Author Topic: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive (Read 147216 times)

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #300 on:** May 21, 2013, 06:19 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 21, 2013, 06:10

I don't get how Yuri was feeling the pinch earning millions a year? He was doing great, unless he made it all up for that magazine article recently? This is just a way for him to make even more money. That's his choice, I'm sure we all have a price to sell out to Getty

LOL, he is staffing 100 people. He said himself micros where not enough compensation for the overhead he has on the books. Its somewhere on page 1-3 of this thread.

aspp · « **Reply #301 on:** May 21, 2013, 06:22 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 21, 2013, 06:10

That's his choice, I'm sure we all have a price to sell out to Getty


Agent Smith and Cypher

eclaire · « **Reply #302 on:** May 21, 2013, 06:29 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 21, 2013, 06:10

I don't get how Yuri was feeling the pinch earning millions a year? He was doing great, unless he made it all up for that magazine article recently? This is just a way for him to make even more money. That's his choice, I'm sure we all have a price to sell out to Getty

I'm sure he did/does well but revenue and profit is not the same, so maybe he did not that wonderful well as we all thought because of his 'good marketing'.

gostwyck · « **Reply #303 on:** May 21, 2013, 06:33 »

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 21, 2013, 06:19

Quote from: sharpshot on May 21, 2013, 06:10
I don't get how Yuri was feeling the pinch earning millions a year? He was doing great, unless he made it all up for that magazine article recently? This is just a way for him to make even more money. That's his choice, I'm sure we all have a price to sell out to Getty
LOL, he is staffing 100 people. He said himself micros where not enough compensation for the overhead he has on the books. Its somewhere on page 1-3 of this thread.

Classic example of the old adage "Sales are vanity, profit is sanity".

loop · « **Reply #304 on:** May 21, 2013, 06:54 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 21, 2013, 05:45

Quote from: loop on May 21, 2013, 05:26
Quote from: sharpshot on May 21, 2013, 03:28
Quote from: Xanox on May 21, 2013, 00:19
Quote from: Travelling-light on May 20, 2013, 23:17
Micro is all about quick and easy files that can sell in large quantities, and this is especially true for sub sites.
Anything that's been time consuming or expensive to produce can go elsewhere.

fully agree.
the future of micro is ALL about subs and SS is the living proof of that.
How many times do you need to be told that SS isn't a subs site? It was almost all subs 5 years ago but things have changed. Shame your opinions are still so outdated.

It is, in my view. Subs sites are the sites that offer cheap subs, no matter if they also offer single downloads or other options. DT, Fotolia, SS etc

You can thumb your nose at the 'sub sites' all you like but I can assure you that your disappearing sales from IS are reappearing on those very same sites, mainly SS.

Last month on SS my earnings were 45% from subs and 55% from OD's, EL's, etc. So far this month subs are only 42% of earnings.

Funnily enough, as an independent contributor on IS whose port was forced over to TS, TS subs are roughly 50% of my non-sub earnings at IS itself. I reckon TS is now the second biggest agency for 'sub' sales alone.

Where did I say that I have "dissapearing sales"? I've been here for many years and I'm on the rise moneywise, I even had my BDE recently. And TS is optative for exclusives. Don't make up things.

rubyroo · « **Reply #305 on:** May 21, 2013, 07:17 »

It's precisely because of the extent of Yuri's overheads that I fail to see why he is revered as the fount of all wisdom when it comes to microstock, or the person whose finger is most 'on the pulse'.

Be careful of hero-worship young ones and noobs. All humans are fallible. Look to your own ports and progress to take your measurements and don't follow blindly into unknown territory. The guy at the front doesn't know what's over the next hill either.

falstafff · « **Reply #306 on:** May 21, 2013, 07:45 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 21, 2013, 06:18

Quote from: falstafff on May 21, 2013, 05:18
Quote from: Travelling-light on May 20, 2013, 23:17
Quote from: SNP on May 20, 2013, 20:22
Offset is interesting, and has a more editorial feel than what is being discussed. I don't see it being high end or even stock photography primarily. Shutterstock is an intriguing company. It's the one agency I'm really on the fence about. I have argued myself onto both sides. The price per download is so little that it really does feel like an insult when you've been 'raised' in another agency. But, there are a lot of really good shooters out there who make great money on Shutterstock. They have good contributor relations, reaching out by phone and email. I also like what I know of Jon Oringer. But it's not like that matters, except that he is a photographer first and still runs the company. Right now my 500 or so images are all opted out. I'm reluctant to completely close my account at SS though until I've made a concrete decision about whether it's worth it or not. If I do continue to contribute to SS, it will probably be the only sub site I contribute to (other than iStock).

anyways, I heard from someone with more experience with SS. they have me rethinking the decision to stay on SS.

Am I correct that Shutterstock doesn't farm images out like istock does to programs and subsidiary sites? Or do they?

You don't have to put everything on all the sites.
As Gostwyck has said many times, Micro is all about quick and easy files that can sell in large quantities, and this is especially true for sub sites.
Anything that's been time consuming or expensive to produce can go elsewhere.

Sometimes I find conversations a bit funny. Seems to me many consider it weird and strange almost Bizarre to spend time and money on a shoot. Why is that? "micro is all about quick and easy files selling in large quantities". Sure it is but its also a sad fact that its come to that. Scraping the bottom of the barrel that is.

If thats all we can produce no wonder we get crappy buyers for crappy pics. Thats really what we are saying or thinking is it not.
You can spend $500 on one photo, if it makes $700, that's a nice profit. It's not that difficult to do with microstock but its much easier to spend $1 and make $200. And I don't agree that low budget images have to be "crappy". People can produce crap at any price point.

Agree. Although its not very often you spend 1$ and in one single micro sale get 200$ in return. Its not crappy and thats my whole point but we make it sound crappy and cheap. The way we word it, "cheap pics", "quick and easy", etc. We tend to use a sort of downgrading vocabulary about what we are doing.
People, buyers read that.

pro@stockphotos · « **Reply #307 on:** May 21, 2013, 09:30 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 21, 2013, 06:10

I don't get how Yuri was feeling the pinch earning millions a year? He was doing great, unless he made it all up for that magazine article recently? This is just a way for him to make even more money. That's his choice, I'm sure we all have a price to sell out to Getty

NO ONE contributor or "house" matches Yuri in quality or production. He is alone. He is michael jordan of the NBA. I have an email from him a few years ago stating that I was correct in commenting on the low payouts from SS and the like. He asked me not to reveal this at the time but he was not happy.

So, this smacks the indies on here and the exclusives on here because the "not all eggs in one basket" ideal does not compute financially. Yuri has the most sales possible and it is not working for him. It also says that supporting competition makes prices paid to suppliers less. This rule never sleeps. If I was Yuri, I would have been pissed that Jon made 400 million dollars by undercutting the market place with largely my help.

If Yuri had avoided SS would it had made a dent and told others to avoid it too. IS would have been stronger. Basically, if you match Yuri in sales and production you to can live by different rules. It's not like IS has been fair from the begining. Lise was chosen to by the face of IS and those sales were made by a team. Who knows what help she received. There is a natural progression to the top and then there are these warp speed jumps.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #308 on:** May 21, 2013, 09:31 »

if he is having problems which I doubt maybe its time to fire everybody, don't believe he made contracts for eternity

I can feel pity for all microstockers just not Yuri, not for the person who says it is the number 1 every time and everywhere and as many time as possible, believe we don't need to worry about him

rubyroo · « **Reply #309 on:** May 21, 2013, 09:39 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos link=topic=19377.msg318294#msg318294

the "not all eggs in one basket" ideal does not compute financially.

....for Yuri.

Pixart · « **Reply #310 on:** May 21, 2013, 09:42 »

So, if the "World's No. 1 Selling Microstock Photographer" is no longer in micro, who will take this title? Of will his sales at IS alone maintain this title?

gbalex · « **Reply #311 on:** May 21, 2013, 09:52 »

Quote from: SNP on May 20, 2013, 20:22

Offset is interesting, and has a more editorial feel than what is being discussed. I don't see it being high end or even stock photography primarily. Shutterstock is an intriguing company. It's the one agency I'm really on the fence about. I have argued myself onto both sides. The price per download is so little that it really does feel like an insult when you've been 'raised' in another agency. But, there are a lot of really good shooters out there who make great money on Shutterstock. They have good contributor relations, reaching out by phone and email. I also like what I know of Jon Oringer. But it's not like that matters, except that he is a photographer first and still runs the company. Right now my 500 or so images are all opted out. I'm reluctant to completely close my account at SS though until I've made a concrete decision about whether it's worth it or not. If I do continue to contribute to SS, it will probably be the only sub site I contribute to (other than iStock).

anyways, I heard from someone with more experience with SS. they have me rethinking the decision to stay on SS.

Am I correct that Shutterstock doesn't farm images out like istock does to programs and subsidiary sites? Or do they?

Jon is a computer programmer first and a photographer based on the need to fill his new web application with content/images. He has a B.S., Computer Science 1997 and B.S. Mathematics 1997

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-129013864.html

http://www.list-company.com/company-info/4028809a13dd74c80113ddb25c1c7e71/SurfSecret-LLC-Programming-Daily-Software-Florida-USA.shtml

Xanox · « **Reply #312 on:** May 21, 2013, 10:03 »

Quote from: gbalex on May 21, 2013, 09:52

Jon is a computer programmer first and a photographer based on the need to fill his new web application with content/images. He has a B.S., Computer Science 1997 and B.S. Mathematics 1997

he might be a photographer but he'll go down in history as the photographer who killed the value of stock photography thanks to his bulk subs deals.

seriously, who's worse ? getty acting as a monopoly or SS selling images for 0.30$ ?

kudos to his coding and entrepreneurial skills but i see no reason to see him as a positive figure in our industry, SS is nothing but the Walmart of stock.

ShadySue · « **Reply #313 on:** May 21, 2013, 10:08 »

Quote from: Xanox on May 21, 2013, 10:03

SS is nothing but the Walmart of stock.

Getty is following suit, with people reporting batches of 25c GI sales from April. That might be the new thingy that I didn't understand, but no explanation has been forthcoming, as there never has been for the sub-$5 payments.

tickstock · « **Reply #314 on:** May 21, 2013, 10:09 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 21, 2013, 10:08

Quote from: Xanox on May 21, 2013, 10:03
SS is nothing but the Walmart of stock.
Getty is following suit, with people reporting batches of 25c GI sales from April. That might be the new thingy that I didn't understand, but no explanation has been forthcoming, as there never has been for the sub-$5 payments.

The sub $5 payments were explained.

ETA: My E+ files on Getty are priced at $15 for the smallest size so I would expect $3 per sale for those.

ShadySue · « **Reply #315 on:** May 21, 2013, 10:10 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 21, 2013, 10:09

Quote from: ShadySue on May 21, 2013, 10:08
Quote from: Xanox on May 21, 2013, 10:03
SS is nothing but the Walmart of stock.
Getty is following suit, with people reporting batches of 25c GI sales from April. That might be the new thingy that I didn't understand, but no explanation has been forthcoming, as there never has been for the sub-$5 payments.
The sub $5 payments were explained.

As?

tickstock · « **Reply #316 on:** May 21, 2013, 10:16 »

I think it was small sized images used for one day or something similar but a small E+ sale on Getty should get you $3 if there is no discount.

Xanox · « **Reply #317 on:** May 21, 2013, 10:17 »

yeah but these are exceptions, Getty is not the business or selling subs as a core business.

how big is the market for subs ? SS made 160 millions in revenues last year, 50% of that from subs probably, that's 80 millions, not a big deal considering the whole stock market is said to be worth 5-6 billion $.

ShadySue · « **Reply #318 on:** May 21, 2013, 10:18 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 21, 2013, 10:16

I think it was small sized images used for one day or something similar but a small E+ sale on Getty should get you $3 if there is no discount.

Oh yes, I remember the 'used for one day' thing now. Tx. A sort-of cheap RM use.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #319 on:** May 21, 2013, 10:32 »

I was wondering my my IS balance jumped by $.50 . Sweet! Two GI sales, lol. Now I can get that cup of coffee.

topol · « **Reply #320 on:** May 21, 2013, 11:06 »

Quote from: Xanox on May 21, 2013, 10:03

he might be a photographer but he'll go down in history as the photographer who killed the value of stock photography thanks to his bulk subs deals.

seriously, who's worse ? getty acting as a monopoly or SS selling images for 0.30$ ?

kudos to his coding and entrepreneurial skills but i see no reason to see him as a positive figure in our industry, SS is nothing but the Walmart of stock.

I got the lowest ever comissions, 9-7 cents from the getty/istock crooks... and getty is into nanopayment now, with that 'connect' junk - which actually is the final rock bottom everyone feared they will hit: the ad-space revenue model. Getty is the worst by far.

loop · « **Reply #321 on:** May 21, 2013, 11:12 »

Quote from: topol on May 21, 2013, 11:06

Quote from: Xanox on May 21, 2013, 10:03
he might be a photographer but he'll go down in history as the photographer who killed the value of stock photography thanks to his bulk subs deals.

seriously, who's worse ? getty acting as a monopoly or SS selling images for 0.30$ ?

kudos to his coding and entrepreneurial skills but i see no reason to see him as a positive figure in our industry, SS is nothing but the Walmart of stock.

I got the lowest ever comissions, 9-7 cents from the getty/istock crooks... and getty is into nanopayment now, with that 'connect' junk - which actually is the final rock bottom everyone feared they will hit: the ad-space revenue model. Getty is the worst by far.

Fair or unfair, Connect is not for selling photos, just for showing them.

gclk · « **Reply #322 on:** May 21, 2013, 11:32 »

Quote from: loop on May 21, 2013, 11:12

Quote from: topol on May 21, 2013, 11:06
Quote from: Xanox on May 21, 2013, 10:03
he might be a photographer but he'll go down in history as the photographer who killed the value of stock photography thanks to his bulk subs deals.

seriously, who's worse ? getty acting as a monopoly or SS selling images for 0.30$ ?

kudos to his coding and entrepreneurial skills but i see no reason to see him as a positive figure in our industry, SS is nothing but the Walmart of stock.

I got the lowest ever comissions, 9-7 cents from the getty/istock crooks... and getty is into nanopayment now, with that 'connect' junk - which actually is the final rock bottom everyone feared they will hit: the ad-space revenue model. Getty is the worst by far.

Fair or unfair, Connect is not for selling photos, just for showing them.

Maybe, but if the best we're going to get is (literally) a few pennies, at an unknown royalty %ge, I'd prefer to disConnect.

gbalex · « **Reply #323 on:** May 21, 2013, 11:40 »

Quote from: Xanox on May 21, 2013, 10:03

Quote from: gbalex on May 21, 2013, 09:52
Jon is a computer programmer first and a photographer based on the need to fill his new web application with content/images. He has a B.S., Computer Science 1997 and B.S. Mathematics 1997

he might be a photographer but he'll go down in history as the photographer who killed the value of stock photography thanks to his bulk subs deals.

seriously, who's worse ? getty acting as a monopoly or SS selling images for 0.30$ ?

kudos to his coding and entrepreneurial skills but i see no reason to see him as a positive figure in our industry, SS is nothing but the Walmart of stock.

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t241347-looking-for-licenses-to-redistribute-stock-photog.html

ShadySue · « **Reply #324 on:** May 21, 2013, 11:52 »

Quote from: gbalex on May 21, 2013, 11:40

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t241347-looking-for-licenses-to-redistribute-stock-photog.html

He's got a big hole to fill.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive (Read 147216 times)

Poncke v2

aspp

eclaire

gostwyck

loop

rubyroo

falstafff

pro@stockphotos

luissantos84

rubyroo

Pixart

gbalex

Xanox

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

Xanox

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

topol

loop

gclk

gbalex

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors