MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Introducing Adobe Stock!  (Read 59132 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #450 on: July 16, 2015, 11:53 »
+1
It costs $2400 per year for a SS subscription, I would bet almost all of the yearly subscribers are using Adobe ($600 per month for complete and only $120 for PS).


I know a couple of big blogs that use Shutterstock for their 5-20 articles they publish each and every day. I wouldn't know why they would need any Adobe product as they use the images just the way they get them from Shutterstock. Not sure if that looks so much different for most editorial users.

If you are going to spend $2400 for a photo subscription, $120 to crop, edit, downsize etc.. doesn't seem like much cost.  Sure you could do most things without it but it's a relatively small cost to get the industry standard photo editor.  Do you really believe a large percentage of people spending thousands of dollars a year on images don't use photoshop?
 Eighty-five percent of customers who purchase stock images use Adobe creative tools."
http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/201506/061615AdobeStockLaunchesWorldwide.html
I would guess that number is higher for buyers spending more than $2,000 per year on stock images, I can see people who buy one or two images per year not using photoshop but not too many who spend thousands.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2015, 11:59 by tickstock »


Shelma1

« Reply #451 on: July 16, 2015, 12:17 »
+1
Surprised to see this:
"55% of Shutterstock users indicated they would shift usage from Shutterstock to Adobe Stock if features were offered in the Adobe Creative Cloud that made importing images easier"
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2015/07/14/morgan-stanley-highlights-seven-e-commerce-and-media-stocks/


That seems to imply that 55% of all users would switch but more likely it was 55% of the polled group of Creative Cloud users that would switch.


It's impossible to tell, because they provide no further information or reference to the poll. Who conducted it, how it was conducted, what they asked, etc. I'd be curious to know, because that might have an impact on where I upload first and most.

« Reply #452 on: July 16, 2015, 12:31 »
+2
If you are going to spend $2400 for a photo subscription, $120 to crop, edit, downsize etc.. doesn't seem like much cost.  Sure you could do most things without it but it's a relatively small cost to get the industry standard photo editor.  Do you really believe a large percentage of people spending thousands of dollars a year on images don't use photoshop?

It's not about saving money, it's about time. The buyers I talked about are the ones who directly download images into their WordPress installation or content management system. They don't crop, the don't resize from what I see. Why would you bother storing an image on your desktop, open it in a software to resize, upload it to a web service if you can save this time and have no advantage from it? They mostly have the download integrated into their platform, so the image most likely never reaches the user's hard drive.

I can't say what percentage of users work that way. I don't believe all the things I read in marketing material, I just make observations and try to come up with my own explanations. Not necessarily accurate ones but also not necessarily worse than quoting from press releases.

« Reply #453 on: July 16, 2015, 12:47 »
0
If you are going to spend $2400 for a photo subscription, $120 to crop, edit, downsize etc.. doesn't seem like much cost.  Sure you could do most things without it but it's a relatively small cost to get the industry standard photo editor.  Do you really believe a large percentage of people spending thousands of dollars a year on images don't use photoshop?

It's not about saving money, it's about time. The buyers I talked about are the ones who directly download images into their WordPress installation or content management system. They don't crop, the don't resize from what I see. Why would you bother storing an image on your desktop, open it in a software to resize, upload it to a web service if you can save this time and have no advantage from it? They mostly have the download integrated into their platform, so the image most likely never reaches the user's hard drive.

I can't say what percentage of users work that way. I don't believe all the things I read in marketing material, I just make observations and try to come up with my own explanations. Not necessarily accurate ones but also not necessarily worse than quoting from press releases.
Ok, so most buyers of subscriptions (spending thousands of dollars on photos a year) don't crop, add text, color correct, resize or do any editing at all to images ever?  I find that hard to believe and apparently from the 20% drop in stock price since Adobe Stock was introduced many investors don't believe it either.   I think you are looking at outliers rather than the norm.   It's difficult for me to imagine an advertising agency not using photo editing software.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2015, 13:18 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #454 on: July 16, 2015, 13:26 »
+3
If you are going to spend $2400 for a photo subscription, $120 to crop, edit, downsize etc.. doesn't seem like much cost.  Sure you could do most things without it but it's a relatively small cost to get the industry standard photo editor.  Do you really believe a large percentage of people spending thousands of dollars a year on images don't use photoshop?

It's not about saving money, it's about time. The buyers I talked about are the ones who directly download images into their WordPress installation or content management system. They don't crop, the don't resize from what I see. Why would you bother storing an image on your desktop, open it in a software to resize, upload it to a web service if you can save this time and have no advantage from it? They mostly have the download integrated into their platform, so the image most likely never reaches the user's hard drive.

I can't say what percentage of users work that way. I don't believe all the things I read in marketing material, I just make observations and try to come up with my own explanations. Not necessarily accurate ones but also not necessarily worse than quoting from press releases.
Ok, so most buyers of subscriptions (spending thousands of dollars on photos a year) don't crop, add text, color correct, resize or do any editing at all to images ever?  I find that hard to believe and apparently from the 20% drop in stock price since Adobe Stock was introduced many investors don't believe it either.   I think you are looking at outliers rather than the norm.   It's difficult for me to imagine an advertising agency not using photo editing software.

Advertising agencies have completely different price structures with additional indemnity and other add-ons. They use SS Premier and Offset. As far as I know Fotolia doesn't have anything in place yet to offer that.

« Reply #455 on: July 17, 2015, 04:58 »
+3
Ok, so most buyers of subscriptions (spending thousands of dollars on photos a year) don't crop, add text, color correct, resize or do any editing at all to images ever?

Not sure if that looks so much different for most editorial users.

Spot the difference. I know your view is always limited to what you want to see but this should be an easy one.

« Reply #456 on: July 17, 2015, 05:04 »
+2
It's difficult for me to imagine an advertising agency not using photo editing software.

An advertising agency. But millions of customers are not agencies. They are normal business users, that just download files into their documents reports, or into their template for the website.

That is why creating images with text in different languages keeps selling, if people find something finished and ready for use, that is what they take.

« Reply #457 on: July 17, 2015, 05:54 »
+8
I still think an advertising agency is more likely to buy an image from SS than FT because FT spent years losing contributors that have great portfolios on SS.  So buyers are far more likely to find what they want on SS.  Maybe that will change in the future but I think it will take some time for adobe to turn around FT.  I doubt SS will just sit back and watch adobe try to grab its image buyers.

« Reply #458 on: July 17, 2015, 09:05 »
+1
Ok, so most buyers of subscriptions (spending thousands of dollars on photos a year) don't crop, add text, color correct, resize or do any editing at all to images ever?

Not sure if that looks so much different for most editorial users.

Spot the difference. I know your view is always limited to what you want to see but this should be an easy one.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say with that?  You weren't really arguing that most SS customers don't use Adobe, you were just pointing out that some editorial users might not?  If that's all you were saying then fine, I guess it's possible that a few editorial users are spending $2400 per year on photos but have no editing software.  They say 15% of stock buyers don't use Adobe products.

« Reply #459 on: July 17, 2015, 09:10 »
+1
It's difficult for me to imagine an advertising agency not using photo editing software.

An advertising agency. But millions of customers are not agencies. They are normal business users, that just download files into their documents reports, or into their template for the website.

That is why creating images with text in different languages keeps selling, if people find something finished and ready for use, that is what they take.
How many buyers spend $2,400 per year on photos for those uses and not using photo editing software?  I bet it's not too high a percentage.  If you are spending that much money you most likely doing it to make money, read the license that's what people are buying the images for. 
You mean all those "Your text here images" ready to use, just drop it in your website, no editing necessary.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2015, 09:14 by tickstock »

ShadySue

« Reply #460 on: July 17, 2015, 09:18 »
+1
There's also InDesign, which Adobe Stock could presumably also feed into.

Also, presumably Adobe is hoping to 'capture' them within their CC web programs, not just DW but their other web and mobile apps also.

"X% of SS users say they would switch" is pretty meaningless, and would also no doubt apply to iS or DW users if questioned. It's like all these people who say, do you agree that a, b and c, where most people would agree with a, b, and c; however, getting them to make the crucial action 'd' - which seems most logical if you agree with a, b and c - doesn't always happen. A lot depends on exactly what was asked and how the askees were led to that answer.

If the buyers switch in droves, it's up to providers to decide if they are happy to put up with Adobe's payments if that's where the buyers are. No more and no less. It's all to play for. iStock was the big fave and lost it through a fatal combination of greed and incompetence. SS took over the 'fave' mantle and seems to be losing it, and no one micro is currently 'showing' as consistently good for contributors.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2015, 18:00 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

« Reply #461 on: July 17, 2015, 09:19 »
+3
It's difficult for me to imagine an advertising agency not using photo editing software.

An advertising agency. But millions of customers are not agencies. They are normal business users, that just download files into their documents reports, or into their template for the website.

That is why creating images with text in different languages keeps selling, if people find something finished and ready for use, that is what they take.
How many buyers spend $2,400 per year on photos for those uses and not using photo editing software?  I bet it's not too high a percentage.  If you are spending that much money you most likely doing it to make money, read the license that's what people are buying the images for. 
You mean all those "Your text here images" ready to use, just drop it in your website, no editing necessary.

By far most of my found in-uses are 'as is', often not even resized, as clicking on the image reveals (contrary to iS's T&C).

« Reply #462 on: July 17, 2015, 09:19 »
+5
It's difficult for me to imagine an advertising agency not using photo editing software.

An advertising agency. But millions of customers are not agencies. They are normal business users, that just download files into their documents reports, or into their template for the website.

That is why creating images with text in different languages keeps selling, if people find something finished and ready for use, that is what they take.
How many buyers spend $2,400 per year on photos for those uses and not using photo editing software?  I bet it's not too high a percentage.  If you are spending that much money you most likely doing it to make money, read the license that's what people are buying the images for. 
You mean all those "Your text here images" ready to use, just drop it in your website, no editing necessary.

When I find my images used on the internet, I very, very, seldom see them processed. Of course, there are other usages than blogs or company websites, and you can be right. Even if so, I personally don't have the facts to confirm it. Or maybe it is just my type of stock.

« Reply #463 on: July 17, 2015, 09:21 »
+1
It's difficult for me to imagine an advertising agency not using photo editing software.

An advertising agency. But millions of customers are not agencies. They are normal business users, that just download files into their documents reports, or into their template for the website.

That is why creating images with text in different languages keeps selling, if people find something finished and ready for use, that is what they take.
How many buyers spend $2,400 per year on photos for those uses and not using photo editing software?  I bet it's not too high a percentage.  If you are spending that much money you most likely doing it to make money, read the license that's what people are buying the images for. 
You mean all those "Your text here images" ready to use, just drop it in your website, no editing necessary.

By far most of my found in-uses are 'as is', often not even resized, as clicking on the image reveals (contrary to iS's T&C).
By reading this forum you would think no one actually uses Adobe products.  Maybe I'm the only photoshop and premier user here.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2015, 09:25 by tickstock »

« Reply #464 on: July 17, 2015, 09:24 »
+2
It's difficult for me to imagine an advertising agency not using photo editing software.

An advertising agency. But millions of customers are not agencies. They are normal business users, that just download files into their documents reports, or into their template for the website.

That is why creating images with text in different languages keeps selling, if people find something finished and ready for use, that is what they take.
How many buyers spend $2,400 per year on photos for those uses and not using photo editing software?  I bet it's not too high a percentage.  If you are spending that much money you most likely doing it to make money, read the license that's what people are buying the images for. 
You mean all those "Your text here images" ready to use, just drop it in your website, no editing necessary.

When I find my images used on the internet, I very, very, seldom see them processed. Of course, there are other usages than blogs or company websites, and you can be right. Even if so, I personally don't have the facts to confirm it. Or maybe it is just my type of stock.
I agree a lot of images on the internet won't be processed (many are cropped though), especially the ones that are easy to find.  If your image is used as a background for an ad it won't show up in a google image search for the original, it won't be credited with your name, it might only be a small part of the final product so you might even miss it if you don't look closely. 

« Reply #465 on: July 17, 2015, 09:37 »
+3

By reading this forum you would think no one actually uses Adobe products.  Maybe I'm the only photoshop and premier user here.

just walk through any normal office or business. How many doctors, plumbers, accountants,physiotherapist,restaurants etc...have adobe products installed?

Obviously the people here all use adobe as does the design, media crowd. But the majority of the worlds business are not designers.


« Reply #466 on: July 17, 2015, 09:40 »
+4
Just because a photo buyer uses Adobe software does not mean they'll find much/enough benefit in buying their stock images from Adobe. I know Adobe is hoping that integration will help them capture market share, but my guess is that what they have won't make a material difference to current image buyers.

If you have assets of multiple types from multiple sources, you probably have some sort of asset management and workflow now. Adobe's is currently somewhat limited, especially to types of media they manage. Why switch?

No idea where they got that 55% will switch number from - if anyone finds the survey details, it'd be interesting to read.

« Reply #467 on: July 17, 2015, 09:48 »
+2
just walk through any normal office or business. How many doctors, plumbers, accountants,physiotherapist,restaurants etc...have adobe products installed?

Ever fewer businesses are buying stock photos anyhow vs the 2001 - 2009 boom. And the market is massively over supplied. Hence profits continue to fall. The same as many companies no longer actively maintain websites.

Adobe can afford to see this not as a business but as added value bolted on to an existing software service.

« Reply #468 on: July 17, 2015, 10:18 »
+1
Just because a photo buyer uses Adobe software does not mean they'll find much/enough benefit in buying their stock images from Adobe. I know Adobe is hoping that integration will help them capture market share, but my guess is that what they have won't make a material difference to current image buyers.

If you have assets of multiple types from multiple sources, you probably have some sort of asset management and workflow now. Adobe's is currently somewhat limited, especially to types of media they manage. Why switch?

No idea where they got that 55% will switch number from - if anyone finds the survey details, it'd be interesting to read.
It's not just integration that Adobe offers, they also charge less for everything except subs (subs are priced the same as SS).  They also pay less per sub dl so if they aren't getting the growth they want they can lower prices and still be as profitable as SS. 

« Reply #469 on: July 17, 2015, 10:20 »
+1

By reading this forum you would think no one actually uses Adobe products.  Maybe I'm the only photoshop and premier user here.

just walk through any normal office or business. How many doctors, plumbers, accountants,physiotherapist,restaurants etc...have adobe products installed?

Obviously the people here all use adobe as does the design, media crowd. But the majority of the worlds business are not designers.
And how many of those places spend $2400 per year on image subscriptions?  The lower volume sales are cheaper at Adobe than SS too.

« Reply #470 on: July 17, 2015, 17:57 »
+4
just walk through any normal office or business. How many doctors, plumbers, accountants,physiotherapist,restaurants etc...have adobe products installed?

Ever fewer businesses are buying stock photos anyhow vs the 2001 - 2009 boom. And the market is massively over supplied. Hence profits continue to fall. The same as many companies no longer actively maintain websites.

Adobe can afford to see this not as a business but as added value bolted on to an existing software service.
Really?  I see nothing but stock photos everywhere.  We might be getting less money but that doesn't mean the sites are selling less.

Shelma1

« Reply #471 on: July 17, 2015, 18:56 »
+1
Several of the articles I've read about stock images state there's a huge potential market and that sales right now are only scratching the surface. I'm not sure where they get their info or why library growth would be outpacing sales growth in that case, as it certainly seems to be.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #472 on: July 17, 2015, 19:16 »
+9
Several of the articles I've read about stock images state there's a huge potential market and that sales right now are only scratching the surface. I'm not sure where they get their info or why library growth would be outpacing sales growth in that case, as it certainly seems to be.

Probably because sales downloads are growing but prices are dropping and there are a flood of new images. Buyers love it. Sites are probably seeing record sales, revenue, and profits. But as more contributors are competing for a smaller slice of a lower priced pie we're not quite seeing the same wonderful results.

« Reply #473 on: July 18, 2015, 01:31 »
+4
They say 15% of stock buyers don't use Adobe products.

They say 85% are using Adobe products? Does that include Adobe Acrobat Reader and/or Adobe Flash Player? Or did they say 85% are actually using Photoshop or InDesign?

« Reply #474 on: July 18, 2015, 11:50 »
+1
Several of the articles I've read about stock images state there's a huge potential market and that sales right now are only scratching the surface. I'm not sure where they get their info or why library growth would be outpacing sales growth in that case, as it certainly seems to be.

i think this is because more and more people around the world are getting connected to the internet and use digital networking to do their business. in the US probably most companies by now have websites or use social media advertising but there is a huge world out there that is just starting out.

And demand will be grow for both cheap and expensive content with localized content probably in most demand.

It also means more competition coming in,especially now that the smartphonecrowd can do stock and don't even Need to keyword and describe their files (See eyeem) so Even if you don't know english you can still build a portfolio.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3229 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 13:09
by izzikiorage
3 Replies
2244 Views
Last post June 18, 2015, 13:29
by Sean Locke Photography
17 Replies
5386 Views
Last post November 27, 2015, 10:38
by logeeker
32 Replies
7231 Views
Last post June 27, 2015, 12:53
by cobalt
6 Replies
4768 Views
Last post August 18, 2017, 17:25
by SpaceStockFootage

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results