pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Introducing Adobe Stock!  (Read 78617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: June 17, 2015, 09:47 »
0
Matt, What is the income range, i.e. money per download received by the photographer for clips?


« Reply #151 on: June 17, 2015, 09:55 »
+3
Matt,
the watermark is too simple and not covering enough. There is still possibility to balance interests of designer and vendor. Comp quality is too high for the comp, for my opinion.

I agree that the watermark for the "Save Preview to Desktop" doesn't cover enough of the image. I think iStock's new preview (which is even bigger than Adobe's) handles the job better. Even adding a crosshatch, outside the existing logo, would be an improvement.

As a buyer, I welcome the bigger comps. You can't really see what parts of the photo are in focus on the smaller previews. Many times I've been disappointed after buying a photo, before realizing that the shallow depth of field, made that photo unusable in certain projects.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 09:57 by rimglow »

« Reply #152 on: June 17, 2015, 09:58 »
+12
Thanks for the great news Matt.  I'm excited to see how this new move by Adobe affects sales!

If Fotolio is your only agency, then you should be excited, but otherwise I can't see how it could matter a squit. AS makes more sales; someone else makes less.

Not necessarily.  Here's a built in market of application users that might not have been interested in licensing before.

« Reply #153 on: June 17, 2015, 10:01 »
+1
Thanks for the great news Matt.  I'm excited to see how this new move by Adobe affects sales!

If Fotolio is your only agency, then you should be excited, but otherwise I can't see how it could matter a squit. AS makes more sales; someone else makes less.

Not necessarily.  Here's a built in market of application users that might not have been interested in licensing before.
I guess if those built in users used to just ripoff images, I might agree with you, but generally speaking, given the saturation and inexpensive nature of the market, if you need images, you're buying them someplace. It's not like a designer is going to just notice "hey what a great idea, I can place images in my design."

« Reply #154 on: June 17, 2015, 10:14 »
+6
Thanks for the great news Matt.  I'm excited to see how this new move by Adobe affects sales!

If Fotolio is your only agency, then you should be excited, but otherwise I can't see how it could matter a squit. AS makes more sales; someone else makes less.

Not necessarily.  Here's a built in market of application users that might not have been interested in licensing before.
Shutterstock investors don't seem to see it that way, there was about a 13% decline in stock value the day Adobe announced their intention to buy fotolia and now there is a 7% decline since this was implemented yesterday.  You can't go too much off stock value but December 10 (the day before it was announced) the stock was at $72 and now it's at $59.  I would bet a large part of that drop is due to the Adobe-Fotolia deal.  If you are at the top level on SS you'll make less on the sub sales until you reach 1,000,000 sales (the payout is less than 38 cents until you reach one million sales).  On demand sales also pay $2.85 at SS for top level contributors ($1.88 for bottom level) while they pay 99 cents or $1.65 at Fotolia. It's more than a little disappointing that they didn't give a better rate to exclusive contributors and files.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 10:19 by tickstock »

« Reply #155 on: June 17, 2015, 10:18 »
+6
I find the contributor levels at FT a tad unrealistic, I'm sure most agree.

I think Cobalt said it elsewhere "now I have a chance of reaching gold in this lifetime!"  since the subs count as downloads.  That's something.  Glad to see that Leaf and a few others have sprinted ahead overnight.

« Reply #156 on: June 17, 2015, 10:22 »
+2
I find the contributor levels at FT a tad unrealistic, I'm sure most agree.

I think Cobalt said it elsewhere "now I have a chance of reaching gold in this lifetime!"  since the subs count as downloads.  That's something.  Glad to see that Leaf and a few others have sprinted ahead overnight.
Gold means you'll make almost 20% less per sub sale than a top level contributor at SS will make.  Gold level is roughly the same as the top level at SS, I think.

Shelma1

« Reply #157 on: June 17, 2015, 10:38 »
+8
If you are at the top level on SS you'll make less on the sub sales until you reach 1,000,000 sales (the payout is less than 38 cents until you reach one million sales).

??? I've been making 38 cents per sub on SS for years, and I have nowhere near a million sales.

« Reply #158 on: June 17, 2015, 10:40 »
+8
It seems to me that regular buyers of images, illustrations, audio & video  (particularly companies as opposed to freelancers or very small businesses) will already have some way of managing their assets. And the end users of Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. will typically not be the decision makers but some other group in the company that pays the bills and manages budgets.

Offering to centralize digital asset management along with your subscriptions to Adobe CC software would make sense if you didn't currently have any management, or (assuming Adobe's was better) you could manage all your assets with them - including assets acquired elsewhere.

Offering to manage only some media types or only items acquired through Adobe leaves a company looking at two solutions or sticking with what they currently have.

The other issue is people having annual subscriptions or other long term commitments with their current stock supplier (and I highly doubt that there's any big new pool of users to tap just because they now have a choice of Adobe as a supplier of stock images and illustrations). At the very least, companies will have to wait out their current term - which gives the other agencies some time to figure out how to try to retain their customers (assuming they've realized they need to do that; let's hope).

The larger previews will be a draw. Automatic changeout for the purchased image, keeping cropping, scaling, rotation or text overlays should be a plus (I assume this is using some flavor of smart object?).

The reduced choice, particularly comparing with Shutterstock, will be a drawback. I did a few searches yesterday at both agencies and Shutterstock has many more options for the searches I tried. And in searches producing only several hundred results or fewer, the differences become even more pronounced (and I did photo only searches to eliminate the media Adobe doesn't handle).

I'm one of those forced to watch from the sidelines (Fotolia wouldn't have me back as a contributor after my iStock exclusivity ended) so perhaps my perspective is skewed, but I don't see the convenience or the asset management as being enough of a draw to pull buyers away from Shutterstock.

The other very good piece of news though is that Adobe will no longer be advertising Dollar Photo Club - de-emphasizing that over time could mean that it can quietly go away at some future point. That would be very good news for all contributors.

« Reply #159 on: June 17, 2015, 10:41 »
+6
If you are at the top level on SS you'll make less on the sub sales until you reach 1,000,000 sales (the payout is less than 38 cents until you reach one million sales).

??? I've been making 38 cents per sub on SS for years, and I have nowhere near a million sales.
On FT you need to get 1,000,000 sales to get more than 38 cents per sub dl otherwise you'll be making less than a top level SS contributor makes off a sub sale.  If FT takes business from SS you'll be making less for those sales until you get 1,000,000 sales at FT.

« Reply #160 on: June 17, 2015, 10:44 »
0
Matt, What is the income range, i.e. money per download received by the photographer for clips?

Adobe Stock is not selling video clips at this time.

-Mat

« Reply #161 on: June 17, 2015, 10:49 »
+3
Thanks for the great news Matt.  I'm excited to see how this new move by Adobe affects sales!

If Fotolio is your only agency, then you should be excited, but otherwise I can't see how it could matter a squit. AS makes more sales; someone else makes less.

Not necessarily.  Here's a built in market of application users that might not have been interested in licensing before.

More likely scenario is that Adobe will soon start offering subscription bundles with the suite for no additional cost, and designers who were previously licensing individual images will be getting them as subs instead.

ultimagina

« Reply #162 on: June 17, 2015, 10:57 »
+1
Thanks for the great news Matt.  I'm excited to see how this new move by Adobe affects sales!

If Fotolio is your only agency, then you should be excited, but otherwise I can't see how it could matter a squit. AS makes more sales; someone else makes less.

It's not always a zero sum game, but even if it is, when the one making less sales is the one that pays you less, (eg if FT gets sales from IS) then changes like this matter.

« Reply #163 on: June 17, 2015, 10:59 »
+3
Thanks for the great news Matt.  I'm excited to see how this new move by Adobe affects sales!

If Fotolio is your only agency, then you should be excited, but otherwise I can't see how it could matter a squit. AS makes more sales; someone else makes less.

It's not always a zero sum game, but even if it is, when the one making less sales is the one that pays you less, (eg if FT gets sales from IS) then changes like this matter.
Shutterstock is the leader in subs sales, I'd expect a bigger impact on them than iStock.  It's probably not a coincidence that the Adobe sub plan costs $199 for 750 images just like the SS plan.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 11:02 by tickstock »

ultimagina

« Reply #164 on: June 17, 2015, 11:09 »
+1
Shutterstock is the leader in subs sales, I'd expect a bigger impact on them than iStock.  It's probably not a coincidence that the Adobe sub plan costs $199 for 750 images just like the SS plan.

Even so, as explained in another post, the average SS RPD is slightly lower than the average FT RPD (exactly because SS sells more subs than FT).
Therefore, if FT manages to steal sales from SS while paying a higher commission, then this is, obviously, a good thing!
And again, it is not necessarily a zero sum game. Remember that we got a few extra SS sales when they closed the deal with FB, which made easier for FB users to advertise using SS photos.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 11:14 by ultimagaina »

« Reply #165 on: June 17, 2015, 11:15 »
+2
I'm one of those forced to watch from the sidelines (Fotolia wouldn't have me back as a contributor after my iStock exclusivity ended) so perhaps my perspective is skewed, but I don't see the convenience or the asset management as being enough of a draw to pull buyers away from Shutterstock.

I would hope that Adobe would reconsider artists based on their skills not on how they have voiced their opinons.  I hope a huge conglomerate of professionals like Adobe would have not have the same knee jerk reactions that a "how dare you I built this empire myself in my basement" company has.  There are so many others who gave a voice for everyone (Bobby Deal comes to mind) that were punted out while I believe they were unfairly treated for confronting rule changes and questionable practices.

« Reply #166 on: June 17, 2015, 11:22 »
+5
Shutterstock is the leader in subs sales, I'd expect a bigger impact on them than iStock.  It's probably not a coincidence that the Adobe sub plan costs $199 for 750 images just like the SS plan.

Even so, as explained in another post, the average SS RPD is slightly lower than the average FT RPD (exactly because SS sells more subs than FT).
Therefore, if FT manages to steal sales from SS while paying a higher commission, then this is, obviously, a good thing!
It won't be Fotolia taking sales from SS it will be Adobe taking sales from SS, that's what you need to compare.  Here are the plans compared (Fotolia at Gold level and SS at the top level), hopefully this is a fair comparison.
750 image subs plan Adobe pays 31 cents SS pays 38 cents
Single sales Adobe pays $3.30 SS pays 30% (2 images for $25) $3.75 (or more up to $120)
On Demand Adobe pays 99 cents or $1.65 (10 image "sub" deal is about the same thing)  SS pays $2.85

MxR

« Reply #167 on: June 17, 2015, 11:28 »
0
Matt... why EXCLUSIVES contributors:


1. They do not get better subscription fee than no exclusives
2. Do not get better seacrh results
3. Can upload best works to infinite

« Reply #168 on: June 17, 2015, 11:29 »
0
Quote
I would hope that Adobe would reconsider artists based on their skills not on how they have voiced their opinons.


I was reading a press release yesterday, and the impression I got was that Fotolia was staying a separate entity, as they are. I looked for that article, but couldn't find it. If I do, I will post a link here. Maybe i misunderstood.

edit: Here's the article: http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/16/8785627/adobe-stock-creative-cloud-2015-launch

Here's the language:
"Adobe is also offering Creative Cloud subscribers a discounted stock image plan, which should encourage them to choose Stock over similar services, like Getty or Shutterstock. Of course, that all depends on the quality of Adobe Stock's photos, but Adobe has taken a shortcut to give itself a strong start: it purchased the stock photo service Fotolia earlier this year, so it'll include 40 million pieces of content photos, illustrations, and graphics (with videos arriving "soon") that were up on Fotolia to start. (Fotolia will continue to operate on its own as well. Adobe says that its name is strong in Europe.)"

Can a contributor submit directly to Adobe Stock, or do they go through Fotolia?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 12:02 by cathyslife »

ultimagina

« Reply #169 on: June 17, 2015, 11:35 »
0
Shutterstock is the leader in subs sales, I'd expect a bigger impact on them than iStock.  It's probably not a coincidence that the Adobe sub plan costs $199 for 750 images just like the SS plan.

Even so, as explained in another post, the average SS RPD is slightly lower than the average FT RPD (exactly because SS sells more subs than FT).
Therefore, if FT manages to steal sales from SS while paying a higher commission, then this is, obviously, a good thing!
It won't be Fotolia taking sales from SS it will be Adobe taking sales from SS, that's what you need to compare.  Here are the plans compared (Fotolia at Gold level and SS at the top level), hopefully this is a fair comparison.
750 image subs plan Adobe pays 31 cents SS pays 38 cents
Single sales Adobe pays $3.30 SS pays 30% (2 images for $25) $3.75 (or more up to $120)
On Demand Adobe pays 99 cents or $1.65 (10 image "sub" deal is about the same thing)  SS pays $2.85
All you say is right.
The difference comes from the ratio subs/on demand.
This is what made FT RPD slightly higher. Moreover, SS has increased this ratio, lately.

It remains to be seen if the Adobe RPD will continue the FT trend or will fall down to SS levels, or, God forbid, IS levels.


Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


« Reply #170 on: June 17, 2015, 11:36 »
0
Matt, What is the income range, i.e. money per download received by the photographer for clips?

Adobe Stock is not selling video clips at this time.

-Mat

Thanks.

« Reply #171 on: June 17, 2015, 11:39 »
+4
It seems to me that regular buyers of images, illustrations, audio & video  (particularly companies as opposed to freelancers or very small businesses) will already have some way of managing their assets. And the end users of Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. will typically not be the decision makers but some other group in the company that pays the bills and manages budgets.

Offering to centralize digital asset management along with your subscriptions to Adobe CC software would make sense if you didn't currently have any management, or (assuming Adobe's was better) you could manage all your assets with them - including assets acquired elsewhere.

Offering to manage only some media types or only items acquired through Adobe leaves a company looking at two solutions or sticking with what they currently have.

The other issue is people having annual subscriptions or other long term commitments with their current stock supplier (and I highly doubt that there's any big new pool of users to tap just because they now have a choice of Adobe as a supplier of stock images and illustrations). At the very least, companies will have to wait out their current term - which gives the other agencies some time to figure out how to try to retain their customers (assuming they've realized they need to do that; let's hope).

The larger previews will be a draw. Automatic changeout for the purchased image, keeping cropping, scaling, rotation or text overlays should be a plus (I assume this is using some flavor of smart object?).

The reduced choice, particularly comparing with Shutterstock, will be a drawback. I did a few searches yesterday at both agencies and Shutterstock has many more options for the searches I tried. And in searches producing only several hundred results or fewer, the differences become even more pronounced (and I did photo only searches to eliminate the media Adobe doesn't handle).

I'm one of those forced to watch from the sidelines (Fotolia wouldn't have me back as a contributor after my iStock exclusivity ended) so perhaps my perspective is skewed, but I don't see the convenience or the asset management as being enough of a draw to pull buyers away from Shutterstock.

The other very good piece of news though is that Adobe will no longer be advertising Dollar Photo Club - de-emphasizing that over time could mean that it can quietly go away at some future point. That would be very good news for all contributors.

But why? I infer that your departure from them was not an angry one, only one of a business decision. So why wouldn't they want you back? Is it merely the classic FT FU attitude, meaning you left and they took it personally? I don't get it unless there is more to the story. It's been said in these forums many times; they cannot take criticism in any way, shape or form so they retaliate in some fashion to make them feel better, I guess that's their choice.

« Reply #172 on: June 17, 2015, 11:41 »
+2
Thanks for the great news Matt.  I'm excited to see how this new move by Adobe affects sales!

If Fotolio is your only agency, then you should be excited, but otherwise I can't see how it could matter a squit. AS makes more sales; someone else makes less.

It's not always a zero sum game, but even if it is, when the one making less sales is the one that pays you less, (eg if FT gets sales from IS) then changes like this matter.
The bones have been picked quite clean by now. It's just a matter of the jackals fighting the hyenas and you and I picking up more or less of the crumbs that fly off during the brawl.

« Reply #173 on: June 17, 2015, 12:05 »
0


Can a contributor submit directly to Adobe Stock, or do they go through Fotolia?

@cathyslife, the only way to upload to Adobe Stock is through Fotolia.

-Mat


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #174 on: June 17, 2015, 12:22 »
0
Thanks for the great news Matt.  I'm excited to see how this new move by Adobe affects sales!

If Fotolio is your only agency, then you should be excited, but otherwise I can't see how it could matter a squit. AS makes more sales; someone else makes less.

Depends on who's paying the most.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
4660 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 13:09
by Rage
3 Replies
3668 Views
Last post June 18, 2015, 13:29
by Sean Locke Photography
17 Replies
6632 Views
Last post November 27, 2015, 10:38
by logeeker
6 Replies
7551 Views
Last post August 18, 2017, 17:25
by SpaceStockFootage
323 Replies
40679 Views
Last post April 23, 2021, 03:59
by Mimi the Cat

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle