Author Topic: PeopleImages.com - 3mth Considerations. (Read 38826 times)

Yuri_Arcurs · « **on:** August 09, 2012, 05:21 »

Last three months:
I have spent my time completely rewriting peopleimages.com's landing, checkout, image view and sign-up pages (based on the user feedback we received during the first month). These are the cornerstones of a website so they take a little time to complete.
The good news: The website is fast, customers are surprisingly happy and uptime as been 100% since we launched.

Uploading.
DT: We see the biggest drop in income from Dreamstime primarily because of the upload limit they impose. It is hard to quite understand why an agency would put an upload limit on it's top content providers. DT is getting images that are quite old while the other sites have the most recent and fresh content. Of course this matters and as we can see on their Alexa rank, new agencies like DepositPhotos will probably overtake them in rank in the upcoming years.
iStock: We have a serious problem with their commissions and upload limits for non-exclusives. We stopped uploading primarily based on that. We are still in doubt off what to do here.
Shutterstock: When commissions became public due to Shutterstock's IPO they where staggering low. The net payout to the contributors was surprisingly below 20%. I like Jon a lot, but it's time for a raise!

Income from Micro and PeopleImages.com
The only income we have from a microtock channel that continues to increase is from our own site. The income/file from all microstock agencies we submit images to seem to be shrinking. My income from peopleimages.com is growing slowly but steadily with about 30% per month and sometimes more. It is still low, but not for long at this growth rate. One thing I have noticed, and which I did not know about before, is that a lot of people buy more credit than they spend. Who receives all the money for these credits? Well, the majority of the credits are lost, never spent and forgotten by users. So to my big surprise you don't get a 100% commission rate from having your own site, you actually get closer to 200-300% because you also get to keep the lost credits that nobody uses or just stays on their accounts. A major income that we, as contributors, currently receive no share of through the agencies. But the agencies receive this money only because of our images being on their site. Food for thought!

cobalt · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2012, 05:29 »

Thank you for sharing your experiences. Food for thought indeed! Interesting that SS pays less than 20%, didn´t know that. So with 42 cents for my Partner program subscriptions (thinkstock) I am getting a lot more.

The market has so many players, I wouldn´t be surprised if there was more consolidation ahead of us.

suemack · « **Reply #2 on:** August 09, 2012, 05:44 »

Very interesting, thanks Yuri!

Artist · « **Reply #3 on:** August 09, 2012, 05:52 »

can we sell images/vectors in your site...?
give us fare commision though and allow us to sell in your site

gostwyck · « **Reply #4 on:** August 09, 2012, 06:00 »

Great info. Thanks and take a heart for your trouble!

Microbius · « **Reply #5 on:** August 09, 2012, 06:21 »

Thanks for the breakdown Yuri, mostly stuff we are thinking too but great to hear it from someone with clout.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** August 09, 2012, 06:22 »

Quote from: cgartist on August 09, 2012, 05:52

can we sell images/vectors in your site...?
give us fare commision though and allow us to sell in your site

Sure, you'll get %15 and he keeps all the forgotten credits

.

Interesting info. Perhaps people have forgotten credits heir credits because they decided they aren't satisfied and haven't come back? Although, I don't think in three months you can claim that they have been abandoned. Maybe after a year? Or are you talking about some subscription type credit scheme per week?

Upload limits are good for the majority of contributors, as it keeps factories, like your company, from overwhelming the limited agency resources, as well as giving everyone a chance to prosper. That might be a bit socialist, but whatever. As we say to my daughter, "It's not all about you".

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 09, 2012, 06:35 »

Thanks for sharing your perspective, and especially for pointing out the true commission rate on funds spent rather than sales - I had not really thought about that previously. It really is time for a raise! Hopefully your holdout at iS will cause them to re-evaluate their low commissions for non-exclusives. I would join you in the cause, except if I stop uploading they won't notice - hopefully those of you with clout can get a better deal for us all (although I won't be holding my breath for that!).

Congratulations on the success of your site - it proves that due diligence and hard work can still pay off.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #8 on:** August 09, 2012, 07:16 »

Thanks for sharing Yuri! Good news to see that your site is growing.

Regarding DT: The strategy of this site is IMHO totally counterproductive. Their politics does not make any sense and the quality of their reviews continues to be low. Depositphotos already earns me more money then them since a couple of month and I see a much brighter future for them.

iStock: Decreasing income reported from all sides. Even if I would bother to upload I assume it would only bring me around 10 - 15% of my total income (as it was before I stopped uploading).
Honesty and honor have more value for me than 15% income increase.

Good luck with all your projects!

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #9 on:** August 09, 2012, 07:58 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 09, 2012, 06:22

Quote from: cgartist on August 09, 2012, 05:52
can we sell images/vectors in your site...?
give us fare commision though and allow us to sell in your site

Sure, you'll get %15 and he keeps all the forgotten credits .

Interesting info. Perhaps people have forgotten credits heir credits because they decided they aren't satisfied and haven't come back? Although, I don't think in three months you can claim that they have been abandoned. Maybe after a year? Or are you talking about some subscription type credit scheme per week?

Upload limits are good for the majority of contributors, as it keeps factories, like your company, from overwhelming the limited agency resources, as well as giving everyone a chance to prosper. That might be a bit socialist, but whatever. As we say to my daughter, "It's not all about you".

Sometimes people bite back, and you have been criticizing me endlessly during the last couple of years. So let's look at your arguments, Sean.
Factories like mine feed the mouths of more than 100 people and have internships and educational programs with the purpose of giving back to the community (https://peopleimages.com/more). How many interns do you have? How many mouths are fed from your success besides your own? How much charity do you do, if any? How much do you share, Sean? Give back? In fact, I seem to find quite a lot of posts in here from you advocating "not sharing", keeping costs low, being conservative...I'm not sure the "right" socialist thing is to support the "small guys" like you and not "factories" like mine.
You seem to use popular socialistic "small guy" arguments against me from time to time, but at the same time act and support completely opposite values. Perhaps showing more of your true colors, than that of the "socialist" you claim to be - when appropriate... Your profit margin is way above mine for sure, Sean. What iStock is getting in supporting you is a person that gives little back to the community, shoots cheap because spending money on shoots would be less profitable, and takes the low hanging fruit because they are very accessible while making sure that he gets the biggest piece of the pie for himself.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #10 on:** August 09, 2012, 09:06 »

Be right back. Going to get a more comfortable chair and some popcorn.

Joeboy · « **Reply #11 on:** August 09, 2012, 09:10 »

I have signed up and got an account today as I can no longer sit here and read this absolute crap. Are you honestly trying to tell us that you're doing this for the good of the people?!
You are advertising for talented retouchers that are often paid way below the minimum wage in most developed countries, which makes it funny how you are no longer based in Denmark. You still feel that you are feeding 100s of hungry mouths, however the truth is your feeding your already over inflated ego. No wonder you have 100 plus staff when you are paying peanuts.

You advertise on your site for retouchers at $4.63 per hour! You say you are running these bootcamps to pass on your knowledge on but really you want cheap pictures shot for your own personal gain, you've copied this idea from Simon Cowell and the X Factor and lets face it he's a very charitable guy that is just helping out new talent!
I have nothing against you making a good business, but please do not make out you are the new Mother Teresa.

How do you feel you have the right to question if Sean gives to charity or not? That is personal information, and most people that give to charity don't feel the need to tell others as they are doing it for themselves and there own piece of mind, not to show off to the world.
All he does is question your ego mania and lets face it someone has to.
Lets make this clear before all your disciples slate me - I respect that you have done very well in the micro stock world but just admit you are in it for the money!

cthoman · « **Reply #12 on:** August 09, 2012, 09:29 »

It was definitely eye opening when I opened my own store at how little the big guys were doing for me.

As far as the orphaned credits, I'm not sure I'd brag about that. While I like to make money, I don't really want to do it at the expense of the customer, and credits were always one of those issues that left a sour taste in my mouth as a buyer.

Microbius · « **Reply #13 on:** August 09, 2012, 09:34 »

Pocket stock has started out with a no credit system, maybe some of the big guys will follow?
In any case, I often had credits sitting in my account at IStock, when I bought there, for a few months at a time, so could be that some of those "abandoned" credits will be spent eventually.

thesentinel · « **Reply #14 on:** August 09, 2012, 09:38 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on August 09, 2012, 07:58

Factories like mine feed the mouths of more than 100 people and have internships and educational programs with the purpose of giving back to the community (https://peopleimages.com/more).

What a fascinating read, especially:- "The “Ambition Team” program received a 100,000 USD grant from the Cape Town Film Commission (South African Government) in 2011"

I'm dismayed that the South African tax-payer is apparently subsidising the hubristic manifesto of a wealthy western european business.

eyecandy · « **Reply #15 on:** August 09, 2012, 09:42 »

Wow! Really eye opening. Had no clue Shutterstock paid out so little...

Quote from: Joeboy on August 09, 2012, 09:10

Lets make this clear before all your disciples slate me - I respect that you have done very well in the micro stock world but just admit you are in it for the money!

I don't want to get into all this (because it looks like it's going to get very ugly), but I just have to say one thing though... As far as I know, no one would ever be able to go far with anything, if they didn't like it. I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs was also "in it for the money", but if he didn't like what he was creating, he'd never had made it as far as he did. (Not wanting to compare Yuri to Steve Jobs, but it was the best example I could think of.....) All I'm saying is that I'm sure it's possible to actually like what you're doing and still earn a profit from it while wanting to "give something back" or whatever it's called.

djpadavona · « **Reply #16 on:** August 09, 2012, 09:58 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on August 09, 2012, 05:21

Shutterstock: When commissions became public due to Shutterstock's IPO they where staggering low. The net payout to the contributors was surprisingly below 20%. I like Jon a lot, but it's time for a raise!

I don't want to take the thread off topic, but this is a very important point that you raise Yuri. Shutterstock has told us for years that our percentage was in the 25 to 33 percent range. Now that the numbers are public, it is obvious that we have been quite misled.

Congratulations on PeopleImages. As we have done with Warmpicture, many of us are obviously scrambling for a way to eliminate the need for agencies which bring the industry down, and mistreat artists.

StockBottom · « **Reply #17 on:** August 09, 2012, 10:19 »

Quote from: djpadavona on August 09, 2012, 09:58

I don't want to take the thread off topic, but this is a very important point that you raise Yuri. Shutterstock has told us for years that our percentage was in the 25 to 33 percent range. Now that the numbers are public, it is obvious that we have been quite misled.

Congratulations on PeopleImages. As we have done with Warmpicture, many of us are obviously scrambling for a way to eliminate the need for agencies which bring the industry down, and mistreat artists.

agencies are the market makers, not an idiot "middleman".

if you sell on your own you will need a sales team, and at the end of the day it could cost you more than selling on SS.

look at many companies in the Nasdaq, they spend 100 to produce a 10% net gain on a good year.
if SS is so greedy is because either they do so or they simply can't sustain their biz.

and when a company goes public is also usually because the founders recognize they reached the peak and want to monetize.

considering that here Yuri is confirming he's getting flat or sluggish sales overall the top micro agencies we should clearly see a pattern from all this : the whole microstock model is flawed, too cheap, and unsustainable when run on a massive scale.

Artist · « **Reply #18 on:** August 09, 2012, 10:21 »

ok... First I congrats Yuri for his success on PeopleImages.com , and I was really looking forward if Yuri allow other contributors too to submit there content on his site.

Regarding commission the agencies give, we should always respect them as it is just because of them only that we are here and a entire new industry is setup.
If there was no shutterstock, dreamstime, istock...etc then we would never been here. I still love shutterstock for giving us the fare commission.

Yes, everyone here wants to earn money.... as it is the nature of life. Everyone want to have better living, everyone has family, everyone wants to see the beauty of life. So if you are working for money then its no harm. Enjoy your work..

Also donating and doing social work is good but it is not required to tell in public that yes, I did this and did that.
When you're a beautiful person on the inside, there is nothing in the world that can change that about you.

Also lets clear out one thing that its all about passion you have towards your work, and this passion gives you money.
Your Passion = More Money

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #19 on:** August 09, 2012, 10:28 »

Quote from: cthoman on August 09, 2012, 09:29

It was definitely eye opening when I opened my own store at how little the big guys were doing for me.

As far as the orphaned credits, I'm not sure I'd brag about that. While I like to make money, I don't really want to do it at the expense of the customer, and credits were always one of those issues that left a sour taste in my mouth as a buyer.

Amen. The surplus revenue that comes from unspent credits and subscriptions is, I thought, common knowledge, but it seems it's the dirty little secret of the stock industry if even Yuri Arcurs didn't know about it.

The subscription packages are enormous, very few would actually need all the downloads they allow in a month but big firms buy them because it still ends up being cheaper for the images they do need than buying on an as needed basis. If you're allowed 750 downloads in a month for your subscription fee and you only DL 500 (still a huge number of shots that I think would be rare) the agency certainly doesn't refund the difference. However, the commissions they pay are based on maximum downloads for the subscription. The remainder? straight in their pockets.

As a buyer at DT I was always ticked at the odd number of credits you get for the minimum credit package. 8 credits? Weird They want you to have either a surplus left over or an insufficient amount requiring you to buy yet another package. Once you've bought what you need, if there's surplus and you have no further needs for a while, they're happy to announce those credits are expired and forfeited. Straight into the pocket.

of course, there's no profit sharing with the contributors of this extra revenue that has nothing to do with the profits they earn for the sales. Why would they share the extra cash that's created by their manipulation of their system to gouge buyers and shaft contributors. That would be a fair gesture on something that's intended to be dirty and low down.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #20 on:** August 09, 2012, 10:30 »

Quote from: cgartist on August 09, 2012, 10:21

ok... First I congrats Yuri for his success on PeopleImages.com , and I was really looking forward if Yuri allow other contributors too to submit there content on his site.

Regarding commission the agencies give, we should always respect them as it is just because of them only that we are here and a entire new industry is setup.
If there was no shutterstock, dreamstime, istock...etc then we would never been here. I still love shutterstock for giving us the fare commission.

Yes, everyone here wants to earn money.... as it is the nature of life. Everyone want to have better living, everyone has family, everyone wants to see the beauty of life. So if you are working for money then its no harm. Enjoy your work..

Also donating and doing social work is good but it is not required to tell in public that yes, I did this and did that.
When you're a beautiful person on the inside, there is nothing in the world that can change that about you.

Also lets clear out one thing that its all about passion you have towards your work, and this passion gives you money.
Your Passion = More Money

Yuri made an informative post; Sean found a point with which to take exception; Yuri let it get personal.
Now, we are all choosing sides. Why? It really has nothing to do with us.
Baldrick Trousers had the right idea -- Why not shut the ef up and let the Heavies duke it out?

PS: I'm cheering for Yuri on this one.

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #21 on:** August 09, 2012, 10:31 »

Quote from: StockBottom on August 09, 2012, 10:19

Quote from: djpadavona on August 09, 2012, 09:58
I don't want to take the thread off topic, but this is a very important point that you raise Yuri. Shutterstock has told us for years that our percentage was in the 25 to 33 percent range. Now that the numbers are public, it is obvious that we have been quite misled.

Congratulations on PeopleImages. As we have done with Warmpicture, many of us are obviously scrambling for a way to eliminate the need for agencies which bring the industry down, and mistreat artists.

agencies are the market makers, not an idiot "middleman".

if you sell on your own you will need a sales team, and at the end of the day it could cost you more than selling on SS.

look at many companies in the Nasdaq, they spend 100 to produce a 10% net gain on a good year.
if SS is so greedy is because either they do so or they simply can't sustain their biz.

and when a company goes public is also usually because the founders recognize they reached the peak and want to monetize.

considering that here Yuri is confirming he's getting flat or sluggish sales overall the top micro agencies we should clearly see a pattern from all this : the whole microstock model is flawed, too cheap, and unsustainable when run on a massive scale.

Seriously? They either play dirty or they can't be profitable? If it were that difficult to sell millions of images per year and make money doing it without gouging everyone else involved then it's a bad business model and needs to be changed, which is what people on this board have been saying for years anyway.

I refuse to believe you can't run a microstock agency profitably and still allow everyone to win. Shutterstock, like most of the others is simply trying to take the whole pie. Greed isn't a viable business plan.

Artist · « **Reply #22 on:** August 09, 2012, 10:36 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on August 09, 2012, 10:30

Quote from: cgartist on August 09, 2012, 10:21
ok... First I congrats Yuri for his success on PeopleImages.com , and I was really looking forward if Yuri allow other contributors too to submit there content on his site.

Regarding commission the agencies give, we should always respect them as it is just because of them only that we are here and a entire new industry is setup.
If there was no shutterstock, dreamstime, istock...etc then we would never been here. I still love shutterstock for giving us the fare commission.

Yes, everyone here wants to earn money.... as it is the nature of life. Everyone want to have better living, everyone has family, everyone wants to see the beauty of life. So if you are working for money then its no harm. Enjoy your work..

Also donating and doing social work is good but it is not required to tell in public that yes, I did this and did that.
When you're a beautiful person on the inside, there is nothing in the world that can change that about you.

Also lets clear out one thing that its all about passion you have towards your work, and this passion gives you money.
Your Passion = More Money

Yuri made an informative post; Sean found a point with which to take exception; Yuri let it get personal.
Now, we are all choosing sides. Why? It really has nothing to do with us.
Baldrick Trousers had the right idea -- Why not shut the ef up and let the Heavies duke it out?

PS: I'm cheering for Yuri on this one.

haha... no one here is choosing sides. Its just the personal opinion which I am sharing, nothing to do with anyone.

Digital66 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 09, 2012, 10:39 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on August 09, 2012, 07:58

Factories like mine feed the mouths of more than 100 people and have internships and educational programs with the purpose of giving back to the community...

Come on! Don't tell us the purpose of you educational program is giving back to the community. You are here just for the money. Your educational program is nothing but an investment.
How much is the cut you take from all your trainees who upload to iStock as exclusives?

StockBottom · « **Reply #24 on:** August 09, 2012, 10:47 »

Quote from: digitalexpression on August 09, 2012, 10:31

I refuse to believe you can't run a microstock agency profitably and still allow everyone to win. Shutterstock, like most of the others is simply trying to take the whole pie. Greed isn't a viable business plan.

even facebook, youtube, yahoo, zynga, are losing money or struggling to stay afloat, no matter if they have zillions of free users, paying users, huge advertising deals, sponsors, and whatever in between.

i never hear anybody here talking about how much is the cost to acquire a customer for instance.
that would be a good start but no, only endless rants about greedy agencies.

what do you guys know exactly ? they can easily spend 10$ to acquire a client that buys 5$ in credits and later dumps them off to buy on cheaper agencies.

let me remind you if your images were so precious and unique they would sell like hotcaked on art galleries or at least on Getty and Corbis rather than for a pittance on micros.

SS might have its greedy plans but no one forces you to join them, it's up to you.
considering they're the only agency left who's really delivering i've nothing against them eating up 80% of a sale that me alone could never possibly make on my own without a substantial and risky investment.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: PeopleImages.com - 3mth Considerations. (Read 38826 times)

Yuri_Arcurs

cobalt

suemack

Artist

gostwyck

Microbius

Sean Locke Photography

sgoodwin4813

velocicarpo

Yuri_Arcurs

PaulieWalnuts

Joeboy

cthoman

Microbius

thesentinel

eyecandy

djpadavona

StockBottom

Artist

digitalexpressionimages

WarrenPrice

digitalexpressionimages

Artist

Digital66

StockBottom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors