pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Adobe shakes things up - Announces plan to acquire Fotolia  (Read 32764 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: December 16, 2014, 15:25 »
0
snip...but I wonder in general how long "they" (in general not any specific "they") can keep squeezing before the content providers lose interest. If in fact they already haven't in some cases.
Agree absolutly!


« Reply #101 on: December 16, 2014, 17:05 »
0
and this is also the reason why Linux on desktop failed big time despite the availability of second tier clones of the most popular apps.

Linux failed?  :-\
« Last Edit: December 16, 2014, 17:10 by DallasP »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #102 on: December 16, 2014, 23:16 »
+2
Will they compete on price by undercutting existing agencies?

NO.
first of all because historically Adobe has never been cheap and never been interested in the rock bottom of the market.

secondly, i think their strategy is just to provide stock to their millions of CC users, this is no different from companies like Apple or Sony or MS providing both the hardware and the software or at least a marketplace to their users.

if they took this strategic move is because they have a huge demand for it.
nobody invest 800 millions just to see if it sticks on the wall, notice also that they paid FT in cash and not in stock which means they really believe in this deal.

FT was probably their only option as IS is owned by getty and SS is public and not for sale and DT suc-ks.





Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #103 on: December 16, 2014, 23:17 »
0
And Mr. Struck seems very excited about having a large market place to sell his images but no discussion of possible cuts to contributor rates. 

the very existance of microstock as well as free/CC sites like Flickr or Instagram is the living proof they can squeeze photographers like a lemon, at least the amateurs and semi-pros.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #104 on: December 16, 2014, 23:28 »
0
He goes on to say that the vision is that the Adobe CC will become a place where creatives also sell their content.

it's a great idea many were waiting for it since decades !

problem is, in the modern world good ideas are dime a dozen, it's the execution that matters.
in practical terms, HOW will Adobe manage their new stock service ?

will it be a fair place where suppliers will be paid fairly or they're going to give us 5% fees and only accept ultra quality images ?

what will be the benefits and incentives for us ?

i'm sure many guys in the other agencies are trembling in fear when they heard the news because none of these agencies is backed by a Fortune-50 company with millions of active PS/LR users that will soon access their stock images with a click inside PS/LR.

seriously, if Adobe make it super easy to get stock images why should buyers ever bother to sign up for 3rd party image providers ? a cheaper price will be the only reason ... obvious ! that means Adobe will sell high and the others will sell cheap, that's the most logical conclusion, we'll see.






Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #105 on: December 16, 2014, 23:36 »
+1
RM won't stop. But what will happen is common images will get moved out of macro into subscription micro because buyers will no longer pay $500 or even $50 for an image. And contributors will no longer be able to justify spending big dollars on macro shoots because it won't be profitable. Like I said, what will be left are micro subscriptions, commissioned shoots, and the odd specialty agency.

What? RM prices arent going to drop to micro levels? Well, RM contributor royalties are dropping. Getty is increasingly paying micro royalties on macro priced images and is now giving embed images away. Alamy has been heading toward micro for a while. Corbis has never been profitable. Stocksy sells macro-ish images for $10-$50. 500px doesn't seem to be catching fire. Is Veer still breathing?  Macro priced agencies are either moving to micro prices or are dying while micro subscription sites like Shutterstock are Wall Street darlings.

but speciality RM is never going to go away, it's too expensive and too hard to find.
just think about historical/archival images, nobody can go out and shoot that stuff, same for the endless number of obscure subjects that are in demand for obscure books and publications, these guys can't publish unless they have that specific image and don't worry 500$ is still cheaper than sending someone on assignment, if it wasn't than stock would cease to exist and to have any reason to exist in the first place as that's the very reason it was born for.

now, if we talk about making a living with RM i will fully agree with you and yes also the RM agencies are not getting rich at all, that's obvious to everybody at this point and i don't think things are going to improve much but they're also not tanking or being sold for a pittance as many expected.

RM will get maybe smaller but it won't die, by opposite it's RF images that will become worthless as they're not exclusive and they're dime a dozen and actually sold for next to nothing.

there's nothing wrong in RM becoming a small niche, even fine-art is small niche but it doesn't mean it's going to die soon because of Instagram or RF micro, they will just adapt to the new environment and act accordingly.




« Reply #106 on: December 17, 2014, 04:42 »
+3
Adobe can't afford to screw this up because so many microstock contributors use their software.  There are cheaper or free alternatives to most of their software, so they should be doing all they can to keep us happy.  We can also remove our portfolios and FT will be worth nothing, so it will be interesting to see what they do with it now.

If they impove FT for contributors and get back all the people that have left or never bothered using them, they could cause problems for SS and Getty.  Must be easier for designers to buy images within the adobe programs than have to go to a site owned by another company.  Perhaps adobe wont need to run FT at a huge profit because they have other profit streams that the stock sites don't have?

« Reply #107 on: December 17, 2014, 04:47 »
+3
and this is also the reason why Linux on desktop failed big time despite the availability of second tier clones of the most popular apps.

Linux failed?  :-\
I love using a failed OS :)

« Reply #108 on: December 17, 2014, 07:21 »
0
Posted by mistake.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2014, 07:26 by Difydave »

« Reply #109 on: December 17, 2014, 09:06 »
+1
I wrote a long of time ago the only objective of fotolia was to find someone able to buy them.
Now with Adobe they will be able to sell your images bypassing the few rights you had. On their cloud you will see hundred images sold as 1 download, lower prices and they will give your images for free to premium adobe clients.
Adobe Should give software for free to image creators "working" for fotolia because 800M$ worth their pictures not the crappy people managing it. :-X

« Reply #110 on: December 17, 2014, 11:22 »
+2
I wrote a long of time ago the only objective of fotolia was to find someone able to buy them.
Now with Adobe they will be able to sell your images bypassing the few rights you had. On their cloud you will see hundred images sold as 1 download, lower prices and they will give your images for free to premium adobe clients.
Adobe Should give software for free to image creators "working" for fotolia because 800M$ worth their pictures not the crappy people managing it. :-X
So you think people will pay for adobe software to create or edit their images that they then give away?  Not likely.  If adobe did that, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.  They need us to make money to pay for their products.  I think they should be working on making this more convenient for designers, not cheaper.  The budget end of the market probably don't use adobe products, why cater for them?  Designers that are used to paying for adobe products and for stock images are probably more interested in improving their workflow than getting the lowest price.

« Reply #111 on: December 17, 2014, 13:04 »
+1
and this is also the reason why Linux on desktop failed big time despite the availability of second tier clones of the most popular apps.

Linux failed?  :-\

Open Office failed to compete with MS Office?

« Reply #112 on: December 17, 2014, 13:53 »
+6
I'm trying to stay optimistic, but failing miserably. I see better deals for more (and increased) users, and a worse situation for us contributors. I fear that a glut of images will be accepted, and our royalties will go down.
But, maybe I'm a Chicken Little. I'm one of the many that does not find CC attractive, and will stay with CS6 as long a possible.

At any rate, we'll know, probably by June.

« Reply #113 on: December 17, 2014, 14:23 »
0
But, maybe I'm a Chicken Little. I'm one of the many that does not find CC attractive, and will stay with CS6 as long a possible.

See, I'm one of the ones that would just make the leap if times weren't so uncertain that I didn't know if next month I'd need the extra $50 or whatever.

« Reply #114 on: December 17, 2014, 16:09 »
+12
FT had once been my #2 agency, and now they're more like #6.

If I don't like how this plays out, it will cause me little pain to drop FT.

On the other hand, FT sees me as valuable (some of their top people have personally called and emailed me on more than one occasion) so they need me and others at my level to be with them through this transition.

FT's top contributors have a good hand in this game.  If we walk away from the table it will cause them some pain.

Of course, I'm talking like I expect this arrangement to be bad for contributors, and I think it has just as much potential to go the other way.  I'm going to remain optimistic that there's a good upside for me/us in this, but if not, FT/Adobe is hereby on notice that I won't stand by and watch my images given away free to its CC subscribers without adequate compensation to me, and I won't accept a reduction in commissions.  They should play this out very carefully.

« Reply #115 on: December 17, 2014, 18:50 »
+3
I doubt Adobe will play around with the royalties anytime soon.

FT will get a greater visibility because of the Adobe brand, I expect to see a slight increase in downloads.

« Reply #116 on: December 17, 2014, 22:17 »
+1
Why don't we just tell them what WE want, or  they will have paid 800 mil for nada. 

« Reply #117 on: December 17, 2014, 23:34 »
0
FT will get a greater visibility because of the Adobe brand, I expect to see a slight increase in downloads.
I think you may be right. I have seen a bump up in sales; of course, it could well be ebb-and-flow, but it seems possible that a number of people may have had a look at FT out after all the publicity from the deal.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #118 on: December 18, 2014, 03:57 »
0
I love using a failed OS :)

it succeeded on server and mobile because it was backed by IBM, Google, Sun, Oracle, and billions of dollars in R&D but it miserably failed on desktop and this because of the lack of Pro apps like Adobe CC and much more, same reason for the fiasco of BeOS and many many other similar cases.

as for the linux photo apps : Rawtherapee is good but not yet on the same league of Lightroom or Capture One and last time i checked few weeks ago the devs were discussing about making a complete rewrite ! , the Gimp is still light years behind Photoshop and semi-abandoned, Gimpshop is abandoned since 3 yrs for lack of interest and lack of users, even a simple small app like Exiftool GUI is now not supported anymore, good luck betting your workflow on these open source projects .. they can be OK as replacement of Paint.net or Corel cr-ap but forget it for a Pro workflow.

and for PS in particular, it contains dozens of patents so even if you're serious about making an exact clone of PS you will be forced to reinvent the wheel from scratch in order to dodge the legal bullets that could come from Adobe.

« Reply #119 on: December 18, 2014, 04:21 »
-3
Let me be the positive idealist :) Adobe has money from CC subscriptions, and they need to bring there more people. A lot more. 3,4mil is very small number. All those old PS5,6 whoever. They tried to create a community on behance, they embrace creatives, because it brings more subscriptions.
So if they will decide to support the contributors even more, I don't mean exactly with increasing royalties, but some benefits of marketplace and CC it could just bring them more people in the future and could be beneficial for contributors.
Imagine that they will give you with CC xx number of downloads per month (at their cost, actually calculated to subs. without price change) They just need to calculate the right ratio (new subscribers vs $ they need to pay contributors).
I still see that they can grow much more in subsc #. They just need to offer more perks and reasons why to switch to CC.

« Reply #120 on: December 18, 2014, 04:27 »
0
Surely the treatment of contributors will change? Fotolia will get someone from Adobe to overlook things? I dont think Adobe wants to deal with a backlash of contributors. Only evil company's dont care about bad word of mouth, question is, is Adobe an evil company?

« Reply #121 on: December 18, 2014, 09:06 »
+4
Surely the treatment of contributors will change? Fotolia will get someone from Adobe to overlook things? I dont think Adobe wants to deal with a backlash of contributors. Only evil company's dont care about bad word of mouth, question is, is Adobe an evil company?

If Oleg and the original crew are still going to run the FT show you can rest assured his first order of business (before he receives his big check) is to inform Adobe of all the ways that they can screw contributors. After all he is the king of that business model. So, my biggest worry for all of you (I am not with FT no moe) is how Oleg participates in the management of this. I suspect he will be on a retainer for a year or so during the transition and ultimately will phase out to go to Cuba to buy some more cigars. For whatever it's worth I hope something good comes out of this for you folks and does not end up another nail in the coffin of MS.

« Reply #122 on: December 18, 2014, 09:36 »
+8
I think if the CEO of FT doesnt fit in the plans of Adobe, he gets the boot. Lets hope Adobe is ruthless towards culprits like Mr. Tscheltzoff and have a better understanding towards contributors.

« Reply #123 on: December 18, 2014, 10:29 »
+5
Surely the treatment of contributors will change? Fotolia will get someone from Adobe to overlook things? I dont think Adobe wants to deal with a backlash of contributors. Only evil company's dont care about bad word of mouth, question is, is Adobe an evil company?

If Oleg and the original crew are still going to run the FT show you can rest assured his first order of business (before he receives his big check) is to inform Adobe of all the ways that they can screw contributors. After all he is the king of that business model. So, my biggest worry for all of you (I am not with FT no moe) is how Oleg participates in the management of this. I suspect he will be on a retainer for a year or so during the transition and ultimately will phase out to go to Cuba to buy some more cigars. For whatever it's worth I hope something good comes out of this for you folks and does not end up another nail in the coffin of MS.
I doubt they will keep Oleg more than a year or even a few months.  When sales are made the buyer always makes promises and brings the essential team onboard, keep the suppliers and buyers calm, soak as much knowledge out of them as possible then replace them with someone internal at a more reasonable salary.  Of course the non-competes were signed upon the sale.  We won't hear from Oleg again until the non-compete expires, in 2-5 years.  I won't be running to sign up to his new agency though.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #124 on: December 18, 2014, 11:01 »
+10
Surely the treatment of contributors will change? Fotolia will get someone from Adobe to overlook things? I dont think Adobe wants to deal with a backlash of contributors. Only evil company's dont care about bad word of mouth, question is, is Adobe an evil company?

If Oleg and the original crew are still going to run the FT show you can rest assured his first order of business (before he receives his big check) is to inform Adobe of all the ways that they can screw contributors. After all he is the king of that business model. So, my biggest worry for all of you (I am not with FT no moe) is how Oleg participates in the management of this. I suspect he will be on a retainer for a year or so during the transition and ultimately will phase out to go to Cuba to buy some more cigars. For whatever it's worth I hope something good comes out of this for you folks and does not end up another nail in the coffin of MS.
I doubt they will keep Oleg more than a year or even a few months.  When sales are made the buyer always makes promises and brings the essential team onboard, keep the suppliers and buyers calm, soak as much knowledge out of them as possible then replace them with someone internal at a more reasonable salary.  Of course the non-competes were signed upon the sale.  We won't hear from Oleg again until the non-compete expires, in 2-5 years.  I won't be running to sign up to his new agency though.

They will have to keep some of the FT people on in order to figure out what they just bought and how it works. "Knowledge Transfer".

Like Mantis said they will then look for the FT team to help them identify options to do some screwing. "Optimize Financials". This will include looking at cutting costs such as who at FT should be let go, how they can consolidate FT hardware into Adobe systems, how they can increase profits by paying out less to contributors, and on and on. 

I don't think the paying out less part will be obvious. They won't just cut commissions. They will probably come up with some non-transparent shell game changes to the royalty model where contributors will have no visibility into the formulas and no idea how it affects them. Adobe has a big legal department and has been writing expertly crafted license agreements since before most FT employees were born. And they will probably use the Adobe household name to dangle carrots out to try and get a flood of new contributors to balance out the small percentage of ones they'll lose from the "financial optimization".

And they're a public company. The FT deal was big enough to make their stock bounce. They will be under pressure from investors to make this $800M investment work and not turn into another stock failure. I would love to think this is going to be a positive move for contributors. But I just keep thinking about 2009 iStock where they did stuff like making vague adjustments to royalties and telling everyone it shouldn't affect contributor earnings because of the increased sales volume.

Have your Plan B ready folks.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4713 Views
Last post February 02, 2007, 07:55
by Photoguy
186 Replies
32373 Views
Last post June 14, 2013, 18:35
by w7lwi
63 Replies
19994 Views
Last post June 17, 2017, 17:04
by ShadySue
4 Replies
3215 Views
Last post April 27, 2019, 12:41
by Chichikov
14 Replies
4060 Views
Last post September 28, 2019, 11:26
by JaenStock

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle