MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Xanox on May 18, 2013, 02:38
-
from the horse's mouth :
"We have found a good distribution partner (Getty Images) for the kind of content we produce. We will be removing all images from microstock doing the next few weeks. Microstock, especially subscription sites, are not suited for the kind of high production cost images we produce. "
-
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!
all i can say ... I TOLD YOU SO ... many yrs i told you so, been banned for telling the truth ... and now your microstock hero Yuri gives up micros and jumps ship on macro RF/RM as he finally realized he couldnt even pay the bills selling 0.5$ subs !
-
Sort of confused here... what is that a quote from? A person? A company? ...is it big?
-
Ja, Yuri's been eating the mid-month salti-cracks for a long time now. Kinda struggling along. "Get a real job" they said.
-
Sort of confused here... what is that a quote from? A person? A company? ...is it big?
Yuri Arcurs announced from now on he's distributed exclusively by Getty Images and will remove all his images from micro agencies.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/19377/19377/msg317436/#msg317436 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/19377/19377/msg317436/#msg317436)
(no idea if something will stay at Istock being owned by Getty ? maybe inside a premium collection ?)
-
YURI ISN'T MY HERO. I DON'T HAVE HIS HUGE PRODUCTION COSTS. THIS ISN'T THE END OF MICROSTOCK AND ANYONE THAT THINKS IT IS, IS AN IDIOT.
:) :) :) :) :) :)
-
Good shout sharpshot 8)
-
I also don't pay for a studio and models to pretend to be doctors and whatnot.
his work is excellent and certainly deserves more than what subs pay. This is true for all of us actually.
I have a place to put special work that I consider more deserving and anything else I shoot bearing in mind an acceptable cost.
-
Agree, I don't care what Yuri is doing, the same way he has never been careful for the microstock community. Too many microstockers took him for a guru.
-
total non sense... it is not because Yuri is leave micro that the business model will collapse the demand of cheap content will always be there
-
Indeed. Not the end - just the furniture being moved around a bit. I feel this says more about Yuri's overheads than it does about the demise of microstock.
No doubt those who have copied his style and lighting will do very well on non-Getty agencies in his absence.
Great post btw Sharpshot. ;D
-
Yeah, there will be more room for others………… 8)
-
looks like someone mistaken subscription model with microstock but microstock existed before it
credit sales are also regular in microstock business
-
Why would someone consider it's the end of microstock? It's more like a good time for microstockers, because it means less competition. I'm not personally excited about it though, I don't create the kind of images that he did and never will.
-
Agree, I don't care what Yuri is doing, the same way he has never been careful for the microstock community. Too many microstockers took him for a guru.
As I remind myself: Yuri is cunning and handsome. But he's not God. 8)
-
Just the end of his involvement with it. It was never going to sustain his overheads - to make a profit you have to be agile and streamlined as a business. Sorry, but the line between macro and micro is very blurred anyway - you just place your pictures where you think you'll get the best returns. It's simply a business decision based on his circumstances, nothing more..
-
And maybe, just a hint of maybe, this will help wake up the micros (some of them, anyway) to look at more fair commissions. I know I am probably dreaming, but it can be one tiny phase in a changing, evolving model.
-
Just the end of his involvement with it. It was never going to sustain his overheads - to make a profit you have to be agile and streamlined as a business. Sorry, but the line between macro and micro is very blurred anyway - you just place your pictures where you think you'll get the best returns. It's simply a business decision based on his circumstances, nothing more..
Agreed. I always wondered how sustainable his operation could be with microstock. However, I keep thinking of that sunglasses (Rayban?) lawsuit as well. As an illustrator, I have no models, sets or retouching expenses. It's much more profitable for us.
-
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!
all i can say ... I TOLD YOU SO ... many yrs i told you so, been banned for telling the truth ... and now your microstock hero Yuri gives up micros and jumps ship on macro RF/RM as he finally realized he couldnt even pay the bills selling 0.5$ subs !
Pssst! Maybe you missed it but last October SS undertook a very successful IPO and since then the shares have more than doubled in price. Revenue at SS, according to the last financial report, is growing at 36% per annum. 'Microstock', as an industry, is actually in rude health.
Just because Yuri allowed his ego and his ambition to overrule basic business sense, and his overhead has spiralled out of control, does not in any way signal the end of the greater industry. Yuri is just one more casualty of greed and excess. Getty/Istock and Yuri should make perfect partners in that regard.
Big, big mistake by Yuri __ he's jumped onto a sinking ship. This little 'marriage' won't last 5 years. Within that time Yuri will be begging to be back on SS.
-
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!
all i can say ... I TOLD YOU SO ... many yrs i told you so, been banned for telling the truth ... and now your microstock hero Yuri gives up micros and jumps ship on macro RF/RM as he finally realized he couldnt even pay the bills selling 0.5$ subs !
So what are you telling us?
YURI=ALL THINGS MICROSTOCK
YURI WAS BAITED BY GETTY WITH THEIR DEEP POCKETS
YURI LEAVES MICROSTOCK
MICROSTOCK, BY YURI LEAVING, HAS ENDED.
Your deductive reasoning has used but one brain cell.
-
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!
all i can say ... I TOLD YOU SO ... many yrs i told you so, been banned for telling the truth ... and now your microstock hero Yuri gives up micros and jumps ship on macro RF/RM as he finally realized he couldnt even pay the bills selling 0.5$ subs !
Pssst! Maybe you missed it but last October SS undertook a very successful IPO and since then the shares have more than doubled in price. Revenue at SS, according to the last financial report, is growing at 36% per annum. 'Microstock', as an industry, is actually in rude health.
Just because Yuri allowed his ego and his ambition to overrule basic business sense, and his overhead has spiralled out of control, does not in any way signal the end of the greater industry. Yuri is just one more casualty of greed and excess. Getty/Istock and Yuri should make perfect partners in that regard.
Big, big mistake by Yuri __ he's jumped onto a sinking ship. This little 'marriage' won't last 5 years. Within that time Yuri will be begging to be back on SS.
Many business would envy SS. They have been able to get a lot of suppliers that finance and produce what they sell, and that allow their products to be sold for an hiper-hiper- bargain of a price, so ensuring that will sell a lot. With hundred thousands of these producers, SS financial success is easy to understand. But, for the supplier, selling at these prices and getting about 25% of almost nothing means that production costs are very difficult to absorb. Yes, other sites give less than 25%, but supppliers get more money on each sale to pay for production costs and have a benefit.
(And , actually, I suppose that now Yuri will get 45% oh his sales on IS)
-
And maybe, just a hint of maybe, this will help wake up the micros (some of them, anyway) to look at more fair commissions. I know I am probably dreaming, but it can be one tiny phase in a changing, evolving model.
That is my hope as well.
-
Just because Yuri allowed his ego and his ambition to overrule basic business sense, and his overhead has spiralled out of control, does not in any way signal the end of the greater industry. Yuri is just one more casualty of greed and excess. Getty/Istock and Yuri should make perfect partners in that regard.
Big, big mistake by Yuri __ he's jumped onto a sinking ship. This little 'marriage' won't last 5 years. Within that time Yuri will be begging to be back on SS.
I actually think it's the other way around. Yuri's ego has finally been put aside and he has made a very good business decision. He will make way more money and help sustain an industry too boot,
-
Yeah, there will be more room for others………… 8)
Precisely. The day when Yuri leaves the microstock agencies should be celebrated as the international holiday, The New Microstock Day.
Good for him since he will earn more, and good for us for being a little more under the sun.
-
I think this is actually a big deal. The microstocks have found the bottom - the hard way - and now see that there is some content they'll no longer get. They wanted to be a bargain basement - and here they are.
-
Well, since you are crossposting your gleeful post-mortem on microstock as an industry, I guess I will crosspost my response:
When microstock began, it was small, individual contributors with low production costs, producing a few thousand images at most. The appeal was the low cost and the variety that all those small individual portfolios together provided.
At the time, the big players with high production values were in RM and macro RF, where they belonged. Buyers who wanted that level of images understood they had to pay a premium for them. Microstock was for the buyers who just wanted "good enough" at a low price.
Huge factories like Yuri, Monkeybusiness, etc. upset the balance for everybody, by flooding the micro market with tens of thousands of images that probably didn't belong at that price point in the first place. And Yuri has obviously discovered that YURI's production model doesn't work for micro. I expect Cathy Yeulet, Andres Rodriquez, and maybe a few other big factories will eventually come to the same conclusion.
Perhaps after this period of rebalancing occurs, the market will settle back to mass produced HPV images being sold at high prices, and LPV, inexpensive images by mom & pop producers will once again dominate the micro sites.
-
(And , actually, I suppose that now Yuri will get 45% oh his sales on IS)
I'd bet he's getting more like 60% as a result of his private deal.
-
.
-
I think Yuri's production model works for micro, it's just that he could make even more money by not selling on the sub sites. He's going to continue to sell on Istock, maybe you don't consider that microstock though?
It remains to be seen at what price point his future images will be sold. His statement suggested that his partnership was with Getty/Istock, and not merely Istock. Also, if most of his stuff winds up in the Vetta and S+ collections at Istock, no, that is not really microstock prices.
-
(And , actually, I suppose that now Yuri will get 45% oh his sales on IS)
I'd bet he's getting more like 60% as a result of his private deal.
If he's going to go the "Blend" route with having only a Getty collection that's offered on IS as well (and not directly submitting to IS), that should upset the macro guys, as they only get 20% afaik.
-
How do I give Sharpshot TWO HEARTS instead of ONE HEART?
-
Just told my wife and she thinks this is good for us. Her comparison is that I am more like Walmart or Target where Yuri is Nordstroms. There are buyers in all three of these stores thus a good thing at least for me ;)
-
Indeed. Not the end - just the furniture being moved around a bit. I feel this says more about Yuri's overheads than it does about the demise of microstock.
No doubt those who have copied his style and lighting will do very well on non-Getty agencies in his absence.
Great post btw Sharpshot. ;D
More like the deck chairs being moved around on the Titanic. ;D
-
I'm not convinced this is a good sign. Won't buyers eventually get the feeling there's nothing new and good on the microstocks any more? The idea of being left behind in a declining, low-end market, doesn't thrill me - is it supposed to? There's no money in selling something at WalMart unless your volume is huge.
Seems like the market is being differentiated, which is inevitable, and whether you lose or benefit depends on where you end up.
-
If he's going to go the "Blend" route with having only a Getty collection that's offered on IS as well (and not directly submitting to IS), that should upset the macro guys, as they only get 20% afaik.
20% is for individual contributors.
but agencies have a contract with Getty, guess it's at least 40%.
-
At the time, the big players with high production values were in RM and macro RF, where they belonged. Buyers who wanted that level of images understood they had to pay a premium for them. Microstock was for the buyers who just wanted "good enough" at a low price.
even less than that, it literally started as a designers' forum with free images, and then switching to 1$ images to recover the hosting costs.
yeah, later evolved into "good enough" images, and then to images on par or better than getty.
so now what's the situation ?
that the top seller (Yuri) already smelled the sh-it a couple years ago and launched his own agency and now he's under the wing of Getty.
the end of an era ... as we "dinosaurs" predicted a looong time ago.
micro agencies will keep prosper, but micro as business model for photographer will soon crash and burn.
it will take some time but that's the obvious conclusion if the trend continues and agencies have no reason to double or triple our fees.
the digital market is now all about big volumes, the single artist is just a number, stock is NOT an exception to this logic unfortunately, and it's one of the few markets where you can still make a living actually.
-
I'm not convinced this is a good sign. Won't buyers eventually get the feeling there's nothing new and good on the microstocks any more? The idea of being left behind in a declining, low-end market, doesn't thrill me - is it supposed to? There's no money in selling something at WalMart unless your volume is huge.
Seems like the market is being differentiated, which is inevitable, and whether you lose or benefit depends on where you end up.
well, buyers had 10 golden years of rock bottom cheap images so they should not complain if suddenly quality drops where it belongs .. pay peanuts get monkeys !
low-end market ? it's already a low end market, there's nothing lower or cheaper than micro and micro subs in particular.
look at the numbers ... Yuri was running a 100 employee "factory" and yet couldnt stay aflot producing in Denmark with a 30-40% taxation, he had to move to S.Africa and still struggling.
if HE can't do it, who will ?
-
I'm not convinced this is a good sign. Won't buyers eventually get the feeling there's nothing new and good on the microstocks any more? The idea of being left behind in a declining, low-end market, doesn't thrill me - is it supposed to? There's no money in selling something at WalMart unless your volume is huge.
Seems like the market is being differentiated, which is inevitable, and whether you lose or benefit depends on where you end up.
well, buyers had 10 golden years of rock bottom cheap images so they should not complain if suddenly quality drops where it belongs .. pay peanuts get monkeys !
low-end market ? it's already a low end market, there's nothing lower or cheaper than micro and micro subs in particular.
look at the numbers ... Yuri was running a 100 employee "factory" and yet couldnt stay aflot producing in Denmark with a 30-40% taxation, he had to move to S.Africa and still struggling.
if HE can't do it, who will ?
^^^ We're all doomed! DOOMED I tell you __ all of us!
-
So the end is in 12 months or so rather than tomorrow? Meanwhile it seems that many sites are growing - though I would expect some consolidation - theres a lot of mediocre sites out there with no USP.
-
According to the Maya Calendar Microstock is over by 12/21/2013. Wait, wasn't that 12/21/2012 or was it...
-
If only the mayans hadn't signed up to IStock - they'd still be around today
-
At the time, the big players with high production values were in RM and macro RF, where they belonged. Buyers who wanted that level of images understood they had to pay a premium for them. Microstock was for the buyers who just wanted "good enough" at a low price.
even less than that, it literally started as a designers' forum with free images, and then switching to 1$ images to recover the hosting costs.
yeah, later evolved into "good enough" images, and then to images on par or better than getty.
so now what's the situation ?
that the top seller (Yuri) already smelled the sh-it a couple years ago and launched his own agency and now he's under the wing of Getty.
the end of an era ... as we "dinosaurs" predicted a looong time ago.
micro agencies will keep prosper, but micro as business model for photographer will soon crash and burn.
it will take some time but that's the obvious conclusion if the trend continues and agencies have no reason to double or triple our fees.
the digital market is now all about big volumes, the single artist is just a number, stock is NOT an exception to this logic unfortunately, and it's one of the few markets where you can still make a living actually.
Spending years and years confusing desires with reality could be a personality disorder.
-
Spending years and years confusing desires with reality could be a personality disorder.
try thinking like an investor.
i would certainly buy shares of SS in this moment, they're doing a great job, they're delivering, they're a solid company.
but what about photographers ? would you lend them some money ? why agencies should pay them more, why with millions of new images per year their sales should remain steady ?
it's obvious, especially in the most competitive niches like business and lifestyle, that the shelf life of new images is getting shorter and that overall sales and going downwards and that the more these agencies keep adding new images the more your portfolio will become irrilevant in the long run.
it's a buyers market now and it can only go worse, sooner or later it will go on par with the other digital markets where now it's impossible for the single artist to make a living.
and actually in some markets they only add new products for vanity or advertising or promotions.
very very few are making money with Beatport or Itunes, and no single authors making a million with their ebook on Amazon.
AOL doesnt even pay bloggers anymore, newspapers pay a pittance for both articles and photos.
dont think stock is an exception, actually it's still paying fairly good compared to other markets, but for how long ?
the reason it hasnt tanked already is because of licencing, model/property releases, and Keywording.
Keywording is the single reason buyers havent moved to Flickr or Instagram ... there are great images there but they cant find them and if they do they probably cant use them due to licensing/release limitations.
so they stick with stock, but it's not gonna work forever.
pricewise the point of non return has been already reached as far as photographers are concerned.
nobody can survive selling subs on SS, and soon it will be impossible selling micro as well, just give it a couple years and you will see.
the only way to make a difference is owning a large portfolio like Yuri does but he's an agency now, he could not do it all alone even working 16hrs a day.
can YOU compete with him ? and if he can't make decent money with that, how will YOU do ?
his departure from microstock is the final signal that this business is no more sustainable for single photographers.
that's the moral of the story, that's why i'm saying "the END of microstock".
the writing is on the wall.
what would be the signal if Warren Buffett suddenly sells his shares in Cocacola and IBM ?
how about Apple shares losing 50% of their value in a few months despite good profits and good sales ?
maybe you guys lack a strategic thinking.
agencies like Stocksy are going nowhere, and people like Bruce have been very very lucky from the start, becoming millionaire by chance without any idea or business model, just because of a lucky strike, sorry but now things have changed big time in the industry.
IS and SS can certainly raise prices in the future, but our slice of the pie will remain the same or become even smaller, they just dont need us at this point, all we can do is double or triple our portfolios just to stay afloat.
so, do you really plan to stay in such a cut-throat business or ... ?
-
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!
all i can say ... I TOLD YOU SO ... many yrs i told you so, been banned for telling the truth ... and now your microstock hero Yuri gives up micros and jumps ship on macro RF/RM as he finally realized he couldnt even pay the bills selling 0.5$ subs !
You're dead right!
With the end of microstock hopefully we could transfer all our files to macrostock where a file will sell for $200 or more.
:)
-
It's by no means the end of microstock.
Yuri has no doubt negotiated a very favourable deal with Getty, higher percentage guaranteed even if the continue to shaft the rest of us, immunity from shady deals like the GooglePlus one, (or much higher compensation, or only some of his lower-selling files to be included, or somesuch), favourable positioning, etc.
Where does that leave the rest?
For many of us, e.g. me, it will make no difference, as we have not one image in Yuri's field of endeavour. Even if his fans were to follow him to iS/Getty in droves, it won't make much difference to non-competitors.
However within his genre:
For exclusives, it's a two-edged sword. There will now be many more of his images on iS/Getty, but they'll be competing in the same price range, whereas previously his files were much cheaper.
The people who are most likely to feel the pinch are his acolytes already exclusive, who will now be competing on equal terms with their tutor.
For indies, again, good and bad. Good, they are no longer competing against him on most sites. Good, even on iS, they are now undercutting his files. Perhaps some of his biggest fans will shift agencies to follow him to iS/Getty, but they weren't buying the other files anyway, and presumably weren't following him to People Images in such a quantity that made PI viable. However, many buyers will still stay at e.g. SS because of the cheapness of the files. Others will still be there using up their subscription until it expires at least. So indies in that genre will presumably see a boost in their downloads in the short term at least, and presumably into the future via buyers for whom 'cheap' is more important than 'celebrity producer'.
So, much as Xanox might rant, news of the demise of microstock is premature.
-
Spending years and years confusing desires with reality could be a personality disorder.
try thinking like an investor.
i would certainly buy shares of SS in this moment, they're doing a great job, they're delivering, they're a solid company.
but what about photographers ? would you lend them some money ? why agencies should pay them more, why with millions of new images per year their sales should remain steady ?
it's obvious, especially in the most competitive niches like business and lifestyle, that the shelf life of new images is getting shorter and that overall sales and going downwards and that the more these agencies keep adding new images the more your portfolio will become irrilevant in the long run.
it's a buyers market now and it can only go worse, sooner or later it will go on par with the other digital markets where now it's impossible for the single artist to make a living.
and actually in some markets they only add new products for vanity or advertising or promotions.
very very few are making money with Beatport or Itunes, and no single authors making a million with their ebook on Amazon.
AOL doesnt even pay bloggers anymore, newspapers pay a pittance for both articles and photos.
dont think stock is an exception, actually it's still paying fairly good compared to other markets, but for how long ?
the reason it hasnt tanked already is because of licencing, model/property releases, and Keywording.
Keywording is the single reason buyers havent moved to Flickr or Instagram ... there are great images there but they cant find them and if they do they probably cant use them due to licensing/release limitations.
so they stick with stock, but it's not gonna work forever.
pricewise the point of non return has been already reached as far as photographers are concerned.
nobody can survive selling subs on SS, and soon it will be impossible selling micro as well, just give it a couple years and you will see.
the only way to make a difference is owning a large portfolio like Yuri does but he's an agency now, he could not do it all alone even working 16hrs a day.
can YOU compete with him ? and if he can't make decent money with that, how will YOU do ?
his departure from microstock is the final signal that this business is no more sustainable for single photographers.
that's the moral of the story, that's why i'm saying "the END of microstock".
the writing is on the wall.
what would be the signal if Warren Buffett suddenly sells his shares in Cocacola and IBM ?
how about Apple shares losing 50% of their value in a few months despite good profits and good sales ?
maybe you guys lack a strategic thinking.
agencies like Stocksy are going nowhere, and people like Bruce have been very very lucky from the start, becoming millionaire by chance without any idea or business model, just because of a lucky strike, sorry but now things have changed big time in the industry.
IS and SS can certainly raise prices in the future, but our slice of the pie will remain the same or become even smaller, they just dont need us at this point, all we can do is double or triple our portfolios just to stay afloat.
so, do you really plan to stay in such a cut-throat business or ... ?
More BS. You say nobody can survive selling subs on SS, totally ignoring the fact that SS is much more than a subs site. My RPD there has gone up every year since 2006. They sell more and more on demand, SOD's and lots more EL's than the other sites. I haven't uploaded much for the past 2 years but my SS earnings keep increasing. It's the opposite of how you would like it to be. I'm sorry that the people that have been predicting the imminent demise of microstock for at least the last 7 years have got it so wrong and that they continue thinking that everything that happens is bad for microstock contributors but it clearly isn't true.
I'd like to see the end of commission cuts and it might be more difficult to make a living from microstock in the future but the same could be said about macro. Alamy have cut my commissions twice now, lowered prices and competition has drastically increased. I don't think Getty contributors have had it easy. We all have the same problems and idiots that still think microstock is the only problem after all these years are deluding themselves.
-
try thinking like an investor.
i would certainly buy shares of SS in this moment, they're doing a great job, they're delivering, they're a solid company.
SS is a great company. So far they seem to have done absolutely everything right. If I fancied them long term I would be hoping to pick them up for less in 6 or 12 months. They have done very well since launch but in a rapidly rising market which is trading on relatively very low volume. Therefore I would be cautious of how much further the market has to run this time.
-
The END of microstock? Because one man leaves?
When you throw too much big stones in a mountainstream the water will simply search other ways to flow down the mountain. But it will flow.
You forgot one thing: contributors are the OWNERS of the content that stays with the agencies.
When agencies go too far with the ongoing lowering of paying their contributors, photographers will search other ways to sell their images and when they are able to make a living otherwise, they will leave and take their images with them.
There will allways be new starting contributors, but how long does it take for them to ‘stand out from the crowd’ and to be able to produce the highest demanded and high valued images AND enough of them on a regular base? (And when they reach that point they are likely also going Yuri’s way.)
This is not only about Yuri’s decision, it's also about Stocksy, about Symbiostock… No one is able to predict today if this leads to somewhere and how and where this leads to …This will also not happen within a short term, but over time the stock industry will probably show big changes.
Of course it will not be the END of Microstock. There's still a growing demand for images worldwide and even a demand for images that can be easily produced. And when there is demand, there will be supply.
But yes: for the over suplied low-end market it will be harder and harder to make more then ‘pocket- money’.
The END of the dinosaurs? Perhaps!
-
I think we need an END of this thread ;D
-
I'm not convinced this is a good sign. Won't buyers eventually get the feeling there's nothing new and good on the microstocks any more? The idea of being left behind in a declining, low-end market, doesn't thrill me - is it supposed to? There's no money in selling something at WalMart unless your volume is huge.
Seems like the market is being differentiated, which is inevitable, and whether you lose or benefit depends on where you end up.
I dont get why you think that Yuri is the only one producing new and good images. Even if all the factories left, there are still plenty of good contributors uploading good images. In fact, maybe everyone else will now have a shot at getting their images seen.
I dont think any of us wanted there to be a race to the bottom. Blame that on the greedy agencies who saw an opportunity and had the money to drive our royalties low. In the world we all were hoping to see 8 years ago, our royalties would steadily increase as new and better images were being submitted. And then your Yuris jumped in and ruined even more.
I think its great that yuri is going getty. They deserve each other. I can see that the market is recovering a little, but i dont think that means that companies are going to be willing to pay $200 for an image when they've been paying $20. To me, THAT wouldnt be good business. Microstock's not going anywhere. The day the yuris and gettys can bully the rest of the world into paying overbloated prices is the day we all are doomed anyway.
-
but i dont think that means that companies are going to be willing to pay $200 for an image when they've been paying $20. To me, THAT wouldnt be good business. Microstock's not going anywhere. The day the yuris and gettys can bully the rest of the world into paying overbloated prices is the day we all are doomed anyway.
that's funny, my RM buyers dont complain when they pay 100 or 200$ per image and trust me, the quality of my images is easily well below what i see on micros, they say mine was the perfect image and they couldnt find it anywhere else, and that's the whole point of why i'm still in biz.
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 ?
seriously, i know a few designers, they dont move a finger for less than 1000$.
why should they get away buying all the images they need for no more than 50-100$ ?
and they also licence the Fonts .. 50-100$ a pop .. how many of the micro buyers pay for fonts ? not many.
and guess what, their customers are happy and they're happy, win-win scenario and thanks for all the fish.
indeed microstock is here to stay but look at their target .. they're mostly bottom feeders and they've even the guts to complain about pricing.
frankly speaking, we've nothing to lose from this customer segmentation, to each his own, but Yuri did the right move moving to greener pastures, he was definitely above the par and devalueing himself with micros.
in any case, he's the only one who can honestly say he got rich with microstock.
-
The END of microstock? Because one man leaves?
When you throw too much big stones in a mountainstream the water will simply search other ways to flow down the mountain. But it will flow.
You forgot one thing: contributors are the OWNERS of the content that stays with the agencies.
When agencies go too far with the ongoing lowering of paying their contributors, photographers will search other ways to sell their images and when they are able to make a living otherwise, they will leave and take their images with them.
There will allways be new starting contributors, but how long does it take for them to ‘stand out from the crowd’ and to be able to produce the highest demanded and high valued images AND enough of them on a regular base? (And when they reach that point they are likely also going Yuri’s way.)
This is not only about Yuri’s decision, it's also about Stocksy, about Symbiostock… No one is able to predict today if this leads to somewhere and how and where this leads to …This will also not happen within a short term, but over time the stock industry will probably show big changes.
Of course it will not be the END of Microstock. There's still a growing demand for images worldwide and even a demand for images that can be easily produced. And when there is demand, there will be supply.
But yes: for the over suplied low-end market it will be harder and harder to make more then ‘pocket- money’.
The END of the dinosaurs? Perhaps!
ok, maybe it's not the END but it's the beginning of the end.
first it's Yuri, tomorrow some top-20 microstocker, and little by little the so called "factories" will move to greener pastures or close down or move into a more profitable market niche.
i mean .. 0.30$ per subs ? we're in 2013, this is not the '90s.
the point of non return has been reached since a long time in my opinion.
do you know how much is the price of a coffee or a beer in places like London or Paris ?
even cleaning toilets will get you 1500$ per month in UK, that means thousands of downloads on micros.
how do you see you 5 yrs from now ? we can all see the numbers ... there will be tens of millions of new images on micro agencies, but your portfolio will not cope with it, you'll not be anymore in a position to "feed the beast" as in the past.
of course it's not the end for agencies, they're doing great actually !
but it's the beginning of the end for photographers.
we're just a COST for agencies, NOT a resource, either you get it or you dont.
you think we're special ? wait a few weeks, they'll not even write a single line about Yuri leaving the scene, same as they did with Sean.
because, they dont need them, they only need the buyers, and their buyers are bottom feeders, price is everything for them, quality comes later.
they dont shop for a specific famous artist and never will, if they could they would shop at Getty but they're broke and pennyless that's why they buy subs in the first place !
new contributors have picked up the very worst time to join the scene.
they will quickly realize how hard it is to make even beer money with micros, and they will soon go away with a bitter taste in their mouth.
-
It's by no means the end of microstock.
Yuri has no doubt negotiated a very favourable deal with Getty, higher percentage guaranteed even if the continue to shaft the rest of us, immunity from shady deals like the GooglePlus one, (or much higher compensation, or only some of his lower-selling files to be included, or somesuch), favourable positioning, etc.
Where does that leave the rest?
So, much as Xanox might rant, news of the demise of microstock is premature.
i cant see why he should have a special treatment, all he did was negotiating a distributor agreement like any other agency.
that means 30-40% net from any sale, i guess.
-
More BS. You say nobody can survive selling subs on SS, totally ignoring the fact that SS is much more than a subs site. My RPD there has gone up every year since 2006. They sell more and more on demand, SOD's and lots more EL's than the other sites. I haven't uploaded much for the past 2 years but my SS earnings keep increasing. It's the opposite of how you would like it to be. I'm sorry that the people that have been predicting the imminent demise of microstock for at least the last 7 years have got it so wrong and that they continue thinking that everything that happens is bad for microstock contributors but it clearly isn't true.
I'd like to see the end of commission cuts and it might be more difficult to make a living from microstock in the future but the same could be said about macro. Alamy have cut my commissions twice now, lowered prices and competition has drastically increased. I don't think Getty contributors have had it easy. We all have the same problems and idiots that still think microstock is the only problem after all these years are deluding themselves.
i've NEVER predicted the end of micro for agencies !
what i predicted from the start was that agencies would have scr-ewed photographers big time, and that's exactly what happened over time, ALL my predictions became reality.
and actually i was a bit optimistic, i could not imagine IS would pay fees as low as 15% as they do now for non exclusives.
neither i predicted Yuri's bombshell.
i instantly smelled sh-it when he launched his agency but i told myself, hmmm maybe it's just a way to diversify, it would be a bombshell if the microstock's hero actually leaves micros to join getty or corbis or whatever !
alamy : yes they cut commissions but i also see a raise in views and sales so it's quite stable.
at least they're doing something, many other agencies are dead now, it's a Getty world.
-
SS is a great company. So far they seem to have done absolutely everything right. If I fancied them long term I would be hoping to pick them up for less in 6 or 12 months. They have done very well since launch but in a rapidly rising market which is trading on relatively very low volume. Therefore I would be cautious of how much further the market has to run this time.
usually, if they go public is to cash-in in 1-2 yrs.
so, expect booming results for a while, and then when they sell out .. bye bye !
the new owners will be forced to push for even more quick bucks, and this can only mean one thing : lowered fees to photographers, cheaper prices for buyers, more investment in aggressive marketing.
i mean, this could be even translate in actual more sales for you, but just as an unintended consequence.
subs for 0.10$ ? why not ... wait and see, maybe a selection from low-earning images or whatever.
really, they're the living proof that in microstock price is king and subs are the way to go.
too many here talk about "quality", when in fact buyers need solutions, not quality.
do you think they really seek the perfect image on micros and for a few dollars ? think again.
"good enough" is already more than enough they would have dreamed years ago.
and it changed nothing in the designers market by the way.
anyone is using microstock now, their dirty little secret ... so anyone lowered pricing, and the situation is the same as before, but buyers now pay less as because of domino effect.
so who's the loser in this eqaution ? buyers ? designers ?
NO, it's ONLY photographers !
we're the last wheel, but it's up to us to stay in such a market or not.
i've no problem selling random sh-it on micros like backgrounds etc ... but for anything else it's RM and when the sh-it will hit the fan even in RM i'll get a life and start a new career somewhere else.
and i'll be in good company considering the actual economic situation worldwide.
-
Xanox I have read every single entry you placed on this forum on the last days (around 357 comments) and yep I am giving up and going to clean toilets somewhere, cheers!
-
Xanox I have read every single entry you placed on this forum on the last days (around 357 comments) and yep I am giving up and going to clean toilets somewhere, cheers!
hahaha.
you're young, one day you will understand.
-
.
-
Xanox I have read every single entry you placed on this forum on the last days (around 357 comments) and yep I am giving up and going to clean toilets somewhere, cheers!
hahaha.
you're young, one day you will understand.
Well I'm not, still don't get you.
Same sheet, different day.
Cheers!
-
He has already proven to be a smart guy who makes right moves,so it looks good for him.
as for us? well, dunno, I have lost my motivation long ago,subs,so little commissions,constant best match shifts makes it impossible for me to foresee what will happen next. all i know, at least for me- good old days are over. perhaps it is more to do with over supply in the market, not what Yuri is doing. also almost all micro sites getting so much control over our images. shooting for . 38cents??? well???????
-
but i dont think that means that companies are going to be willing to pay $200 for an image when they've been paying $20. To me, THAT wouldnt be good business. Microstock's not going anywhere. The day the yuris and gettys can bully the rest of the world into paying overbloated prices is the day we all are doomed anyway.
that's funny, my RM buyers dont complain when they pay 100 or 200$ per image and trust me, the quality of my images is easily well below what i see on micros, they say mine was the perfect image and they couldnt find it anywhere else, and that's the whole point of why i'm still in biz.
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 ?
seriously, i know a few designers, they dont move a finger for less than 1000$.
why should they get away buying all the images they need for no more than 50-100$ ?
and they also licence the Fonts .. 50-100$ a pop .. how many of the micro buyers pay for fonts ? not many.
and guess what, their customers are happy and they're happy, win-win scenario and thanks for all the fish.
indeed microstock is here to stay but look at their target .. they're mostly bottom feeders and they've even the guts to complain about pricing.
frankly speaking, we've nothing to lose from this customer segmentation, to each his own, but Yuri did the right move moving to greener pastures, he was definitely above the par and devalueing himself with micros.
in any case, he's the only one who can honestly say he got rich with microstock.
I guess you get pretty bitter being rejected by all including the low earning microstock site.
-
...
indeed microstock is here to stay but look at their target .. they're mostly bottom feeders and they've even the guts to complain about pricing.
...
I don't know about bottom feeders only buying microstock. I work for a very large Fortune 500 company that uses microstock images all the time. Now, sure, they don't use them for their major ad campaigns (they actually have in-house photogs for those - and frankly wouldn't use stock imagery those anyways), but there are sure hundreds of the microstock images all over the internal websites as well as employee training materials, etc. (I actually have fun trying to figure out how many of the images I recognize in our training slides). These things are updated constantly, so I am always seeing new images on the internal pages I have to visit regularly.
So even with the big players there is a market for micro. And, really, isn't that what micro is for? The company can keep fresh interesting images in our "employee engagement" brochures without spending a ton of money.
-
I really have to agree with Sharpshot completely! I am a real estate agent, about 15 years ago my office recruited the top agent in the area. She was making about 400K-500K a year with 5 assistants, the top agent in our office was making about 200K-250K a year with 3 assistants and I was making about 125K sometimes a little more sometimes a little less with no assistants.
When word got out that this top agent from another company was coming to our office, a few agents threatened to leave, because this was the end of our income.
The broker of the office said to them nothing was going to change, but they insisted it would. He said, fine leave the office, business will go on just fine without them.
Long story short, Nothing changed!
If Yuri is making a million a year, I hope he makes 2 million next year! That would mean microstock is growing and so will our incomes. Yuri is not the microstock god, he is not my hero, he is a hard working person who found his nitch!
-
I don't know about bottom feeders only buying microstock. I work for a very large Fortune 500 company that uses microstock images all the time. Now, sure, they don't use them for their major ad campaigns (they actually have in-house photogs for those - and frankly wouldn't use stock imagery those anyways), but there are sure hundreds of the microstock images all over the internal websites as well as employee training materials, etc. (I actually have fun trying to figure out how many of the images I recognize in our training slides). These things are updated constantly, so I am always seeing new images on the internal pages I have to visit regularly.
So even with the big players there is a market for micro. And, really, isn't that what micro is for? The company can keep fresh interesting images in our "employee engagement" brochures without spending a ton of money.
it only means this sort of images (business, business concepts, etc) have become almost worthless, they're so cheap they can be used for silly corporate brochures for internal use.
it's the same fate suffered from still life images and other "low hanging fruit" stuff that was paying fairly well years ago.
now that even this market niche has been F-cked, what's left exactly ?
i mean really, we can all see how this market is bad and is going down worse and worse.
as you said, we see fortune-500 compaines buying tons of images for the price of a coffee, people with GBs of mp3 in their iPhones bought for barely the price of a pair or jeans.
and then you have piracy as well, yes even for 0.30$ subs ...
maybe the issue is as you said that you only know microstock.
try going at Photokina or other shows .. you will see the real value of photography.
-
He has already proven to be a smart guy who makes right moves,so it looks good for him.
as for us? well, dunno, I have lost my motivation long ago,subs,so little commissions,constant best match shifts makes it impossible for me to foresee what will happen next. all i know, at least for me- good old days are over. perhaps it is more to do with over supply in the market, not what Yuri is doing. also almost all micro sites getting so much control over our images. shooting for . 38cents??? well???????
well, you dig your own graves, guys.
now it's too late, it's all over.
by the way, you think this is the end ? no, it's the tip of the iceberg, wait for the crowd of stockers in poor countries to join the game, now they've decent internet and the young ones speak english enough to make a half baked keywording and captioning, filipinos in particular but also indians etc
in a few years SS and IS will have maybe 500 million images on sale.
how will you deal with that ?
and find me one single reason for why they should ever raise the fees to contributors.
2-300 bucks/month is a great salary in most of asia, if it suc-ks in the West well that's your business not theirs.
remember my words of wisdom !
-
What exactly are you trying to achieve with your words of wisdom? What is the purpose of all this?
Maybe you should write a book of prophecies rather than hang out in MSG. Then later generations can squabble over whether you were right or wrong. Right now your chest-thumping celebration of your own genius is somewhat premature.
<Edited for typo>
-
What exactly are you trying to achieve with your words of wisdom? What is the purpose of all this?
Maybe you should write a book of prophecies rather than hang out in MSG. Then later generations can squabble over whether you were right or wrong. Right now you're chest-thumping celebration of your own genius is somewhat premature.
You can say that again. Every time Xanox posts I find my finger hovering over the 'Move Topic to Garbage Bin' button. It's entirely understandable why he's been banned from every other forum other than this one.
-
it's a shame they wiped out the old Alamy forum with all my pearls of wisdom.
anyway, good night and good luck !
-
I have him on ignore, so things have improved but I still see the amazing number of posts.
Unless someone pays him for every comment, why don´t you just move on to the Gettyforum, your "natural habitat" for a macro RM shooter.
There you can hang out with your peers and you can all keep congratulating each other for being the masters of the stock universe and count the millions you make from images where you yourself say that the quality of your files is lower than on the micros.
This is a place for PROFESSIONAL stock artists.
Ranting out here won´t get you any sales.
-
What exactly are you trying to achieve with your words of wisdom? What is the purpose of all this?
Maybe you should write a book of prophecies rather than hang out in MSG. Then later generations can squabble over whether you were right or wrong. Right now you're chest-thumping celebration of your own genius is somewhat premature.
You can say that again. Every time Xanox posts I find my finger hovering over the 'Move Topic to Garbage Bin' button. It's entirely understandable why he's been banned from every other forum other than this one.
Totally agree. EVERY "ALTERNATIVE" opinion is crushed by his power of invention.
-
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?
-
Well said Cobalt, Mantis and Sharpshot... and Gostwyck, you have far greater patience than I.
-
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.
-
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.
Yes, but you can't force the genie back in the bottle.
We are now in a new reality, and trying to get things back to what they were isn't going to get us anywhere. The macros brought their calamity on themselves by being so ridiculously elitist, and once micro had started, undercutting was the obvious move.
The only question is, with our new reality, how do we survive within it, if indeed we want to.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
The Getty corporation looks after IS and pretty much do what they want.
They certainly don't.
-
The Getty corporation looks after IS and pretty much do what they want.
They certainly don't.
One out of two, though.
-
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.
-
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 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-first-quarter-2013-200500835.html)
-
Why would yuri jump ship for less money
-
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.....
-
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
-
oh yes I calculate the inverse:) that's a lot....
-
So should I put away my tin foil hat?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 !
-
Bye!
-
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.
-
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.
-
(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 ?
-
(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 ?
If you read their financial reports SS consider themselves to currently have only a tiny proportion of a market that they believe to be worth about $5B worldwide (if I remember the figures correctly off the top of my head). They also believe that there's huge potential in video and obviously Offset will be targeting a sector of the market that will be new to them.
-
(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 ?
Yes I must say I would also like to know that? according to some very old and established members there, right now and for the past two weeks lots and lots of trouble. Bugs, glitches all over the place, revenues and dls dropping.
There is the possible chance SS after all was not the holy sanctuary we all thought.
Its a scary thought actually. Unfortunately sooner or later thats what happens.
-
There is a huge market in all those countries where the economy is growing and small businesses are growing like mushrooms. As the middle class rises in india,south america, china,middle east..etc...so will the market for the agencies that can reach out to them. Most agencies are english centric, here in Germany for instance loads of small companies have never heard of a stock site, so over here alone, with over 100 million German speakers, this is still a growth market.
I don´t know if Getty is even interested in customers like these, they seem to prefer to make huge deals with large cooperations. But here in Germany 70% of the economy is carried by small - to medium sized business.
And this is probably true in many other countries.
So the US market might be over saturated, but the rest of the world is still wide open.
And in the US/Canada/UK there will always be the fight over market share. You can always take way market share from the competition so the landscape will be fluid as well.
It is harder work than growing into a new market, but if you fight, you win.
Have a look at google keyword trends and see where the different agencies are known. It is fascinating! You see that shutterstock is quite strong world wide, fotolia mostly local to europe, istock mostly NorthAmerica, etc...
Since the companies don´t release numbers, this is the easiest you can do to just get an idea of where they are active.
http://www.google.com/trends/ (http://www.google.com/trends/)
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=shutterstock%2C%20istock%2C%20fotolia%2C%20dreamstime%2C%20gettyimages&cmpt=q (http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=shutterstock%2C%20istock%2C%20fotolia%2C%20dreamstime%2C%20gettyimages&cmpt=q)
-
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?
if getty is giving extra sweets to Mr Y. then who knows if getty will make others food bitter to balance the food. Probably by decreasing other getty/IS contributors royalty..
-
There is a huge market in all those countries where the economy is growing and small businesses are growing like mushrooms. As the middle class rises in india,south america, china,middle east..etc...so will the market for the agencies that can reach out to them.
In several of these countries, they have specifically not been targetted because they have no fully-worked out copyright laws and/or expectation. Almost all of my Alamy image thefts and many iS thefts are on websites in Far Eastern orthographies. At micro pricing, there isn't the will to pursue these misuses, which IME spread very rapidly.
So it may be that the companies have already considered moving into some of these developing regions but decided that the cost/benefit ratio isn't likely to be favourable.
Or, as I'm useless at analysis and forecasting, watch out for an announcement near us soon. :o
BTW, does anyone actually know how many agencies provide customer support in even just all their site languages?
-
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.
Yes, but you can't force the genie back in the bottle.
We are now in a new reality, and trying to get things back to what they were isn't going to get us anywhere. The macros brought their calamity on themselves by being so ridiculously elitist, and once micro had started, undercutting was the obvious move.
The only question is, with our new reality, how do we survive within it, if indeed we want to.
I gave Shady a PLUS. It is the new reality and we have to play in that sandbox now.
-
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.
I can't agree that the stock industry is in decline overall from a contributors point of view because in the good old days, I only received rejection letters. Those that did get in might of made more money but how was that good for me? It was a small club and I wasn't in it. I'm not sure if we're any worse off than a few years ago, some sites have cut commissions but they've made little progress while SS has had a lot of growth.
I complain a lot about sites that cut commissions but I still think anyone that puts in the work and has a reasonable skill level can make a nice living from microstock. A lot of the people that hate microstock have less than 200 images in their portfolios. I saw one person with around 35 images that had made hundreds of posts about how poor their earnings were and that they couldn't accept $0.25. If they had spent more time building up a decent portfolio, they would of found out that microstock can be quite lucrative.
Nobody knows the future and people like Xanox have been saying that microstock is dead for contributors since the day I started in 2006. They've been wrong for 7 years so far and I think they'll be wrong for a few more. Past that time, who really knows what will happen?
-
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.
Digital photography and microstock opened the door for people to shoot "good" photos without the infrastructure or planning (or cost) that went into traditional stock shoots. Perhaps less conceptualized in a lot cases, but it doesn't make it less valid because there is an entirely new type of buyer out there to complement this. The mom n pop stores, the bloggers and small businesses, the indy mags and small businesses who cannot afford 10k to hire a shooter and need a picture of a hammer or a plastic duck or a hamburger I made for dinner the other night.
If I can sell it a few hundred times (plus a hundred other ones at the same time) then I will do that. My stuff will never hang in a museum or fetch top dollar anywhere. I know that. So MS works for me. I'm still a photographer and I shoot because it completes me. And I'll smile because my 20 second photoshoot before dinner (and other stuff) nets me new equipment and vacations around the world every year. So thank you all the "fly by night" businesses like restaurants and food bloggers and everyone else who doesn't want to hire someone to take one picture of a beer tap or a plate of french fries.
It seems like you have a real hate on for agency pricing. I get that. I get that you like to provoke people too. It's fun to read so keep it up!
But if you really want to quibble over fault etc, go after the high end shooters who got into MS, raising quality so high that there is way less point in using RM except licensing differences. :)
-
Its like someone going to a Microsoft forum preaching about Apple and complaining Microsoft svcks. If you love RM, go to the RM forums. I am not sure why you banned from Alamy, because that is the type of crowd that would agree with you.
-
Its like someone going to a Microsoft forum preaching about Apple and complaining Microsoft svcks. If you love RM, go to the RM forums. I am not sure why you banned from Alamy, because that is the type of crowd that would agree with you.
He had a big fight with Christian in the alamy forum. They were right to ban him.
-
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.
I can't agree that the stock industry is in decline overall from a contributors point of view because in the good old days, I only received rejection letters. Those that did get in might of made more money but how was that good for me? It was a small club and I wasn't in it. I'm not sure if we're any worse off than a few years ago, some sites have cut commissions but they've made little progress while SS has had a lot of growth.
I complain a lot about sites that cut commissions but I still think anyone that puts in the work and has a reasonable skill level can make a nice living from microstock. A lot of the people that hate microstock have less than 200 images in their portfolios. I saw one person with around 35 images that had made hundreds of posts about how poor their earnings were and that they couldn't accept $0.25. If they had spent more time building up a decent portfolio, they would of found out that microstock can be quite lucrative.
Nobody knows the future and people like Xanox have been saying that microstock is dead for contributors since the day I started in 2006. They've been wrong for 7 years so far and I think they'll be wrong for a few more. Past that time, who really knows what will happen?
perhaps there is a bit of a misunderstanding here, and perhaps the points Xanox is trying to convey with a bungled delivery is this...
the stock industry is in trouble not just in microstock or RF or RM or Getty etc. This from what I think is an industry wide issue. Xanox seems to be a bit of a dinosaur in the stock industry just as I am. I had to adapt to the transition from film to digital - film being a true skill that you had to master, digital by comparison is too easy. I have had to adapt from RM to RF (the uproar at the time was loud) and now to microstock. The decline in valuation of photography has been slow and steady for the last 20 years with microstock being the catalyst the free fall in the valuation of images, particularly microstock subscription sites, which in my opinion are just plain stupid to support in any way by choice. It is also my observation in all of these years that getting into an agency of any sort required a hell of a lot more than passing a brainless multiple choice questionnaire and submitting three samples that the camera produces. to get into any agency back in the day required a skill that was beyond doubt, and notably film required a lot of skill - especially as agencies were only accepting transparencies. when shooting with the top end camera then you had to know what you were doing, it did not save you. today i have the top end camera and a monkey blind folded could shoot with it and have the work accepted to any microstock agency provided it was composed properly of course. back in the day there was an editor who was ruthless in taking only your best work, often comprising of around 8-10% of your best tightly edited image you submitted, and that was a good ration of acceptance. today there are no editors only inspectors and the acceptance rate is alarmingly high, too high in fact. microstock does have a lot of very very good work online, but it also has a lot of crap that simply should not be there. this new model of basically allowing anyone in, the technology, and the complete lack of editing process will be the demise of the industry - both micro and macro - as there are simply way too many shots diluting the profits of single contributors. there seems to be no stopping this the genie is out of the bottle.
the stock industry both microstock and macro will be profitable for many years to come for the agencies. but not for the suppliers. it used to be we got 50% royalties and now it's mainly a pathetic royalty rate from all of them. it used to be agencies that were owned by people - real people you could talk to, but they have all pretty much sold out to the corporate empire. agencies today are owned by bankers and also publicly traded. that in itself spells doom for contributors. the winners will be the bankers and the shareholders as that is what these greedy pricks demand, we as suppliers are nothing more than liabilities to the company, and there is an over supply of us, there is an over supply of images created by us. some of us might be a legend in our own mind, and have a following of groupies, but they too are expendable as has recently happened to one overly deified photographer - the absence of this photographer won't even put a bleep on the radar screen of profits to these agencies, even if we think it will.
i see this very clearly in the industry, i think Xanox sees this too, and from all the dinosaurs like me that i know we all see it very clearly, and frankly we are very concerned about the industry. it appears all the microstock crowd or shall i say newbies who only know the microstock thing are doing is bashing one agency or the other and self congratulating each other for being accepted to one agency or the other.
your generation might not see it coming, but i can say for certain the dinosaurs have seen the writing on the wall for years, and if i was to put my bet on anything, i'd say it is almost check mate for contributors as a whole micro or macro, i give it 5-7 years tops, then very very few of us will be making any money, regardless of where you park your images, but the publicly traded agencies and the corporate run agencies will be posting record profits for many years after that.
-
today i have the top end camera and a monkey blind folded could shoot with it and have the work accepted to any microstock agency
I'm not sure I'm covered for a blind-folded monkey assistant. I'll have to ask my agent.
-
today i have the top end camera and a monkey blind folded could shoot with it and have the work accepted to any microstock agency
I'm not sure I'm covered for a blind-folded monkey assistant. I'll have to ask my agent.
ahhh, but did your monkey pass the brainless ten question multiple choice test to be qualified professional assistant? i feed my monkey bananas, and pray to heavens above he will get used to eating peanuts. monkeys will need to adapt too :)
-
microstock does have a lot of very very good work online, but it also has a lot of crap that simply should not be there.
I thought the same thing when researching RM agencies when I first got into photography.
-
perhaps there is a bit of a misunderstanding here, and perhaps the points Xanox is trying to convey with a bungled delivery is this...
the stock industry is in trouble not just in microstock or RF or RM or Getty etc. This from what I think is an industry wide issue. Xanox seems to be a bit of a dinosaur in the stock industry just as I am. I had to adapt to the transition from film to digital - film being a true skill that you had to master, digital by comparison is too easy. I have had to adapt from RM to RF (the uproar at the time was loud) and now to microstock. The decline in valuation of photography has been slow and steady for the last 20 years with microstock being the catalyst the free fall in the valuation of images, particularly microstock subscription sites, which in my opinion are just plain stupid to support in any way by choice. It is also my observation in all of these years that getting into an agency of any sort required a hell of a lot more than passing a brainless multiple choice questionnaire and submitting three samples that the camera produces. to get into any agency back in the day required a skill that was beyond doubt, and notably film required a lot of skill - especially as agencies were only accepting transparencies. when shooting with the top end camera then you had to know what you were doing, it did not save you. today i have the top end camera and a monkey blind folded could shoot with it and have the work accepted to any microstock agency provided it was composed properly of course. back in the day there was an editor who was ruthless in taking only your best work, often comprising of around 8-10% of your best tightly edited image you submitted, and that was a good ration of acceptance. today there are no editors only inspectors and the acceptance rate is alarmingly high, too high in fact. microstock does have a lot of very very good work online, but it also has a lot of crap that simply should not be there. this new model of basically allowing anyone in, the technology, and the complete lack of editing process will be the demise of the industry - both micro and macro - as there are simply way too many shots diluting the profits of single contributors. there seems to be no stopping this the genie is out of the bottle.
the stock industry both microstock and macro will be profitable for many years to come for the agencies. but not for the suppliers. it used to be we got 50% royalties and now it's mainly a pathetic royalty rate from all of them. it used to be agencies that were owned by people - real people you could talk to, but they have all pretty much sold out to the corporate empire. agencies today are owned by bankers and also publicly traded. that in itself spells doom for contributors. the winners will be the bankers and the shareholders as that is what these greedy pricks demand, we as suppliers are nothing more than liabilities to the company, and there is an over supply of us, there is an over supply of images created by us. some of us might be a legend in our own mind, and have a following of groupies, but they too are expendable as has recently happened to one overly deified photographer - the absence of this photographer won't even put a bleep on the radar screen of profits to these agencies, even if we think it will.
i see this very clearly in the industry, i think Xanox sees this too, and from all the dinosaurs like me that i know we all see it very clearly, and frankly we are very concerned about the industry. it appears all the microstock crowd or shall i say newbies who only know the microstock thing are doing is bashing one agency or the other and self congratulating each other for being accepted to one agency or the other.
your generation might not see it coming, but i can say for certain the dinosaurs have seen the writing on the wall for years, and if i was to put my bet on anything, i'd say it is almost check mate for contributors as a whole micro or macro, i give it 5-7 years tops, then very very few of us will be making any money, regardless of where you park your images, but the publicly traded agencies and the corporate run agencies will be posting record profits for many years after that.
Interesting thoughts. Of course all that is actually happening is basic supply and demand. However it's not the agencies or the contributors who have 'devalued' our product but the technology. As you have said yourself, it has never been easier or cheaper to produce quality images ... so that's exactly what people are doing.
I've no idea how long it is all going to last though. Ten years ago I'd never have believed I could earn a decent living with my camera, working from home, shooting what I want, when I feel like doing so and never even having clients to report to, or any complaints or invoices to chase up. Microstock is largely a true and fair meritocracy too __ your success and your earnings are directly related to your skills, how hard you work and, sometimes, how much you are prepared to risk financially to get unique or better shots.
If, in a few years time, it is 'only the agencies that can make any money' then that will probably be the time that a true microstock co-op will finally emerge. Right now there is not the motivation for it to happen and most contributors have too much to lose. Ultimately it is the contributors that own all the content though. Without them the agencies are nothing.
I think that there are small signs that the balance between agency and the contributor may be edging towards the latter. Istock notably have started to relax rules that they once held dear. Vector artists are actually getting a royalty increase. The emergence of Stocksy is a move in the right direction and Istock are certainly worried about it. Then there's Yuri's 'sweetheart deal' with Getty. There may well be more in the pipeline.
-
Its like someone going to a Microsoft forum preaching about Apple and complaining Microsoft svcks. If you love RM, go to the RM forums. I am not sure why you banned from Alamy, because that is the type of crowd that would agree with you.
He had a big fight with Christian in the alamy forum. They were right to ban him.
Hmmm, thats weird, because they both support the RM model.
-
Its like someone going to a Microsoft forum preaching about Apple and complaining Microsoft svcks. If you love RM, go to the RM forums. I am not sure why you banned from Alamy, because that is the type of crowd that would agree with you.
He had a big fight with Christian in the alamy forum. They were right to ban him.
Hmmm, thats weird, because they both support the RM model.
yeah, but Xanox is more consistent in that.
LR vacillates more than an oscillator.
-
It sounds like this industry is gearing up towards a default. An implosion from within. When the royalties become too low, and photogs leave in masses the only way to get them back is with higher royalties. If the supply stops, and the demand sustains, royalties pricing and royalties WILL go up. But the same as with the financial system of a country, it needs a default to achieve that. When will it happen is the million dollar question.
-
"Interesting thoughts. Of course all that is actually happening is basic supply and demand. However it's not the agencies or the contributors who have 'devalued' our product but the technology. As you have said yourself, it has never been easier or cheaper to produce quality images ... so that's exactly what people are doing.
I've no idea how long it is all going to last though. Ten years ago I'd never have believed I could earn a decent living with my camera, working from home, shooting what I want, when I feel like doing so and never even having clients to report to, or any complaints or invoices to chase up. Microstock is largely a true and fair meritocracy too __ your success and your earnings are directly related to your skills, how hard you work and, sometimes, how much you are prepared to risk financially to get unique or better shots.
If, in a few years time, it is 'only the agencies that can make any money' then that will probably be the time that a true microstock co-op will finally emerge. Right now there is not the motivation for it to happen and most contributors have too much to lose. Ultimately it is the contributors that own all the content though. Without them the agencies are nothing.
I think that there are small signs that the balance between agency and the contributor may be edging towards the latter. Istock notably have started to relax rules that they once held dear. Vector artists are actually getting a royalty increase. The emergence of Stocksy is a move in the right direction and Istock are certainly worried about it. Then there's Yuri's 'sweetheart deal' with Getty. There may well be more in the pipeline."
yes agreed, it is without a doubt technology as well, but also the fact when getty came along and gobbled every agency up they dropped royalty rates to sustain the bankers and shareholders profits. we all ate it up albeit with a bit of complaining.
then microstock came along with this sell stupidly cheap idea and give stupid rates with crowns and you could work your way up. getty bought the premiere agency, and continued the reduction of rates for profits scheme. we all ate it up albeit with a bit of complaining.
then there are the schemes like SS who simply undersold images with abandon and paid really stupid royalty rates. many ate it up. why i will never know.
add the above to a bunch of tier sites that want a slice of the pie and generally do so with abandon, and you have an industry that is really messed up.
now you get brucey with his new found ideals forming a co-op. to little too late my friend. you had the chance to do that long ago, and you took the getty millions. in his various interviews he tends to contradict himself between the past and the new and improved version of brucey called stocksy. the one that sticks out is him saying something along the lines of "if you make less than 50% you are not getting your worth" and i seem to recall the highest you could ever aspire too was 45% on IS under his reign, but you also started at a shameful 20%. this has happened a few times in his interviews that i have read. i also don't predict you will get too many born again idealists like this coming down the pipes any time soon.
my money is still on the decline of individual income based on the microstock model, and yes it will affect the whole industry. and i still think it will happen in the next 5-7 years. the numbers don't add up anymore, and it's blatantly obvious if you have been around the industry for a while. and the scary part of this is that greedy empires like getty know this too. they know they can kick the crap out of us and control us and we are weak as a whole. as a group we might complain a lot, but getting anything going with a large group of photographers to teach "them" will never happen, it would be easier to herd cats.
-
I think that there are small signs that the balance between agency and the contributor may be edging towards the latter. Istock notably have started to relax rules that they once held dear. Vector artists are actually getting a royalty increase. The emergence of Stocksy is a move in the right direction and Istock are certainly worried about it. Then there's Yuri's 'sweetheart deal' with Getty. There may well be more in the pipeline.
DING! We have a winner.
People are resistant to change and deny facts that show that they much make changes to stay in the market. Some companies do the same, and are relegated to history. Most people don't see that they are on the edge of a dramatic change until it has long passed.
Hey, it's called a Blockbuster Epiphany. The biggest bunch of arrogant pricks and dominating an industry. One day they woke up and they realized that they were doomed and before they could blink, they were irrelevant and pretty much out of business.
And no this is not the end of microstock, just a business model adjustment.
The main message I get from this news is "be prepared to change your old ways of thinking and doing things" Ride the wave, instead of being capsized by it.
-
I think that there are small signs that the balance between agency and the contributor may be edging towards the latter. Istock notably have started to relax rules that they once held dear. Vector artists are actually getting a royalty increase. The emergence of Stocksy is a move in the right direction and Istock are certainly worried about it. Then there's Yuri's 'sweetheart deal' with Getty. There may well be more in the pipeline.
Yep. It's a pretty basic strategy. Keep wringing contributors dry until it negatively affects the agency. Then slowly start backing off a little bit. Seems like this is where we're at now.
-
He had a big fight with Christian in the alamy forum. They were right to ban him.
honestly i don't even remember why they banned me last time, i can't manage to last more than a few dozen message over there, maybe it was christian going overboard with another guy who posts here ?
but usually it's because i dare criticize some new alamy features like the recent cut in fees ...
despite they run a forum and a corporate blog any possible criticism has never been allowed, they dont even warn you, they just delete the whole thread and ban your account, they've no idea how to run a proper forum and now their new forum is deserted as they finally alienated even their few residents left, at the moment only a bunch of maybe 5-10 users is active and posting every day.
which maybe was their plan from the start as the forum has always been a pain in the a-ss for them.
they prefer to send people on their FB and twitter pages, where they ban any negative remark as well.
-
And no this is not the end of microstock, just a business model adjustment.
The main message I get from this news is "be prepared to change your old ways of thinking and doing things" Ride the wave, instead of being capsized by it.
not the "end", but it's indeed a strong signal !
it's the beginning of a domino effect that could get easily out of hand especially if Yuri will release some data about his sales and earnings on Getty.
the problem is, in the actual situation if something is going to change is for the worse, you're deluded if you hope agency have a single good reason to raise our fees.
yes, fees are going to get LOWER not higher !
and unless like Yuri you're an agency with a team of dozens of photographers nobody will take you seriously, photographers nowadays are dime a dozen in stock and especially in microstock.
there's hardly any "wave" to ride at this point, either you able to produce quantity with good enough quality or you will sink, just a matter of time, and probably you will sink anyways as if you do the math it will be harder and harder to feed the beast and stay afloat, you reach the point where it's just impossible to compete with such an avalanche of new images uploaded every day.
you stay afloat for a while because the search algorithms give a premium to images that had more views and zooms and sales, but this can change overnight, they can set to show new images on default, or default to whatever new collection, like now they do on Alamy with "creative" rather than the old Editorial.
which is the same we witnessed in web search engines like google or yahoo or bing .. when they have trillions of pages it's impossible to rank high, and they change the algo 2-3 times a year to further mess it up.
whatever we're selling now is doomed to be sandboxed and forgotten before or later ... and this is the key factor .. if now the shelf life of an image is up to 2 yrs in the future it can become 6 months or less and then the whole microstock concept will cease to exist apart for a small bunch of the very best seller images.
my opinion ? the days are numbered for microstock as a full time career for single photographers, only agencies, "factories", and co-ops will survive.
i give it no more than 3 yrs from now.
mark my words ! :)
-
H'mm progress we've gone from today to 6-12 months now 3 years - 3 years is a heck of a long time in the digital world!
-
mark my words ! :)
Why? Strange as it may seem, many of us have far more important things to think about than whether your ego explodes in rapture in three years time.
-
"Interesting thoughts. Of course all that is actually happening is basic supply and demand. However it's not the agencies or the contributors who have 'devalued' our product but the technology. As you have said yourself, it has never been easier or cheaper to produce quality images ... so that's exactly what people are doing.
I've no idea how long it is all going to last though. Ten years ago I'd never have believed I could earn a decent living with my camera, working from home, shooting what I want, when I feel like doing so and never even having clients to report to, or any complaints or invoices to chase up. Microstock is largely a true and fair meritocracy too __ your success and your earnings are directly related to your skills, how hard you work and, sometimes, how much you are prepared to risk financially to get unique or better shots.
If, in a few years time, it is 'only the agencies that can make any money' then that will probably be the time that a true microstock co-op will finally emerge. Right now there is not the motivation for it to happen and most contributors have too much to lose. Ultimately it is the contributors that own all the content though. Without them the agencies are nothing.
I think that there are small signs that the balance between agency and the contributor may be edging towards the latter. Istock notably have started to relax rules that they once held dear. Vector artists are actually getting a royalty increase. The emergence of Stocksy is a move in the right direction and Istock are certainly worried about it. Then there's Yuri's 'sweetheart deal' with Getty. There may well be more in the pipeline."
yes agreed, it is without a doubt technology as well, but also the fact when getty came along and gobbled every agency up they dropped royalty rates to sustain the bankers and shareholders profits. we all ate it up albeit with a bit of complaining.
then microstock came along with this sell stupidly cheap idea and give stupid rates with crowns and you could work your way up. getty bought the premiere agency, and continued the reduction of rates for profits scheme. we all ate it up albeit with a bit of complaining.
then there are the schemes like SS who simply undersold images with abandon and paid really stupid royalty rates. many ate it up. why i will never know.
add the above to a bunch of tier sites that want a slice of the pie and generally do so with abandon, and you have an industry that is really messed up.
now you get brucey with his new found ideals forming a co-op. to little too late my friend. you had the chance to do that long ago, and you took the getty millions. in his various interviews he tends to contradict himself between the past and the new and improved version of brucey called stocksy. the one that sticks out is him saying something along the lines of "if you make less than 50% you are not getting your worth" and i seem to recall the highest you could ever aspire too was 45% on IS under his reign, but you also started at a shameful 20%. this has happened a few times in his interviews that i have read. i also don't predict you will get too many born again idealists like this coming down the pipes any time soon.
my money is still on the decline of individual income based on the microstock model, and yes it will affect the whole industry. and i still think it will happen in the next 5-7 years. the numbers don't add up anymore, and it's blatantly obvious if you have been around the industry for a while. and the scary part of this is that greedy empires like getty know this too. they know they can kick the crap out of us and control us and we are weak as a whole. as a group we might complain a lot, but getting anything going with a large group of photographers to teach "them" will never happen, it would be easier to herd cats.
I remember being told in the late 1980's that it wasn't worth getting in to stock photography. Listening to that advice was a huge mistake. I went in to the scientific side, didn't enjoy it and had to try non-photographic work until I found out about microstock. Now looking at the RM sites, I'm not that impressed by a lot of the content.
I bet there's old timers in the music and art world telling people that the industry isn't as good as it used to be and the end is nigh. Having learned my mistake the hard way, I ignore advice that is contrary to my own experience now. Overall, I like microstock, I even like selling for $0.38, as the volume is high. Things might get tougher in the future but it's quite easy now, for people that aren't afraid of work. I'm quite lazy, that's the biggest problem for me.
-
Having learned my mistake the hard way, I ignore advice that is contrary to my own experience now.
Plus one to that. There is no teacher like your own experience.
-
"Interesting thoughts. Of course all that is actually happening is basic supply and demand. However it's not the agencies or the contributors who have 'devalued' our product but the technology. As you have said yourself, it has never been easier or cheaper to produce quality images ... so that's exactly what people are doing.
I've no idea how long it is all going to last though. Ten years ago I'd never have believed I could earn a decent living with my camera, working from home, shooting what I want, when I feel like doing so and never even having clients to report to, or any complaints or invoices to chase up. Microstock is largely a true and fair meritocracy too __ your success and your earnings are directly related to your skills, how hard you work and, sometimes, how much you are prepared to risk financially to get unique or better shots.
If, in a few years time, it is 'only the agencies that can make any money' then that will probably be the time that a true microstock co-op will finally emerge. Right now there is not the motivation for it to happen and most contributors have too much to lose. Ultimately it is the contributors that own all the content though. Without them the agencies are nothing.
I think that there are small signs that the balance between agency and the contributor may be edging towards the latter. Istock notably have started to relax rules that they once held dear. Vector artists are actually getting a royalty increase. The emergence of Stocksy is a move in the right direction and Istock are certainly worried about it. Then there's Yuri's 'sweetheart deal' with Getty. There may well be more in the pipeline."
yes agreed, it is without a doubt technology as well, but also the fact when getty came along and gobbled every agency up they dropped royalty rates to sustain the bankers and shareholders profits. we all ate it up albeit with a bit of complaining.
then microstock came along with this sell stupidly cheap idea and give stupid rates with crowns and you could work your way up. getty bought the premiere agency, and continued the reduction of rates for profits scheme. we all ate it up albeit with a bit of complaining.
then there are the schemes like SS who simply undersold images with abandon and paid really stupid royalty rates. many ate it up. why i will never know.
add the above to a bunch of tier sites that want a slice of the pie and generally do so with abandon, and you have an industry that is really messed up.
now you get brucey with his new found ideals forming a co-op. to little too late my friend. you had the chance to do that long ago, and you took the getty millions. in his various interviews he tends to contradict himself between the past and the new and improved version of brucey called stocksy. the one that sticks out is him saying something along the lines of "if you make less than 50% you are not getting your worth" and i seem to recall the highest you could ever aspire too was 45% on IS under his reign, but you also started at a shameful 20%. this has happened a few times in his interviews that i have read. i also don't predict you will get too many born again idealists like this coming down the pipes any time soon.
my money is still on the decline of individual income based on the microstock model, and yes it will affect the whole industry. and i still think it will happen in the next 5-7 years. the numbers don't add up anymore, and it's blatantly obvious if you have been around the industry for a while. and the scary part of this is that greedy empires like getty know this too. they know they can kick the crap out of us and control us and we are weak as a whole. as a group we might complain a lot, but getting anything going with a large group of photographers to teach "them" will never happen, it would be easier to herd cats.
I remember being told in the late 1980's that it wasn't worth getting in to stock photography. Listening to that advice was a huge mistake. I went in to the scientific side, didn't enjoy it and had to try non-photographic work until I found out about microstock. Now looking at the RM sites, I'm not that impressed by a lot of the content.
I bet there's old timers in the music and art world telling people that the industry isn't as good as it used to be and the end is nigh. Having learned my mistake the hard way, I ignore advice that is contrary to my own experience now. Overall, I like microstock, I even like selling for $0.38, as the volume is high. Things might get tougher in the future but it's quite easy now, for people that aren't afraid of work. I'm quite lazy, that's the biggest problem for me.
very well said sharpshot. There is an old Indian sayings "whenever you wake up, its morning"
so its never too late unless you leave the task.
-
@Sharpshot :
i've friends in music who indeed had to close the studio because of the unfair pricing on Beatport, iTunes, etc and the cut-throat competition, and they were in business since 1988 !
if you think we're having it bad look at music ... unless you're backed by Sony or UNiversal and you're Daft Punk, Lady Gaga, Tiesto, Skrillex .. you aint make much money no matter if your songs are great and to make things worse the latest fad is Spotify where the fees paid to labels and artists are well below the cheapest subs on SS !
on the other side there's easy money to be made if you're a young DJ, at least for a while because soon it will be saturated and prices will hit rock bottom, it cant last long, and it's crazy that a Tiesto guy can command as much as 200K $ per night in Vegas or Miami and make 20 millions per year making his crowd of pill eaters dance for a couple hours.
but at least they can DJ, what photographers can do instead ? selling prints on the street ?
there's no equivalent to gigs for phographers, photos are "consumed" the moment they're seen, they dont last a few minutes, they dont make you dance.
if you ask me if it's wise to join the stock industry today i will tell you YES but as long as you can produce quantity rather than focus too much on perfection.
your enemy in micro is not quality or QC or whatever, it's how big is your portfolio and how much you can grow it along time to "feed the beast", if you can feed it you're in busines, if you can't your bound to leave the industry sooner or later.
i mean anything can be monetized nowadays, there's people selling any sort of sh-it on RedBubble and other PoD sites .. but to make a living you need a LOT of things on sale, how it will cost you and how long it will takes that's the core issue, but the possibilities are there, i even know people selling on eBay full time and others printing t-shirts for tourists, if they can do it we can probably do it too but there are many ways to skin a cat.
-
Tiesto is Dutch, the Dutch are entrepreneurial people, we make money from everything. Goes back to the days where we ruled world trade. But along the way we made a few bad deals that caused us to play second fiddle now. If we hadnt been greedy, the USA would have spoken Dutch. Almost sounds like micro vs macro.
-
Again with this? Really? Microstock has a long, long way to go yet. Not for everyone but that's business. I believe there is still potential for huge growth in emerging markets and media forms and I plan to be a part of it.
-
Yuri does not dictate the microstock market, he is a respected photographer but in no way does he change the market.
-
The person who stuck a minus on my comment needs to buy a few history books from his earnings, LOL :D
-
I've sort of flicked through this thread trying to get the gist of it.
Do I understand aright, that I have to get my quality standards back to my 2004 level in order to meet customers' post-Yuri expectations of microstock quality?
The trouble is, I've forgotten exactly how I did it back then, though I do recall that most of the lighting involved an angle-poise lamp and a sodium bulb (can you even get sodium bulbs these days?).