Author Topic: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive (Read 147383 times)

JPSDK · « **Reply #350 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:19 »

Both yuri and his father. Jacob Wackerhausen and Steen Waskerhousen are real. They can easily be googled.

There is an amazing amount of speculations and hear say in this thread.
And not so many facts.

as for all eggs in one basket?
It is noticable that Yuri actively moves content from non exclusive into exclusivity.

Last time I heard a Danish microstocker do that, was because he stopped doing micro and let micro be one egg in the basket while he persued other income streams.

If Yuris move has any significance in the microstock market, in my opinion it would be that... People are becoming a lot more critical as to where they distribute their content and they shut down portefolios at places that are not cost/ benificial or directly annoying to work with. It is not just "upload to them all" anymore. And thats a good thing.

JPSDK · « **Reply #351 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:30 »

Then there are people here that keep blaming the subscription models for the loss of possibility to earn a living from stock.

we hear: You might as well flap burgers or 25 cents is too cheap.
we have heard it so many times.

But these guys (mostly one) have completely misunderstood what is happening.

Simply... digital globalization. Wages, costs, and distribution is being globalized.
Burgers can not be distributed cost free through a digital network, so prizes on burger flapper wages are determined locally.
Things that can be distributed and aquired digitally are now being priced after global supply and demand. And it will not end until all wages are the same all around the globe.

So it is not the subscription model, but global aquisition and distribution of content that caused the traditional "fenced in" stock market to decline.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #352 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:31 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 21, 2013, 23:47

Another quite worrying thought. Maybe Yuri have heard or know something about the future of SS that we do not know? visiting their own forum its quite clear something is not right and have not been for many months. Many people are truly unhappy.

Its also very true as one poster points out. Many of these prominent members and special portfolios have been looking in to exclusivity for some years now but probably halted by the ongoing IS-Getty troubles. You do not have to go to the heights of Yuri to see this brewing its just enough to watch some other smaller stock-suppliers move and break away.

And SS is still dealing with an influx of ex- IS exclusives. So what does that say?

It all balances each other out in the end. The only thing that happened is that there is a tiny shuffle in the two libraries. I know Sean doenst want to sell his stuff for cents, but he should go talk to SS to get his portfolio on there. Complete the circle that started back in February.

falstafff · « **Reply #353 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:45 »

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 22, 2013, 01:31

Quote from: falstafff on May 21, 2013, 23:47
Another quite worrying thought. Maybe Yuri have heard or know something about the future of SS that we do not know? visiting their own forum its quite clear something is not right and have not been for many months. Many people are truly unhappy.

Its also very true as one poster points out. Many of these prominent members and special portfolios have been looking in to exclusivity for some years now but probably halted by the ongoing IS-Getty troubles. You do not have to go to the heights of Yuri to see this brewing its just enough to watch some other smaller stock-suppliers move and break away.
And SS is still dealing with an influx of ex- IS exclusives. So what does that say?

It all balances each other out in the end. The only thing that happened is that there is a tiny shuffle in the two libraries. I know Sean doenst want to sell his stuff for cents, but he should go talk to SS to get his portfolio on there. Complete the circle that started back in February.

With his experience why should he trust SS more then IS or any other for that matter? for all you know you might be asking him for a jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
Life in our world is not so green anymore. Nowhere.

eclaire · « **Reply #354 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:51 »

Quote from: JPSDK on May 22, 2013, 01:19

Both yuri and his father. Jacob Wackerhausen and Steen Waskerhousen are real. They can easily be googled.

There is an amazing amount of speculations and hear say in this thread.
And not so many facts.

as for all eggs in one basket?
It is noticable that Yuri actively moves content from non exclusive into exclusivity.

Last time I heard a Danish microstocker do that, was because he stopped doing micro and let micro be one egg in the basket while he persued other income streams.

If Yuris move has any significance in the microstock market, in my opinion it would be that... People are becoming a lot more critical as to where they distribute their content and they shut down portefolios at places that are not cost/ benificial or directly annoying to work with. It is not just "upload to them all" anymore. And thats a good thing.

Nobody said they aren't real, it was just about a post in green big letters on the SS forum that led to some uncertainty if the poster is really his father. My personal estimation for him was also 3000-4000 downloads on a working day that leads to around 60.000$ a month and to around 200.000$ overall revenue per month assuming that SS was a little less than a third of his income stream.

Who was this? (the Danish microstocker)

I see this as a good thing too!

JPSDK · « **Reply #355 on:** May 22, 2013, 02:29 »

Noone famous.

sharpshot · « **Reply #356 on:** May 22, 2013, 02:40 »

I don't like how SS seem to get blamed for low priced subs when they were raising the prices every year until other sites stopped them. Why would SS increase their $0.38 commission when several sites were paying $0.25? I think subs commissions were heading much higher but now were stuck until the sites have decided they can't get any more buyers and see how much they can raise prices. It would be hard for SS to raise prices first when they pay many of us the highest subs commission. There was a tiny commission raise from Thinkstock but $0.28 is still a lot less than $0.38.

eclaire · « **Reply #357 on:** May 22, 2013, 03:01 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 22, 2013, 02:40

I don't like how SS seem to get blamed for low priced subs when they were raising the prices every year until other sites stopped them. Why would SS increase their $0.38 commission when several sites were paying $0.25? I think subs commissions were heading much higher but now were stuck until the sites have decided they can't get any more buyers and see how much they can raise prices. It would be hard for SS to raise prices first when they pay many of us the highest subs commission. There was a tiny commission raise from Thinkstock but $0.28 is still a lot less than $0.38.

subs have never been a good idea but they are here and now we have to deal with them. Subs have been introduced on other sites because of the success of SS so one can blame SS but I wouldn't.

gbalex · « **Reply #358 on:** May 22, 2013, 03:08 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 22, 2013, 02:40

I don't like how SS seem to get blamed for low priced subs when they were raising the prices every year until other sites stopped them. Why would SS increase their $0.38 commission when several sites were paying $0.25? I think subs commissions were heading much higher but now were stuck until the sites have decided they can't get any more buyers and see how much they can raise prices. It would be hard for SS to raise prices first when they pay many of us the highest subs commission. There was a tiny commission raise from Thinkstock but $0.28 is still a lot less than $0.38.

SS has been steadily growing and gaining market share despite paying .38. They could have raised prices and continued the upward trend because submitters who are also buyers respected and trusted them. I would say that trust has been shaken recently based on their actions. Traffic is dropping at SS and rising at other ms sites, how much of this is because of those actions remains to be seen.

loop · « **Reply #359 on:** May 22, 2013, 11:25 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 22, 2013, 02:40

I don't like how SS seem to get blamed for low priced subs when they were raising the prices every year until other sites stopped them. Why would SS increase their $0.38 commission when several sites were paying $0.25? I think subs commissions were heading much higher but now were stuck until the sites have decided they can't get any more buyers and see how much they can raise prices. It would be hard for SS to raise prices first when they pay many of us the highest subs commission. There was a tiny commission raise from Thinkstock but $0.28 is still a lot less than $0.38.

SS could perfectly rise prices because they have more files than anyone and they have the prestige and the trust of their customers and, even if doubling subscription prices they would go on being insanely cheap for buyers. Raising prices is something that just industry leaders can do, and SS is one of them. Prices and comissions ar not the same, btw.

tickstock · « **Reply #360 on:** May 22, 2013, 11:47 »

Quote from: loop on May 22, 2013, 11:25

Quote from: sharpshot on May 22, 2013, 02:40
I don't like how SS seem to get blamed for low priced subs when they were raising the prices every year until other sites stopped them. Why would SS increase their $0.38 commission when several sites were paying $0.25? I think subs commissions were heading much higher but now were stuck until the sites have decided they can't get any more buyers and see how much they can raise prices. It would be hard for SS to raise prices first when they pay many of us the highest subs commission. There was a tiny commission raise from Thinkstock but $0.28 is still a lot less than $0.38.

SS could perfectly rise prices because they have more files than anyone and they have the prestige and the trust of their customers and, even if doubling subscription prices they would go on being insanely cheap for buyers. Raising prices is something that just industry leaders can do, and SS is one of them. Prices and comissions ar not the same, btw.

Shutterstock has raised some prices. They charge $400 for some single sales (apparently down to a few dollars for some sales), you know the ones where no one knows what the license allows. It's for sensitive use but most buyers don't even use that, right?
Also Thinkstock subs for exclusives start at the highest level that Shutterstock has, I doubt that's a coincidence. If Shutterstock were to raise their royalty rates others would be forced to follow, now Thinkstock can pay almost nothing and still be better than Shutterstock.

loop · « **Reply #361 on:** May 22, 2013, 11:50 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 22, 2013, 11:47

Quote from: loop on May 22, 2013, 11:25
Quote from: sharpshot on May 22, 2013, 02:40
I don't like how SS seem to get blamed for low priced subs when they were raising the prices every year until other sites stopped them. Why would SS increase their $0.38 commission when several sites were paying $0.25? I think subs commissions were heading much higher but now were stuck until the sites have decided they can't get any more buyers and see how much they can raise prices. It would be hard for SS to raise prices first when they pay many of us the highest subs commission. There was a tiny commission raise from Thinkstock but $0.28 is still a lot less than $0.38.

SS could perfectly rise prices because they have more files than anyone and they have the prestige and the trust of their customers and, even if doubling subscription prices they would go on being insanely cheap for buyers. Raising prices is something that just industry leaders can do, and SS is one of them. Prices and comissions ar not the same, btw.
Shutterstock has raised some prices. They charge $400 for some single sales, you know the ones where no one knows what the license allows. It's for sensitive use but most buyers don't even use that, right?

Of course, I know. But I meant the standard cheaper sub license.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #362 on:** May 22, 2013, 12:52 »

Hi All,

The speculation here is all over the board but I will just offer my own feelings if I was in Yuri's shoes. Move all my content to Istock and retire. If you do the math ( you all make money at this ) just add up how many images he has and how well they sell and the numbers are off the hook. Whatever he paid his team to produce was paid for out of past returns over the years of production so he is clean to shut down and make his retirement money off the sales of 100,000 images. If I was Yuri I would shut down and move onto something new. Quitting while you are ahead is not quitting it is smart, but that is an older guy talking who just wants to smell the roses for a few years

My 2 cents

Best,
Jonathan

jjneff · « **Reply #363 on:** May 22, 2013, 12:57 »

I agree! I would cut all the staff and overhead and just go shoot what I feel like on any given day. Oh heck that is what I do :-)

Xanox · « **Reply #364 on:** May 22, 2013, 13:59 »

Quote from: eclaire on May 22, 2013, 03:01

Why would SS increase their $0.38 commission when several sites were paying $0.25?

SS now is on Nasdaq, it's a public company, their mission now is not to survive but to GROW over time, that is making profits for their shareholders.

in order to so, either they grow their customer base or they cut costs or both.

simple as that.

where in this equation do you see any space for raising fees to photographers ?

nowhere, as the growth in buyers will be achieved by massive and aggressive investments in marketing and this leave photographers completely out of the scenario as there is no correlation between how many contributors and images you have and you sell and how many buyers you're able to supply and to keep under your wing.

now, how much profit exactly ? at the moment they claim to have a net profit of 28% which is huge for a Nasdaq company.

and it aint go on like this forever, this is not normal, and this is not sustainable.
in a normal scenario SS will stick with a 10-20% net profit and be happy with that.

of course they could push things even further and reach a 40-50% net profit .. that would mean cutting costs to the bone and paying us a pittance ... say 0.10$ per image or less.

it's doable, they've nothing to lose, in the worst scenario the insiders will sell their shares and bye bye ...

now again, where do photographer fit into this scenario ? NOWHERE !
we're the very last ones in the food chain.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #365 on:** May 22, 2013, 14:01 »

Quote from: jjneff on May 22, 2013, 12:57

I agree! I would cut all the staff and overhead and just go shoot what I feel like on any given day. Oh heck that is what I do :-)

Same here !

Xanox · « **Reply #366 on:** May 22, 2013, 14:07 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 22, 2013, 02:40

Why would SS increase their $0.38 commission when several sites were paying $0.25?

Apple and Amazon make billions selling digital products from which you keep 50-70% of a sale.

Stock photography instead is one of the only industries where the distributor gives you as low as 15% of a sale.

And on top of this, some of the market leaders had the guts to claim this model is financially "unsustainable".

THIS is the market we're in, guys !

Xanox · « **Reply #367 on:** May 22, 2013, 14:16 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on May 22, 2013, 12:52

Hi All,

The speculation here is all over the board but I will just offer my own feelings if I was in Yuri's shoes. Move all my content to Istock and retire. If you do the math ( you all make money at this ) just add up how many images he has and how well they sell and the numbers are off the hook. Whatever he paid his team to produce was paid for out of past returns over the years of production so he is clean to shut down and make his retirement money off the sales of 100,000 images. If I was Yuri I would shut down and move onto something new. Quitting while you are ahead is not quitting it is smart, but that is an older guy talking who just wants to smell the roses for a few years My 2 cents

he's still relatively young and ambitious, why should he stop now ?
makes no sense.

besides, he certainly agreed with Getty to provide a minimum number of new images per month.
as far as i know it's the norm for other agencies under getty.

his new agency is his "baby", why should he get bored seeing it grow to new heights ?
maybe in 10 yrs from now, but not now.

many here fail to realize Yuri so far was the only microstocker really "thinking BIG".
that's why he's not happy with what he achieved in micros and the new getty deal is just the start of the next step.

and he's not stopping there, he's got all the skills and the qualifications to become a serious player in the stock industry as a major agency in the future.

it's ridicolous that most of the guys posting here are completely missing the whole logic on this.
Yuri wanted to succeed from the start and he had the skills to do it, no matter if on micro or macro or whatever, that's not the point.

he's the bread winner and you guys are the losers, that's the moral of the story, no matter if this discussion goes on for 50 more pages.

falstafff · « **Reply #368 on:** May 22, 2013, 14:16 »

I also heard he had bought himself a 50% stake in Danish Lego and thats a giant corporation. Well if I ever meet him I have to treat him to a portion of genuine Fleskestek.

loop · « **Reply #369 on:** May 22, 2013, 14:27 »

"he's the bread winner and you guys are the losers, that's the moral of the story, no matter if this discussion goes on for 50 more pages"
(XANOX)

Losers tend to whine and complain instead of looking ahead and trying new things. You have been complaining and whining every day for about eigth or ten years now. Go on.

eclaire · « **Reply #370 on:** May 22, 2013, 14:36 »

yes it's true he moved to Legoland

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #371 on:** May 22, 2013, 14:55 »

I heard he was the original model for the Lego man.

w7lwi · « **Reply #372 on:** May 22, 2013, 15:04 »

Quote from: Xanox on May 22, 2013, 13:59

SS now is on Nasdaq, it's a public company, their mission now is not to survive but to GROW over time, that is making profits for their shareholders.

in order to so, either they grow their customer base or they cut costs or both.

Actually SS is on the NYSE, not NASDAQ and a third option is to somehow figure out a way to increase prices. Apart from that, you've pretty well hit their dilemma. Their stock took a fairly hard hit today. Even at that the stock is still at 47 times future earnings and 9 times sales. Over priced in my estimation. I sold my IPO shares when they went above $43. If they fall back to the upper $20's or low $30's I'll consider buying again.

aspp · « **Reply #373 on:** May 22, 2013, 16:58 »

Quote from: w7lwi on May 22, 2013, 15:04

Quote from: Xanox on May 22, 2013, 13:59

SS now is on Nasdaq, it's a public company, their mission now is not to survive but to GROW over time, that is making profits for their shareholders.

in order to so, either they grow their customer base or they cut costs or both.

Actually SS is on the NYSE, not NASDAQ and a third option is to somehow figure out a way to increase prices. Apart from that, you've pretty well hit their dilemma. Their stock took a fairly hard hit today. Even at that the stock is still at 47 times future earnings and 9 times sales. Over priced in my estimation. I sold my IPO shares when they went above $43. If they fall back to the upper $20's or low $30's I'll consider buying again.

The whole market seems over priced. Lots of people still think it has a way to go yet !

I cannot see them growing the microstock market which is being eaten into especially by shared social media content. Many small and even many larger businesses and groups are abandoning their websites in favor of social media. And cheap junk print marketing is dying. I could see them buying and consolidating other agencies in order to try to expand their share especially outside of the US. Sooner or later Thinkstock is going to be a challenge.

Maybe they will go into a completely different business.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #374 on:** May 22, 2013, 17:28 »

Quote from: aspp on May 22, 2013, 16:58

Quote from: w7lwi on May 22, 2013, 15:04
Quote from: Xanox on May 22, 2013, 13:59

SS now is on Nasdaq, it's a public company, their mission now is not to survive but to GROW over time, that is making profits for their shareholders.

in order to so, either they grow their customer base or they cut costs or both.

Actually SS is on the NYSE, not NASDAQ and a third option is to somehow figure out a way to increase prices. Apart from that, you've pretty well hit their dilemma. Their stock took a fairly hard hit today. Even at that the stock is still at 47 times future earnings and 9 times sales. Over priced in my estimation. I sold my IPO shares when they went above $43. If they fall back to the upper $20's or low $30's I'll consider buying again.

The whole market seems over priced. Lots of people still think it has a way to go yet !

I cannot see them growing the microstock market which is being eaten into especially by shared social media content. Many small and even many larger businesses and groups are abandoning their websites in favor of social media. And cheap junk print marketing is dying. I could see them buying and consolidating other agencies in order to try to expand their share especially outside of the US. Sooner or later Thinkstock is going to be a challenge.

Maybe they will go into a completely different business.

I was assuming that was IS reason for removing upload limits - so they had the content to compete with SS.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive (Read 147383 times)

JPSDK

JPSDK

Poncke v2

falstafff

eclaire

JPSDK

sharpshot

eclaire

gbalex

loop

tickstock

loop

Jonathan Ross

jjneff

Xanox

Poncke v2

Xanox

Xanox

falstafff

loop

eclaire

fotoVoyager

w7lwi

aspp

Travelling-light

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors