to make a career as plumbers as they would make more money than starting as white collars.

maybe he was drunk or joking but he's not far from reality, sooner or later micro photographer will realize in horror there's more money in a Burger King kitchen then in front of a monitor.

Xanox · « **Reply #95 on:** May 20, 2013, 01:57 »

Quote from: shudderstok on May 19, 2013, 15:20

some of what Xanox posts here is pure drivel, albeit I do think the overall theme he is trying to convey is more accurate than many of you understand. The stock industry is in decline overall from a contributors point of view, and I sadly agree with Xanox that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Xanox obviously comes from an era when stock photography had value, way before the days of microstock and photographers jumping up and down with joy by selling a photo hundreds of times for 0.25c a crack and I totally agree with many of his posts, not all of them, but many of them.

well, it's normal and it was the norm even years ago.

only a few readers grasp what i say in photo forums, and they've especially a hard time grasping the big scenario about stock photography as a whole.

on the other side i don't deny i like to a bit provocative, after all i wouldnt write if there wasnt some fun to be had ... unfortunately many take it as the final proof i'm a troll but this is telling more about them than about me !

i'm logging off .... BYE BYE !

rubyroo · « **Reply #96 on:** May 20, 2013, 01:59 »

Bye!

falstafff · « **Reply #97 on:** May 20, 2013, 02:51 »

Quote from: topol on May 20, 2013, 01:41

Quote from: falstafff on May 19, 2013, 17:11
Yuri has gone with IS. The Getty corporation looks after IS and pretty much do what they want. Their global turnover makes all the rest including SS seem poor and microscopic.
Well Yuris decision do not seem such a bad deal to me. He has chosen to go with size and money. Had I been given the choice I would probably go the same way. Getty have a proven track history of 25 years, never mind investors and morals on this one. They still have 25 years on the neck. The micro industry has what? nine or ten years? to me that would not be enough.
Thats me though I am sure the majority here have other thoughts.

No they don't make look others poor, because they are shrinking, loosing against the competition. If this wasn't the case why did they bother buying istock, and squeezing contributors? Anyway, even if that was the situation, it was the same years and years ago, so why wasn't Yuri wit them already?

Its just a figure of speech. On a global scale they can easily afford to lose lets say a billion. Oh it would hurt! but if lets say SS or another lost a billion. That would be the end of story.
I am certainly not some sort of a Getty protector, not siding with any of these agencies actually. I think they are just as good or bad whatever.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #98 on:** May 20, 2013, 02:53 »

Quote from: Xanox on May 20, 2013, 01:56

so indeed the agencies are here to stay .. 10 yrs for sure, 20 yrs i dont know.

but the photographers ? hmm that's another story.

Nonsense! I mean that in a nice way.

aspp · « **Reply #99 on:** May 20, 2013, 04:10 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 19, 2013, 18:11

(Shutterstock) .. is experiencing massive growth and probably has at least another decade of growth to come.

Where do you see this continuous growth coming from ?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: the END of microstock !!! (Read 21256 times)

falstafff

gostwyck

gillian vann

loop

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

gostwyck

luissantos84

Poncke v2

MicrostockExp

luissantos84

MicrostockExp

Leo Blanchette

falstafff

Xanox

Xanox

topol

Xanox

Xanox

Xanox

rubyroo

falstafff

Leo Blanchette

aspp

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors