Adobe new extended licences $79

[hatman12]

According to this article by Lee, Adobe is launching extended licences priced at $79.99.  The terms will be the same as for Fotolia extended licences:

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/adobe-stock-adds-deeper-integration-video-and-extended-licenses.html

There was recently some discussion about the 'correct' price for extended licences at Fotolia, with many people arguing for $100 and Mat suggesting $60 based on his long term experience there.  Clearly Adobe's research suggests $79.99 to be the optimum price.

I imagine that in due course there will be pricing changes at Fotolia, perhaps introducing the EL at a standard price, but for the time being I'm going to price all my files at the same $79.99 for ELs.

[Dumc]

Well, I'm not changing mine. If you look prices of some of  the "foto agencies", they go "sky-high".

For example: https://en.fotolia.com/id/79988176    800 for EL.

[Deyan Georgiev Photography]

Well, I'm not changing mine. If you look prices of some of  the "foto agencies", they go "sky-high".

For example: https://en.fotolia.com/id/79988176    800 for EL.

Yes, but this images could not be found in Adobe Stock's collection.

[Zero Talent]

According to this article by Lee, Adobe is launching extended licences priced at $79.99.  The terms will be the same as for Fotolia extended licences:

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/adobe-stock-adds-deeper-integration-video-and-extended-licenses.html

There was recently some discussion about the 'correct' price for extended licences at Fotolia, with many people arguing for $100 and Mat suggesting $60 based on his long term experience there.  Clearly Adobe's research suggests $79.99 to be the optimum price.

I imagine that in due course there will be pricing changes at Fotolia, perhaps introducing the EL at a standard price, but for the time being I'm going to price all my files at the same $79.99 for ELs.

You are wrong.

[cobalt]

If this means they will sell more extended licenses that would be wonderful.

[marthamarks]

If this means they will sell more extended licenses that would be wonderful.

I agree with that. What good is it to overprice your images if they never sell at the higher price?

[Mantis]

If this means they will sell more extended licenses that would be wonderful.

I agree with that. What good is it to overprice your images if they never sell at the higher price?

This probably deserves its own thread, but who decides what overpriced is? If FT decided to price EL's at $1, and you price your images for EL's at $2, is that over pricing your images? After all this is the trend. I am in no way trying to start an argument here, but if the agencies decide to undercut other agencies by lowering their prices, is that the new acceptable pricing? In my mind it's what we are stuck with and if we have the option to sell higher and do, we are over pricing our images.  I do believe there is a balance. For images that are unique, I should not accept $79. They do give you that flexibility to set your prices higher, right now anyways.  But for new contributors, their images aren't as valuable in the eyes of FT compared to those who have been of FT longer (and have a higher rank) because they cannot set their EL pricing at 100 credits. How is that fair? As a newbie I am forced to accept pricing lower than the "properly priced" images. That's forced under pricing. 

Now, for 'every day' images whereby there are thousands of similars for a buyer to choose from you have no choice but to accept $79 as the customer can pick from a gobzillion of images.  My point is that FT is deciding what is "acceptable" pricing (as all other agencies do as well) that benefits them, not FT contributors. Next year it could be that $59 is acceptable, then $29 is acceptable.  And who decided that? Not you, not me, but the agency.  All they do is conduct some sort of focus group, roll up those results and then change the pricing.  Assuming they do use focus groups, surveys, etc as a means to test new pricing do you really think anyone is going to not say, "I'd rather have $29 EL's then $79 Els"? 

Regarding new contributors to FT I'd hope Adobe applies EL's the same to everyone regardless of rank. 

[wordplanet]

The tiered pricing for ELs based on your overall ranking there as a newbie is one of the things I like least about Fotolia/Adobe. In fact, I originally left Fotolia because I was tired of the $4 ELs. I rejoined recently and have resigned myself to the lower pricing until I rise in the ranking - which will be harder since many of the photos I used to sell on Fotolia have been rejected since I re-joined for too many similars on the site ... but the real point is that by expecting us to take less I think the micro sites are hurting themselves as well as us.

I've had a couple of $400-750 licenses over the past couple of months for images that were good but not anything out of the ordinary, and several for $150-200 so I know that a $79 EL is a reasonable price - and there are plenty of people who will pay it. I license personal blog and powerpoint images for $15-25 and people have said they appreciate the inexpensive pricing - had the micros priced our images "cheaply" at $10-15-25 each we'd all be making a lot more and people would not expect to license an image for $1-5 - think of all the image theft out there - it's not by people who can't afford to pay $1 for an image - it's an entitlement mentality - and by letting people legally buy images for a few dollars or less, they've been conditioned to think that's what the images are worth. When you compete on price, eventually you just can't win because people feel they get what they pay for - and a spectacular image that can be licensed for a few dollars will not be valued.

Adobe has a captive audience and while certainly designers using their interface will be price-conscious, they can also pass their costs on to their clients - I have to think there are designers who would like to be able to get higher value images conveniently through their desktop and hope eventually Fotolia/Adobe adds an RM offering to their platform for clients who want images that haven't been used by thousands of competitors. Raising the price of ELs to a reasonable (though personally I still think too cheap) level is a step in the right direction. An EL for $30 that gives the photographer/illustrator $4 is just miserable IMHO. I hope this means that will change.

[Pauws99]

I would have thought if your image was truly  unique and hard for others to produce something similar then  Microstock is the wrong channel? To be perfectly honest I don't have any images like that and I suspect not many do.

[wordplanet]

Wow - I just read it more closely - $79 is only for products for resale - that is so cheap. I forgot that they include unlimited print runs in the standard license. I'm glad most of my stock photo portfolio is RM. I do hope that Adobe integrates some RM into their interface - that would be a win-win for them and us.

[Noedelhap]

I expect the royalty for extended licenses via Adobe stock to be at 33% as well, so that would be $26.40? I'd prefer a price of $99 instead.

[marthamarks]

If this means they will sell more extended licenses that would be wonderful.

I agree with that. What good is it to overprice your images if they never sell at the higher price?

This probably deserves its own thread, but who decides what overpriced is?

I don't disagree with what you're saying, Mantis, but I suppose the answer is: "overpriced" means higher than the average price for similar images on similar sites.

I would love to sell my fantastic    bird and critter images for $1000 each on SS, DT, and FT, or even for a "mere" $500 each, but it's not likely to happen because that *would* be overpricing.

[PaulieWalnuts]

If this means they will sell more extended licenses that would be wonderful.

I agree with that. What good is it to overprice your images if they never sell at the higher price?

This probably deserves its own thread, but who decides what overpriced is?

I don't disagree with what you're saying, Mantis, but I suppose the answer is: "overpriced" means higher than the average price for similar images on similar sites.

I would love to sell my fantastic    bird and critter images for $1000 each on SS, DT, and FT, or even for a "mere" $500 each, but it's not likely to happen because that *would* be overpricing.

Just curious if you've tried higher pricing or checked to see how the supply and pricing are on micro vs macro. If you specialize in birds, have some somewhat rare pictures or offer a benefit like super detailed and accurate descriptions, that could draw buyers in who are willing to pay more.