MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia Joins Adobe  (Read 20710 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2015, 13:24 »
+8
I believe I left on polite and good terms. (well before the revolution or DPC protests) But who knows what notes have been attached to my FTI files for secret intelligence because of what I may have written here.  :)

There are more people, who can speak for themselves if they want, who were send packing = kicked off FT, for what they wrote on public forums or posted on FB or Blogs. How's that for strange, an agency blacklists people for freedom of speech?

Anyway, let me say, I hope there's a change and this opens things up for better artists relations and opportunity. I want to look to the future, not the past. All that's left in much of Microstock is HOPE, because the reality is, things are not so positive financially for suppliers.

People call this a game changer and make all kinds of guesses and predictions on how the license will work? Maybe they have a better crystal ball or are just speculating what would be nice to have happen. I'll wait and see.

Just like I'll wait on my hopes, that Adobe realizes that artist and subscriber relations are dismal and horrid at this point and need to be repaired. That's saying nothing at all about commission structure or rewards for work. Which are important on a different level.


That's right Uncle.  I would never go back, nor be welcome, to FOTOLIA without a gutting of their currently self serving sponges that run the joint.  I can't wait for that thread to start: "Adobe cans all of FOTOLIA's staff".

I wonder if anyone has posted the DPC MSG thread in an Adobe forum or sent it to Adobe? Not that it will make any difference but who knows.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2015, 13:27 by Uncle Pete »


« Reply #26 on: January 29, 2015, 13:34 »
+2
I believe I left on polite and good terms. (well before the revolution or DPC protests) But who knows what notes have been attached to my FTI files for secret intelligence because of what I may have written here.  :)

There are more people, who can speak for themselves if they want, who were send packing = kicked off FT, for what they wrote on public forums or posted on FB or Blogs. How's that for strange, an agency blacklists people for freedom of speech?

Anyway, let me say, I hope there's a change and this opens things up for better artists relations and opportunity. I want to look to the future, not the past. All that's left in much of Microstock is HOPE, because the reality is, things are not so positive financially for suppliers.

People call this a game changer and make all kinds of guesses and predictions on how the license will work? Maybe they have a better crystal ball or are just speculating what would be nice to have happen. I'll wait and see.

Just like I'll wait on my hopes, that Adobe realizes that artist and subscriber relations are dismal and horrid at this point and need to be repaired. That's saying nothing at all about commission structure or rewards for work. Which are important on a different level.


That's right Uncle.  I would never go back, nor be welcome, to FOTOLIA without a gutting of their currently self serving sponges that run the joint.  I can't wait for that thread to start: "Adobe cans all of FOTOLIA's staff".

I wonder if anyone has posted the DPC MSG thread in an Adobe forum or sent it to Adobe? Not that it will make any difference but who knows.

I am not into conspiracy theories but do we know if dpc was part of the adobe acquisition? I mentioned this before but DPC could have been done with foresight into a sale of FT. Sell FT and keep a competing agency called Dollar Photo Club. Wasnt it supposedly a completely different agency separate and distinct from FT? If this is true it shows the FT " i wanna have my cake and eat it too" attitude. This would explain why they opted in all of our content without our permission and under pressure that dpc was a separate entity they were legally forced to give an opt out. This stinks.

« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2015, 13:58 »
0
I will be honest about this, if management at Fotolia changes, I will try to get back in. Agree with Mantis.

or it could be that the management with Chad are the ones who gave fotolia the idea and the deal could mean even less money than dpc.
did no one not remember the consensus...things get worse, never better ... for microstockers.
why should this be a lifesaver? it could be the iceberg .

Semmick Photo

« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2015, 14:50 »
+3
I will be honest about this, if management at Fotolia changes, I will try to get back in. Agree with Mantis.

or it could be that the management with Chad are the ones who gave fotolia the idea and the deal could mean even less money than dpc.
did no one not remember the consensus...things get worse, never better ... for microstockers.
why should this be a lifesaver? it could be the iceberg .

Adobe is about designers and image creators. Many photographers use Adobe products, why would they piss of their customers? We  werent suppliers to Adobe till now. Adobe wants to create a one stop shop for their customers, pissing off your suppliers AND customers is most likely not on the project roadmap.

« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2015, 14:52 »
+3
Fotolia under Adobe will rock... remember my words folks!  8)

Will people who had accounts closed by FT be allowed to rejoin now that its Adobe?

« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2015, 15:32 »
+4
Hope they will kill DPC.

It'd be nice, but the Twitter spam (the paid "isn't DPC wonderful" stuff) is still alive and well, plus Matt Koslowski is talking them up today - groan!! Given how he makes his living, it's a real shame he's supporting this POS "agency":

https://twitter.com/MattKloskowski/status/560520522229096449/photo/1


« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2015, 16:02 »
+2
I am not into conspiracy theories but do we know if dpc was part of the adobe acquisition? I mentioned this before but DPC could have been done with foresight into a sale of FT. Sell FT and keep a competing agency called Dollar Photo Club. Wasnt it supposedly a completely different agency separate and distinct from FT? If this is true it shows the FT " i wanna have my cake and eat it too" attitude. This would explain why they opted in all of our content without our permission and under pressure that dpc was a separate entity they were legally forced to give an opt out. This stinks.

my thoughts exactly ... which prompted me to say it 's an iceberg or the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train 8)

« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2015, 16:33 »
+5
I am not into conspiracy theories but do we know if dpc was part of the adobe acquisition? I mentioned this before but DPC could have been done with foresight into a sale of FT. Sell FT and keep a competing agency called Dollar Photo Club. Wasnt it supposedly a completely different agency separate and distinct from FT? If this is true it shows the FT " i wanna have my cake and eat it too" attitude. This would explain why they opted in all of our content without our permission and under pressure that dpc was a separate entity they were legally forced to give an opt out. This stinks.

my thoughts exactly ... which prompted me to say it 's an iceberg or the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train 8)

I would also place my bet on  the theory that DPC concept is the main force on which future of the site will be based on. They are a conglomerate and I wouldn't place nothing on the theory that benefit of contributors is on list of any significant importance.

« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2015, 15:15 »
+2
Hope they will kill DPC.

Maybe DPC IS Adobes new plan..

« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2015, 15:18 »
+5
I will be honest about this, if management at Fotolia changes, I will try to get back in. Agree with Mantis.

I might, too. But no way will I rejoin with The Chad hanging on there.

« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2015, 05:47 »
+18
Hope they will kill DPC.

DPC should have been killed by the contributors, all of them opting out. :/

« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2015, 06:47 »
+4
I agree that DPC is probably connected to the Adobe acquisition. I would think CC will be about the same, the user pays a subscription to adobe and the contributor gets a minimal fee when their images are downloaded.

« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2015, 09:49 »
+4
Hope they will kill DPC.

DPC should have been killed by the contributors, all of them opting out. :/

Right. I am out on both DPC and FT like several other here.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2015, 10:21 »
+1
Yes, that makes sense.

But I doubt that Adobe had anything to do with it, as some people have added to the conspiracy part. Adobe doesn't want cheap competition from their own collection, they want people to subscribe to their CC collection.

Jan 14, 2014 and BTW is this filled with lies or am I just reading the PR wrong?

http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/15/fotolia-launches-dollar-photo-club-an-exclusive-club-for-heavy-stock-photo-clients/

"Dollar Photo Club will target a small audience of approved members and provide exclusive photos."

Really? I suppose the exclusive part is, translated as "you can still DL from people who didn't leave or Opt. out" but the second part wasn't active when this was released. Exclusive?

Oleg: We want to target big buyers, and provide them with exclusive offers, co-founder and CEO Oleg Tscheltzoff told me. For example, when it comes to content, if its a royalty-free photo website open to everyone, images quickly become overused. Thats why we are doing a club.

Back to hoping that Adobe has some independence. Otherwise all this "exciting" news about the sale, will mean nothing to many of us. Myself for one.

I am not into conspiracy theories but do we know if dpc was part of the adobe acquisition? I mentioned this before but DPC could have been done with foresight into a sale of FT. Sell FT and keep a competing agency called Dollar Photo Club. Wasnt it supposedly a completely different agency separate and distinct from FT? If this is true it shows the FT " i wanna have my cake and eat it too" attitude. This would explain why they opted in all of our content without our permission and under pressure that dpc was a separate entity they were legally forced to give an opt out. This stinks.

« Reply #39 on: January 31, 2015, 11:34 »
+7
Yes, that makes sense.

But I doubt that Adobe had anything to do with it, as some people have added to the conspiracy part. Adobe doesn't want cheap competition from their own collection, they want people to subscribe to their CC collection.

Jan 14, 2014 and BTW is this filled with lies or am I just reading the PR wrong?

http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/15/fotolia-launches-dollar-photo-club-an-exclusive-club-for-heavy-stock-photo-clients/

"Dollar Photo Club will target a small audience of approved members and provide exclusive photos."

Really? I suppose the exclusive part is, translated as "you can still DL from people who didn't leave or Opt. out" but the second part wasn't active when this was released. Exclusive?

Oleg: We want to target big buyers, and provide them with exclusive offers, co-founder and CEO Oleg Tscheltzoff told me. For example, when it comes to content, if its a royalty-free photo website open to everyone, images quickly become overused. Thats why we are doing a club.

Back to hoping that Adobe has some independence. Otherwise all this "exciting" news about the sale, will mean nothing to many of us. Myself for one.

I am not into conspiracy theories but do we know if dpc was part of the adobe acquisition? I mentioned this before but DPC could have been done with foresight into a sale of FT. Sell FT and keep a competing agency called Dollar Photo Club. Wasnt it supposedly a completely different agency separate and distinct from FT? If this is true it shows the FT " i wanna have my cake and eat it too" attitude. This would explain why they opted in all of our content without our permission and under pressure that dpc was a separate entity they were legally forced to give an opt out. This stinks.



I didn't mean to imply Adobe was part of it or knew, more that OLEG KNEW and did it intentionally so he could still keep reaping the benefits of a micro site called DPC while giving up an $800M FT site. That's how sleazy it comes off to me.  And think of it. He opted in all of our content without asking us. Otherwise he would have to:

1. Solicit contributors to upload independently of FT - lots of marketing effort and significant time to build a usable collection. Why not just use FOTOLIA'S existing collection and avoid the pains of building a collection from scratch? SLEAZY.

2. He introduced DPC early enough that he used the FT brand to market to his existing customer base. That's why we were all thinking "why would he try to steal his own customers from FT to get them into DPC? Now we know why. He knew all along he was giving up FOTOLIA and needed a buyer base. Hell why not just steal existing buyers? Otherwise the cost to build a new micro business from scratch like Peter at SF did would be staggering. SLEAZY.

3. Once we found out about DPC and that we were AUTOMATICALLY opted in he was under pressure to provide an opt out.  I believe he HAD TO because it IS A SEPARATE ENTITY. Look at Istock. They forced all indy content into Think Stock and gave us no opt out alternative, mainly because it was still under the Getty umbrella and they could claim that it was a product extension. If OLEG could claim the same thing he probably could have told us to F-off for an OPT out. SLEAZY.

This is why I am wondering if Adobe also gets DPC or just FOTOLIA. It will close some loops on facts and OLEG's intentions if we know this and it could prove my anecdotal logic right or wrong.   
« Last Edit: January 31, 2015, 11:38 by Mantis »

« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2015, 11:49 »
+1
"Part of Fotolia, the world's most popular stock photo marketplace"
https://www.dollarphotoclub.com/Info/FAQ

« Reply #41 on: January 31, 2015, 14:42 »
0
"Part of Fotolia, the world's most popular stock photo marketplace"
https://www.dollarphotoclub.com/Info/FAQ

That's now and probably original text. I just don't understand why Adobe would be purchasing two agencies under one umbrella with the same content? Only if they intend to get in the micro stock business would it start making sense.

« Reply #42 on: January 31, 2015, 15:20 »
+4
I don't see how Fotolia could effectively launch a mirror site, divert customers and then sell the original but not the reflection, claiming they were different things because the price model is different.  Even if that wouldn't be regarded as fraudulent, a company like Adobe would not so stupid that it failed to notice or agreed to the arrangement. Getty's bought stuff and closed it down before now, perhaps that's what Adobe will do to DPC.

« Reply #43 on: January 31, 2015, 16:10 »
+6
Getty's bought stuff and closed it down before now, perhaps that's what Adobe will do to DPC.

Fine with me if they close DPC, but God help us all if Adobe use Gettys ways of treating aquired businesses!!

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #44 on: January 31, 2015, 16:57 »
+11
If you all think this merger is going to mean more sales and income, don't be disappointed if it's not. Adobe is run by greedy principals who care only for stock prices, forcing software sharecropping on sole proprietor photographers, retouchers and designers. They will ruin whoever they can and use us as rags to soak up the mess. If you thought iStock was a bad example of how to run microstock, just wait until you experience Adobe.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #45 on: January 31, 2015, 19:23 »
+2

If you all think this merger is going to mean more sales and income, don't be disappointed if it's not. Adobe is run by greedy principals who care only for stock prices, forcing software sharecropping on sole proprietor photographers, retouchers and designers. They will ruin whoever they can and use us as rags to soak up the mess. If you thought iStock was a bad example of how to run microstock, just wait until you experience Adobe.

Good grief, what a ridiculous statement.
Adobe make good solid software they're at the top of their game for a reason. It's not like they haven't  had any competition, ask anyone who used Quark Express or who's tried to shunt repro quality docs around the Internet without PDF.
They're proven innovators, nobody knows at this stage how things will unfold. It's a bit early for conspiracy theories.

« Reply #46 on: January 31, 2015, 20:25 »
+14
I agree with Striving. Adobe and Fotolia will treat contributors any way they want, to make as much money as possible. It would be naive to expect anything else.

I'm not a very big fan of Adobe. Illustrator is pretty much the same program today as in 1987. And many bugs have been around for a decade or two. And personally I now have to pay about four times (!!) as much a month for their software as I used to because of the CC system. Only people/companies who used to buy the really expensive CS packs will save money on CC.

Too bad competition doesn't work when it comes to software...

« Reply #47 on: February 01, 2015, 03:05 »
+16
Adobe's a publicly owned company that has to deliver maximum profits to shareholders. Where the interests of shareholders and microstockers coincide (i.e. maximising sales) I'm expect they will do very well for contributers; where the interests clash (i.e. increasing the gap between what contributors earn and what users pay) they will probably not be very good for contributors - it's called capitalism.
In the UK, dairy farmers are being driven to the edge of extinction by huge supermarket chains that want to use milk to undercut each other's prices - and farmers have to sell to the chains because that's where the public gets its milk. Keep your fingers crossed that Adobe doesn't decide to do something similar to microstock.

« Reply #48 on: February 01, 2015, 07:51 »
+13
I really, really, can't see this as being "good news" for contributors in any shape or form. I reckon BaldricksTrousers has the measure of it when he likens the situation to that of the UK dairy farmers. The problem we all have as well is that any changes at any of the agencies tend to ripple through the whole industry here. They're all looking for a way to maximise their profits. In general, from what I've seen, that tends to come from our cut in some way.


« Reply #49 on: February 01, 2015, 14:17 »
+3
I really, really, can't see this as being "good news" for contributors in any shape or form. I reckon BaldricksTrousers has the measure of it when he likens the situation to that of the UK dairy farmers. The problem we all have as well is that any changes at any of the agencies tend to ripple through the whole industry here. They're all looking for a way to maximise their profits. In general, from what I've seen, that tends to come from our cut in some way.

so right you 8)  in any takeover the idea is to kill the kid. even something as impressive as ss taking over big , we see big sinking like a stone . i am even surprised it is still in the bottom mid tier.
even the regular sellers of big are gone now, all blue in the face when big brother ss sat on their face.
takeover just means someone ran away with the money and left everyone without their drawers.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
36 Replies
19174 Views
Last post May 07, 2009, 11:48
by batman
61 Replies
19044 Views
Last post May 20, 2015, 21:00
by Pixart
8 Replies
3347 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 13:09
by izzikiorage
13 Replies
33359 Views
Last post June 23, 2015, 17:14
by spike
3 Replies
2427 Views
Last post June 27, 2015, 16:09
by HalfFull

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results