MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia Joins Adobe  (Read 20404 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 28, 2015, 10:02 »
+3
Adobe Completes Acquisition of Fotolia

Vibrant Image and Video Marketplace to Be Integrated as Key Part of Adobe Creative Cloud

SAN JOSE, Calif. Jan. 28, 2015 Adobe (Nasdaq:ADBE) has completed its acquisition of privately held Fotolia, a leading marketplace for stock content. Adobe announced its intent to purchase Fotolia in December 2014 and the acquisition cements Creative Clouds role as a vibrant market for creatives to buy and sell assets and services as well as showcase their talent to a worldwide audience. Work will now begin on integrating Fotolia into Adobe Creative Cloud. This will provide current and future Creative Cloud members with the ability to access and purchase over 35 million images and videos, significantly simplifying and accelerating the design process. Adobe also plans to continue to operate Fotolia as a standalone stock service, accessible to anyone.

Founded in 2004, with offices in New York, Paris and Berlin, Fotolia currently operates in 23 countries and has websites in 14 languages.

Were now hard at work to radically simplify the buying and selling of stock content, said David Wadhwani, senior vice president, Digital Media, Adobe. Fotolia is helping Creative Cloud become the marketplace for creatives to buy and sell high-impact assets, find talent and promote their work in front of an influential global community.

With more than 3.4 million members, Adobe Creative Cloud features the worlds leading desktop tools, an array of complementary mobile apps, training content, creative assets and services and ready access to a dynamic community. Creative Cloud is transforming how creatives find inspiration and deliver their best work and the value of Creative Cloud is increasing all the time through product updates and new capabilities.

Forward-Looking Statements Disclosure

This press release includes forward-looking statements, within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, that are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, including risks and uncertainties related to Adobes ability to successfully integrate Fotolias stock content service into Creative Cloud. All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements, including statements regarding: the ease of use of any future Adobe stock content service, the functionality of the services commerce system, plans for integrating the service into Creative Cloud and other anticipated benefits of the transaction to Adobe; any statements of expectation or belief; and any statements of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. These risks, uncertainties and other factors, and the general risks associated with Adobes business, could cause actual results to differ materially from those referred to in the forward-looking statements. The reader is cautioned not to rely on these forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements are based on information currently available to Adobe and are qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. For a discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties, individuals should refer to Adobe's SEC filings. Adobe does not assume any obligation to update any such forward-looking statements or other statements included in this press release.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 10:16 by Nikovsk »


« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2015, 13:52 »
+1
Were now hard at work to radically simplify the buying and selling of stock content, said David Wadhwani, senior vice president, Digital Media, Adobe. Fotolia is helping Creative Cloud become the marketplace for creatives to buy and sell high-impact assets, find talent and promote their work in front of an influential global community.


This essentially says that they are getting into microstock.  I guess i am considered a creative, they call CC a marketplace to buy and sell. Maybe they say that because that loser of a company FT will continue to operate in addition to however they craft the creative cloiud access to assets.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2015, 14:29 »
+20
I am hoping adobe chucks out some of the aholes at FT including Chad.

« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2015, 16:20 »
0
so why does this mean ? Is fotolia becoming CreativeCloud or vice versa? i am not familiar with C C , can someone explain? when they say marketplace for creatives to buy and sell high-impact assets, find talent,
are they talking about becoming a new rival to ss?  or just another wave of vapor like ( here fill in your own subjective choice from the agencies on the right column here>>>>>)

« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2015, 16:23 »
0
3.4 million subscribers to CC? or they count anybody who has Adobe ID (I registered some Adobe products).

« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2015, 16:35 »
+2
I am hoping adobe chucks out some of the aholes at FT including Chad.

+ a lot of plusses.

« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2015, 16:46 »
+6
Fotolia under Adobe will rock... remember my words folks!  8)

ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2015, 18:29 »
+4
so why does this mean ? Is fotolia becoming CreativeCloud or vice versa? i am not familiar with C C , can someone explain? when they say marketplace for creatives to buy and sell high-impact assets, find talent,
are they talking about becoming a new rival to ss?  or just another wave of vapor like ( here fill in your own subjective choice from the agencies on the right column here>>>>>)

I'm guessing they'll be aiming to make it super easy to buy fotolia stock from within Adobe products.
IF they implement it well and IF they get the price point right for both sellers and buyers, it could be a game-changer, but these are two big 'ifs'.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2015, 13:18 by ShadySue »

« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2015, 20:08 »
+2
Perhaps it's the other way round - what if Fotolia customers get free access to the Adobe Cloud, either for free or for a small extra payment.  That would 'lock' customers into both products.

Time will tell.

« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2015, 20:21 »
0
If Adobe does this right, it will be a real game changer for microstock. I subscribe to Adobe CC and I have to say (I'm not a big Adobe fan) that it is pretty impressive. They could sell licenses to use stock in lots of different ways, if they sell stock images somewhat like they sell fonts with Typekit.

E.g. it might work like this: as a buyer you get an illustration from Fotolia to use on your website but it is really served from Adobe's servers (the way webfonts are). That means that if you stop your subscription to CC, the illustration disappears from your website. This could conceivably open up new kinds Rights Management. E.g. if you subscribe to Fotolia you get images to use, but only on a limited number of websites, and if you stop paying for the subscription you lose the images.

U11


« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2015, 20:35 »
+4
E.g. it might work like this: as a buyer you get an illustration from Fotolia to use on your website but it is really served from Adobe's servers (the way webfonts are). That means that if you stop your subscription to CC, the illustration disappears from your website. This could conceivably open up new kinds Rights Management. E.g. if you subscribe to Fotolia you get images to use, but only on a limited number of websites, and if you stop paying for the subscription you lose the images.
the big question what author will get.
I 've seen already 20 cents payments from Getty's "Premium Access"  deals

OM

« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2015, 20:36 »
+1
I am hoping adobe chucks out some of the aholes at FT including Chad.

Or, at least, stop him appearing on the forums as 'THE CHAD'. I think that says something about EGO.

 ;D

Uncle Pete

« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2015, 02:22 »
+7
If there's no change in the way FT operates and no way to submit directly to Adobe, or without going through FT, this will mean nothing to many people who will never again work for FT whether it's for 20c CC subs or DPC or anything else.

Here's hoping Adobe recognizes that they are not going to get the best materials from all the potential top quality suppliers. Too many bad deals and hard feelings, lingering in the wake of FTs past management.



E.g. it might work like this: as a buyer you get an illustration from Fotolia to use on your website but it is really served from Adobe's servers (the way webfonts are). That means that if you stop your subscription to CC, the illustration disappears from your website. This could conceivably open up new kinds Rights Management. E.g. if you subscribe to Fotolia you get images to use, but only on a limited number of websites, and if you stop paying for the subscription you lose the images.
the big question what author will get.
I 've seen already 20 cents payments from Getty's "Premium Access"  deals

ShadySue

« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2015, 05:05 »
0
If there's no change in the way FT operates and no way to submit directly to Adobe, or without going through FT, this will mean nothing to many people who will never again work for FT whether it's for 20c CC subs or DPC or anything else.
But it presumably won't be 'Fotolia', as such.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2015, 08:30 »
+5
I have noticed just few minutes ago the Adobe logo on the Fotolia Homepage.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2015, 08:49 »
+2
Hopefully they'll take their website design out of the 1980's.

« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2015, 08:50 »
+3
If there's no change in the way FT operates and no way to submit directly to Adobe, or without going through FT, this will mean nothing to many people who will never again work for FT whether it's for 20c CC subs or DPC or anything else.

Here's hoping Adobe recognizes that they are not going to get the best materials from all the potential top quality suppliers. Too many bad deals and hard feelings, lingering in the wake of FTs past management.



E.g. it might work like this: as a buyer you get an illustration from Fotolia to use on your website but it is really served from Adobe's servers (the way webfonts are). That means that if you stop your subscription to CC, the illustration disappears from your website. This could conceivably open up new kinds Rights Management. E.g. if you subscribe to Fotolia you get images to use, but only on a limited number of websites, and if you stop paying for the subscription you lose the images.
the big question what author will get.
I 've seen already 20 cents payments from Getty's "Premium Access"  deals

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, 08:53 by Mantis »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2015, 09:14 »
+5
I will be honest about this, if management at Fotolia changes, I will try to get back in. Agree with Mantis.

« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2015, 09:36 »
+2
I will be honest about this, if management at Fotolia changes, I will try to get back in. Agree with Mantis.

I will too, Ron. I am not ashamed to admit i would go back, but i wouldnt today even if i were invited by "the chad". Mainly because these guys are all shady crooks. But if adobe replaces them with integrated management i would lobby to get back in. I would still opt out of dpc like i did.

« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2015, 09:43 »
+29
Hope they will kill DPC.

« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2015, 09:46 »
+1
I will be honest about this, if management at Fotolia changes, I will try to get back in. Agree with Mantis.

So will I.

« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2015, 10:49 »
+14
I would certainly consider it (returning to the agency) but it's not just seeing the old crew of management depart, but also the compensation models for contributors in the new Adobe CC-centered sales.

I thought the idea was interesting (somewhere above) that they might let subscribers use images as long as they were subscribers, but they'd be gone if you ever canceled. In that sort of model, would the contributor get monthly royalties on the use? If not, then it's a total ripoff, with the recurring income going to the agency for a one time payment to the contributor.

I'm not a fan of the subscription model for software licensing (although I know all the reasons why the software companies like it), but if there's going to be a sea change and contributors can go with it - with monthly income to us as well as the agencies/Adobe/whoever - then perhaps that's OK.

Having our images be part of some loss leader to flog Adobe CC subscriptions is not of much interest (DPC on steroids as it were).

Semmick Photo

« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2015, 10:52 »
0
You touch on some good points Jo Ann. I wonder about the legal implications for using our images. I assume adobe has to hold themselves to the FT T&C. Maybe they chose FT for that reason, their T&C are quite lenient and allow a lot of usage. Starting to sound like the DT/Google deal. One time payment, 100,000,000,000 times used.

objowl

« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2015, 11:48 »
0
I think that "a vibrant market for creatives to buy and sell" means a charge per use maybe like a poor mans Canva using Dollar Photo Club, but at a lower rate and RF.

« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2015, 13:16 »
+6
None of my business really as I don't use Adobe products, nor am I with Fotolia.
However I can't help thinking that this has all the making of "Exciting News" for contributors.

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.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #50 on: February 05, 2015, 11:10 »
+8
THere is no conspiracy. It's a fact! Adobe is driven by the demands of big shareholders. They will destroy the company if it means they will get rich.


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.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #51 on: February 05, 2015, 12:41 »
+5


Adobe make good solid software they're at the top of their game for a reason.

Yes, they bought their main competitor and made it sink (Macromedia Freehand)

« Reply #52 on: February 05, 2015, 17:16 »
+4


Adobe make good solid software they're at the top of their game for a reason.

Yes, they bought their main competitor and made it sink (Macromedia Freehand)

Don't forget Flash, Director, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, ColdFusion ... Adobe didn't make it sink ... They acquired the company ... The two similar programs (illustrator and freehand) were combined into one as were Flash and Director. I wouldn't guess that acquiring Freehand was nearly as influential in their decision as was acquiring Flash and Director, a technology that continues to be used at every corner of the interwebs, as well as in other multimedia products.
 


« Reply #53 on: February 06, 2015, 12:08 »
+3
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.

How come exactly? Photoshop and Lightroom combined are 9.99$/month.

Photoshop CS6 extended by itself was 999$. So you can subscribe for 100 months (8.3 years) and pay the same, all the time getting fresh updates. 8 years ago the most recent version of PS was CS3.

It's similar with Illustrator. Also 9.99$/month, and CS6 was 599$ (60 months - 5 years).

Maybe you use some different combination, but for most creative professionals, CC is cheaper.

« Reply #54 on: February 06, 2015, 13:52 »
+1
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.

How come exactly? Photoshop and Lightroom combined are 9.99$/month.

Photoshop CS6 extended by itself was 999$. So you can subscribe for 100 months (8.3 years) and pay the same, all the time getting fresh updates. 8 years ago the most recent version of PS was CS3.

It's similar with Illustrator. Also 9.99$/month, and CS6 was 599$ (60 months - 5 years).

Maybe you use some different combination, but for most creative professionals, CC is cheaper.

The problem for me is that I also need ID, Flash, and while I don't need DW and could use notepad++ or something, it's a tool that I use... at $40 for those 4 I might as well have the suite just in case I decide I want or need to do something different that day. Maybe I'm in the wrong profession but, $600 a year is a little tough for a small designer in a small town ... Though, I would take the plunge (and want to) if I even knew that I'd make $50 that month. lol. Hopefully spring will start bringing some exciting projects.

Ps for $10 seems like the photographers have it made ;)

« Reply #55 on: February 06, 2015, 16:05 »
+6
Maybe you use some different combination, but for most creative professionals, CC is cheaper.

Not to revisit this painful debate, but it isn't cheaper if you're a long time owner of Photoshop, Illustrator and (less long) Lightroom. And the Photographer deal doesn't help if you do something other than just Photoshop and Lightroom, but not a lot of their products.

I have no problem with them offering the subscription to those for whom it works well. It's the removal of a regular (what they now sweetly call "perpetual") license that is deeply painful for long time users of their products.

I'm not irrational - if it were a better deal for me I'd go for it

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #56 on: February 06, 2015, 20:14 »
+5
Exactly! Many of us paid $400-$500 for PS and maybe some other programs 10 years ago and we were only paying $200 or less for upgrades as we needed them. That was affordable. The rentware as the ONLY option is a BIG scam that treats us like sharecroppers. There should be legislation against Adobe to bust them for monopolizing and racketeering. They will pay for their actions soon.  >:(

Maybe you use some different combination, but for most creative professionals, CC is cheaper.

Not to revisit this painful debate, but it isn't cheaper if you're a long time owner of Photoshop, Illustrator and (less long) Lightroom. And the Photographer deal doesn't help if you do something other than just Photoshop and Lightroom, but not a lot of their products.

I have no problem with them offering the subscription to those for whom it works well. It's the removal of a regular (what they now sweetly call "perpetual") license that is deeply painful for long time users of their products.

I'm not irrational - if it were a better deal for me I'd go for it

« Reply #57 on: February 07, 2015, 00:41 »
+6
My biggest hesitation right now is that it is only 9.95 (or so...)  wasn't it over $30 when they introduced it?  What happens to everyone once they renew in a year?  9.95 per month in perpetuity sounds fairly reasonable.  But then again, I paid a lot for CS5 and don't feel the need to throw any more money at Adobe until absolutely necessary.

« Reply #58 on: February 07, 2015, 04:15 »
+2
My biggest hesitation right now is that it is only 9.95 (or so...)  wasn't it over $30 when they introduced it?  What happens to everyone once they renew in a year?  9.95 per month in perpetuity sounds fairly reasonable.  But then again, I paid a lot for CS5 and don't feel the need to throw any more money at Adobe until absolutely necessary.

Currently they are saying it will stay at 9.95. Depending on inflation I am sure that will be raised sooner or later, but I doubt it will go back to 29.95. There is a reason why they lowered it.

« Reply #59 on: February 07, 2015, 15:17 »
+4
I bought a upgrade copy of CS6 when they were still available just to avoid paying monthly fees.

Forcing your users into monthly subscription can discourage innovation.   When they had to tempt us to upgrade each year, they needed to keep adding a lot of new feature to each upgrade.

« Reply #60 on: February 07, 2015, 16:43 »
+2
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.

How come exactly? Photoshop and Lightroom combined are 9.99$/month.

Photoshop CS6 extended by itself was 999$. So you can subscribe for 100 months (8.3 years) and pay the same, all the time getting fresh updates. 8 years ago the most recent version of PS was CS3.

It's similar with Illustrator. Also 9.99$/month, and CS6 was 599$ (60 months - 5 years).

Maybe you use some different combination, but for most creative professionals, CC is cheaper.

Yes, I suppose I am one of the most unfortunate ones when it comes to this new payment model. I used to get CS Design Standard updates every two year for about 700 USD, which is 29 USD a month for Illustrator, Indesign, Photoshop and Acrobat. Today I have to pay 52 USD for CC (which of course gives me access to more apps, but I don't use them anyway so it's a waste of money) for the first two years and after that about 72 USD a month.

I could also pick just Photoshop and Illustrator which are the only apps I use daily but it would still be 43 USD a month.

I live in Europe by the way and for some insane reason Adobe products are a lot more expensive here.


Rinderart

« Reply #61 on: February 08, 2015, 14:04 »
+3
Fotolia under Adobe will rock... remember my words folks!  8)

I agree also. Fingers crossed.

« Reply #62 on: February 08, 2015, 14:32 »
+3
Fotolia under Adobe will rock... remember my words folks!  8)

I agree also. Fingers crossed.

This is pure wishful thinking. When we say "better" I am sure we all mean similar things....fairer search, better commissions, getting rid of ranking, etc. At least from the perspective of commissions, it won't change unless Adobe comes up with special licenses like SS has. Other than that it's fantasy to assume they will raise commissions and change the foundation of that sh!tty agency.

« Reply #63 on: March 09, 2015, 10:03 »
+4
Adobe is already changing image prices, setting them higher at least for the lower ranks.

One L sale was 7, now 8. A bronze X sale went from 50 to 60 and so on. Nice move!

Dook

« Reply #64 on: March 09, 2015, 11:15 »
+1
Yes, and the minimum price that you can set for EL is now 30 credits. It used to be 20. And it was default price, if you don't change it manually, it would stay that way. Nice move, too.

« Reply #65 on: March 09, 2015, 11:29 »
+1
Adobe is already changing image prices, setting them higher at least for the lower ranks.

One L sale was 7, now 8. A bronze X sale went from 50 to 60 and so on. Nice move!

Did they announce this increase anywhere or did they just slide it in like the would have in the past?

« Reply #66 on: March 09, 2015, 14:35 »
+2
Will contributors get free Creative Cloud subscription is what I want to know!  8)

« Reply #67 on: March 09, 2015, 15:21 »
0
In Israel we pay 15$ for all of CC software and 9$ for photoshop and Lightroom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uncle Pete

« Reply #68 on: March 09, 2015, 23:38 »
0
Interesting. Still says 20 on the FT site?

http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Credits




Yes, and the minimum price that you can set for EL is now 30 credits. It used to be 20. And it was default price, if you don't change it manually, it would stay that way. Nice move, too.

Dook

« Reply #69 on: March 10, 2015, 05:11 »
+1
Uncle Pete, yes, I see this now, too. I noticed the change to 30 while I was uploading yesterday. I think you can still set it to 20, but the default price during uploading process is 30 now.

« Reply #70 on: March 10, 2015, 08:41 »
0
they have changed all my vector extended prices from 80 credits to 30 (not 60 even it is new maximum price)

haven't sold any extended licences but very unhappy with this move.


« Reply #71 on: March 10, 2015, 08:44 »
0
A bronze X sale went from 50 to 60 and so on. Nice move!

For photos went up from 50 to 60, but from vector down from 80 to 60, and looks like if someone had maximum of 80 credits, like me, fotolia put new 30 credits price to all vectors(bronze)

so everyone check it out in your portfolio

 >:(

« Reply #72 on: March 10, 2015, 09:51 »
0
A bronze X sale went from 50 to 60 and so on. Nice move!

For photos went up from 50 to 60, but from vector down from 80 to 60, and looks like if someone had maximum of 80 credits, like me, fotolia put new 30 credits price to all vectors(bronze)

so everyone check it out in your portfolio

 >:(


I'm not seeing that. All of my vectors are still priced at 100 credits for Extended XV.

« Reply #73 on: March 10, 2015, 10:01 »
0


I'm not seeing that. All of my vectors are still priced at 100 credits for Extended XV.

are you bronze level?

« Reply #74 on: March 10, 2015, 10:22 »
+2
Anyone else notice review times have really slowed down recently?

« Reply #75 on: March 10, 2015, 13:09 »
0

« Reply #76 on: March 10, 2015, 13:11 »
0
are you bronze level?

Gold.

maybe that has something to do with it

I send them to change to the maximum price for all my photos and vectors, so no problem (I didn't sold extended licences)

but I didn't like it when I check the prices.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #77 on: March 10, 2015, 14:28 »
0
I'll just watch, until this storm passes.  ;) I don't know all the levels, credits, or how these changes are being made with no announcement. Maybe it will stabilize by next week, for everyone.

Good or bad, nice or nasty, still waiting for something to officially be announced about the Adobe deal and taking over.


A bronze X sale went from 50 to 60 and so on. Nice move!

For photos went up from 50 to 60, but from vector down from 80 to 60, and looks like if someone had maximum of 80 credits, like me, fotolia put new 30 credits price to all vectors(bronze)

so everyone check it out in your portfolio

 >:(

OM

« Reply #78 on: March 10, 2015, 17:29 »
+1
Uncle Pete, yes, I see this now, too. I noticed the change to 30 while I was uploading yesterday. I think you can still set it to 20, but the default price during uploading process is 30 now.

Uploaded yesterday and noticed too that the default setting had gone from 20 to 30.

Better sales at FT last month and this but despite the extra dl's my 7-day ranking is still lagging my overall ranking. Suggests to me that FT as a whole is doing well.

« Reply #79 on: March 21, 2015, 08:47 »
0
I haven't bothered to find out more about this deal. What exactly does it mean to customers? Can Adobe CC users search and download Fotolia images directly in some CC product?

Rinderart

« Reply #80 on: March 25, 2015, 13:34 »
-1
My sales have doubled there in the last Month. about time.

« Reply #81 on: March 25, 2015, 14:09 »
+2
My sales have doubled there in the last Month. about time.
I'm set to have the best month for earnings since the beginning of 2011 (at fot only)
« Last Edit: March 26, 2015, 03:07 by fotografer »

« Reply #82 on: March 26, 2015, 01:35 »
+3
My income from FT are almost as on SS  :)

« Reply #83 on: March 26, 2015, 16:24 »
+3
My income at FT is double of that on SS. And it has been so for the last 6 months. I sell approximately the same number of files though.

But on FT I get a lot of credit sales which gets me more money. Actually 1/3 of all of my sales on FT are credit sales.

And this month is going to be my record month on FT. About 100 with 488 files.

« Reply #84 on: March 27, 2015, 03:02 »
+2

« Reply #85 on: March 27, 2015, 04:11 »
+4
My earnings are still abysmal.

« Reply #86 on: March 27, 2015, 04:25 »
0
That's some scary chart Sharpshot.  Any idea why that happened?

« Reply #87 on: March 27, 2015, 04:36 »
0


My graph is about the same as Sharpshots, peaking at 2010 but has gone up a bit in the last few months.  This month I should earn just under half what I did in my peak months but   I've had many months where I have earnt only a seventh . I used to be able to easily live off stock alone but now it's a supplement to my  earnings.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2015, 04:49 by fotografer »

« Reply #88 on: March 27, 2015, 06:19 »
+2
That's some scary chart Sharpshot.  Any idea why that happened?
Probably some search changes killed off my best selling images.  They cut commissions a few times and I stopped uploading because there was no incentive to carry on.  Then there's the increased competition, especially when istock exclusives dropped the crown and started to use FT.  I'm not sure why some of us have seen a big earnings drop while others have been OK.

My earnings have stayed fairly stable with SS, even though I haven't uploaded much for a long time now.

« Reply #89 on: March 27, 2015, 06:21 »
0
Yep, my chart also looks similar to sharpshot's. On the other hand- I can also claim that my sales in March doubled to that of last month (after Feb being WME). Performance is far off the level still reached in 2013 and light years away from 2010/2011 levels.

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #90 on: March 27, 2015, 08:09 »
+2
My income on Fotolia peaked in 2010 where I made several thousands of euros.

After a slight drop in 2011 I saw my income drop more than 50% to 2012, and then another 50% from 2012 to 2013!

So, from 2010 to 2013 I lost about 82% of my Fotolia income, which is an absolute loss record in any agency!!! Could this have to be with the fact that I'm paid in euros so my photos get hidden on the searches compared to contributors receiving in dollars?

This year, I'm seeing a slight increase in the income compared with the same months from previous two years, but only a small fraction of what I earned in 2010/2011/2012.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2015, 08:12 by StockPhotosArt »

« Reply #91 on: March 27, 2015, 17:30 »
+5
I see the same trend with my earnings at Fotolia. My only explanation for that is that as your rank goes up (I am sapphire) and you can set higher prices for your images, your search position goes down. Fotolia clearly demonstrated that their strategy to compete is by slashing prices, so why would they want to show buyers images with more fair pricing. Somebody new with lower priced images get better position and better earnings.

« Reply #92 on: March 27, 2015, 19:41 »
0
That's some scary chart Sharpshot.  Any idea why that happened?
Probably some search changes killed off my best selling images.  They cut commissions a few times and I stopped uploading because there was no incentive to carry on.  Then there's the increased competition, especially when istock exclusives dropped the crown and started to use FT.  I'm not sure why some of us have seen a big earnings drop while others have been OK.

My earnings have stayed fairly stable with SS, even though I haven't uploaded much for a long time now.

As I recall, FT had a policy starting years ago that the search results would punish contributors who did not submit new images. When I stopped submitting, my sales at FT started to fall and they are still falling, compared to SS and DT.

« Reply #93 on: March 27, 2015, 19:58 »
+4
That's some scary chart Sharpshot.  Any idea why that happened?
Probably some search changes killed off my best selling images.  They cut commissions a few times and I stopped uploading because there was no incentive to carry on.  Then there's the increased competition, especially when istock exclusives dropped the crown and started to use FT.  I'm not sure why some of us have seen a big earnings drop while others have been OK.

My earnings have stayed fairly stable with SS, even though I haven't uploaded much for a long time now.

As I recall, FT had a policy starting years ago that the search results would punish contributors who did not submit new images. When I stopped submitting, my sales at FT started to fall and they are still falling, compared to SS and DT.

I still upload regularly. Sales are still going down. My hope is Adobe will get rid of Fotolia's search engine shenanigans and makes the system simple and transparent - with searches, payments, rankings and such. I can compete on the level playing field - so, fingers crossed...

« Reply #94 on: March 29, 2015, 23:06 »
+1
Some pretty awful stories here about falling sales.  I understand completely how becoming Emerald or Sapphire with higher prices might affect sales, and of course it's always possible that Fotolia changed the search because it didn't want to pay out the higher rates of commissions to the higher ranking suppliers. 

I did, however, read a note on Fotolias forum recently where someone mentioned the 'database crash that happened three or four years ago and affected sales for a lot of people, including many bronzes'.  Apparently they had a database crash and 'lost' or corrupted a large part of the keyword ranking system, which resulted in a sharp fall in sales for previously popular files.

It's a long shot, but I wonder if that database crash is a contributing factor in some of the decline in sales for previously successful suppliers.  It must be worth checking some files using the manage files - indexing feature to see if the keywords order is complete nonsense.  I suppose it's also possible that many files have keywords missing, or perhaps none at all.

I mention this because although I'm aware that Elena and some others are at the higher levels, I don't believe Sharpshot and Mellimage are Emerald or Sapphire, yet they are telling the same story, which suggests some other factor might be at least partly to blame.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2015, 23:48 by hatman12 »

OM

« Reply #95 on: March 30, 2015, 04:48 »
0
Some pretty awful stories here about falling sales.  I understand completely how becoming Emerald or Sapphire with higher prices might affect sales, and of course it's always possible that Fotolia changed the search because it didn't want to pay out the higher rates of commissions to the higher ranking suppliers. 

I did, however, read a note on Fotolias forum recently where someone mentioned the 'database crash that happened three or four years ago and affected sales for a lot of people, including many bronzes'.  Apparently they had a database crash and 'lost' or corrupted a large part of the keyword ranking system, which resulted in a sharp fall in sales for previously popular files.

It's a long shot, but I wonder if that database crash is a contributing factor in some of the decline in sales for previously successful suppliers.  It must be worth checking some files using the manage files - indexing feature to see if the keywords order is complete nonsense.  I suppose it's also possible that many files have keywords missing, or perhaps none at all.

I mention this because although I'm aware that Elena and some others are at the higher levels, I don't believe Sharpshot and Mellimage are Emerald or Sapphire, yet they are telling the same story, which suggests some other factor might be at least partly to blame.

Such a database crash would explain a lot. Indeed, I had good selling files that went from hero to zero within the space of 2 weeks. They never came back.

« Reply #96 on: March 30, 2015, 06:32 »
0
I can still find what used to be my best selling image on the first page when I search for relevant keywords.  I can't find another one and would like to change the keywords but they don't seem to be editable.  Not sure if it is worth the time deleting and uploading again, as new images don't seem to do well.

They haven't done a good job of tackling keyword spamming.  The search results look horrendous to me, lots of the images have nothing to do with what I am searching for.

The other problem is the copycats.  Any original idea gets copied to death and eventually the original sinks down the search and the copycats get all the sales.

« Reply #97 on: March 30, 2015, 07:06 »
0
I haven't heard the theory of the database crash yet. Could be an explanation.

Or possibly they just did some drastic change to their search algorithm (or better: to the algorithm that determines the "relevance" order, which is the default sort order on FT).

When I look at the relevance search order for some specific search terms, my older images (from 2007 / 2008) seem to appear almost in the same place as in the order by date. And number of sales does not really make a difference.

My formerly best selling image is still number two on Fotolia (for it's main keyword, which is pretty specific and delivers only 155 search results) when ordered by number of downloads (it has over 100 downloads).
The same image is almost the last one (number 149 of 155) when ordered by date.
When ordered by relevance it is only marginally better (around number 120 of 155).

Same pattern can be seen for other images: for old images the number of downloads is almost irrelevant for their "relevance" search position, the biggest factor by far is age.

It looks to me that they increased the weighting of "newness" and decreased the weighting of past performance so that old files will be moved down no matter how much sales they had.

The file I mentioned above sold regularly until early 2011, after that only a handful of sales (only two in 2012, nothing since).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
36 Replies
19022 Views
Last post May 07, 2009, 11:48
by batman
61 Replies
18625 Views
Last post May 20, 2015, 21:00
by Pixart
8 Replies
3149 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 13:09
by izzikiorage
13 Replies
33154 Views
Last post June 23, 2015, 17:14
by spike
3 Replies
2306 Views
Last post June 27, 2015, 16:09
by HalfFull

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results