Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 24, 2014, 18:36

Quote from: ShadySue on October 24, 2014, 18:23

And, BTW, �The average price for one of my photo shoots is around $4,000,� Arcurs said. �But on a $4,000 shoot, we�re currently looking at about three years to see a return of investment.�
http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography

That's way too long. I seem to remember him talking a couple of years back about microstock becoming unsustainable because it could take several months - maybe six, I'm not sure -  to recoup shooting costs.  If current sales suggest four years to recoup costs, within another couple of years that might have stretched out to eight years, it's an elastic calculation and I don't see how you can run a business with that sort of uncertainty on recouping costs... you've also got to look at the potential interest you lose (or have to pay, if borrowing to pay for shoots) by having your money tied up for that time.

3 or 4 years to see profit is tough in microstock.  That's about when my images start to decline in sales and sink in searches.   I am tempted to think his claims are exaggerated as a marketing ploy.  In fact, I take most everything Yuri says publicly as a marketing strategy.  No disrespect.  If I had half his marketing ability I would probably make twice what I do.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 25, 2014, 06:13

Looking at IS, his latest work includes looks of images of arrows on white and about 500 similar and near duplicate mages of a pretty blonde model topless and in a towel and in active wear on white.  I'm not sure how hard to reproduce that is.

It looks as if he has responded to the difficulty of recouping shooting costs by switching to simple vectors and isolated-on-white, which makes sense. It's what microstock should be, really.