pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Introducing Adobe Stock!  (Read 78618 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: June 17, 2015, 12:45 »
+2


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

Thanks, Mat.


« Reply #176 on: June 17, 2015, 13:04 »
+2

« Reply #177 on: June 17, 2015, 13:11 »
+5
The worst case scenario:

Most of the Fotolia costumers buy in the future via Adobe-Stock (9,99 /$ for Full-Size-Image). Exclusive Contributors at Fotolia will get then only 3,33 /$ instead of 19,45 /$ for an XXL-Download (3 Cr-Startprice, Emerald).

Commission Cut in that case: 83 %  :-
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 14:18 by frightender »

« Reply #178 on: June 17, 2015, 13:15 »
0
Seminar right now: http://seminars.adobeconnect.com/photography


I got this.

This is a private meeting. Your request to enter has been sent to the host. Please wait for a response.
Your request to enter has been declined.

 :D

Maybe one has to be in Fotolia to participate?
 
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 13:18 by cathyslife »

« Reply #179 on: June 17, 2015, 13:19 »
+2
Maybe they're full?  I used an anonymous name.

« Reply #180 on: June 17, 2015, 13:21 »
0
Maybe they're full?  I used an anonymous name.

Yes, probably full. I tried to login with my Adobe acct. and said it was invalid. Oh well.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 13:25 by cathyslife »

« Reply #181 on: June 17, 2015, 13:22 »
+2
... and I got booted.

« Reply #182 on: June 17, 2015, 13:26 »
0

« Reply #183 on: June 17, 2015, 13:51 »
+3
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
The problem is, as you can see, every option at Adobe pays less than the similar option at SS.  FT has a different pricing model than Adobe and Adobe isn't going to get new customers to convert to Fotolia, if anything they are going to get Fotolia customers to convert to Adobe.

« Reply #184 on: June 17, 2015, 14:09 »
+1
The worst case scenario:

Most of the Fotolia costumers buy in the future via Adobe-Stock (9,99 /$ for Full-Size-Image). Exclusive Contributors at Fotolia will get then only 3,33 /$ instead of 19,45 /$ for an XXL-Download (3 Cr-Startprice, Emerald).

Commission Cut in that case: 580 %  :-\

Whoa, 580%!... looks like exclusives will owe FT money for every XXL downloaded! 

(I think you meant the cut is 83%)

« Reply #185 on: June 17, 2015, 14:10 »
+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!
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
The problem is, as you can see, every option at Adobe pays less than the similar option at SS.  FT has a different pricing model than Adobe and Adobe isn't going to get new customers to convert to Fotolia, if anything they are going to get Fotolia customers to convert to Adobe.

So let's hope they don't take too many sales from Shutterstock but rather from Istock. 8)

What are the comparisons there btw?

« Reply #186 on: June 17, 2015, 14:23 »
+3
The worst case scenario:

Most of the Fotolia costumers buy in the future via Adobe-Stock (9,99 /$ for Full-Size-Image). Exclusive Contributors at Fotolia will get then only 3,33 /$ instead of 19,45 /$ for an XXL-Download (3 Cr-Startprice, Emerald).

Commission Cut in that case: 580 %  :-

Whoa, 580%!... looks like exclusives will owe FT money for every XXL downloaded! 

(I think you meant the cut is 83%)
Thanks, i have corrected that. But 83% lower commission is also enough, dont u think so ? ;)



Gesendet von meinem LG-E975 mit Tapatalk


« Reply #187 on: June 17, 2015, 14:32 »
+1

i hope this makes SS sit up and notice - hell they're probably at a boardroom meeting at their fancy digs at ESB now contwmplating a counterattack

If that counterattack includes raising commission percentage, make achieving next levels easier and brings our work onto the screens of millions of possible new customers - I'm all for it.

Yeah, and a higher level for us who've been stuck at the same pay level for years!

« Reply #188 on: June 17, 2015, 14:33 »
+4
After careful consideration, I have asked Mat to reinstate my port which I deleted a few weeks ago.  I am extremely leery of agencies saying that they are doing anything for our benefit, but this time I think FT/Adobe might actually be sincere(ly trying to keep us, since that is in their best interest).  Maybe this is the new beginning of a better, more contributor-friendly FT?  Personally, I am hoping my "new" FT earnings will take the number 2 spot away from IS so I can stop uploading to them.  I have said it before and I will say it again...that 84% cut they take is ridiculous.  And you certainly won't see any IS reps on here trying to explain or apologise to us for anything they do, no matter how outrageous.  Thanks, Mat.  You and the rest of FT are on the right track at least.

All you guys that got booted by FT and want back in should maybe think about emailing Mat directly.   They are evidently not as upset about my recent "Norma Rae" rabble-rousing as you would think.  :o  I can't imagine why they would be ok with me still there and not someone who simply voiced a similar opinion months or even years ago.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 14:37 by Gel-O Shooter »

« Reply #189 on: June 17, 2015, 15:24 »
+4
A few days ago, you were ranting all over fotolia, and now you're crawling back. Heh.

« Reply #190 on: June 17, 2015, 15:36 »
+6
A few days ago, you were ranting all over fotolia, and now you're crawling back. Heh.

I explained my position to them, they are making changes, and I made a business decision based upon the changes they have made.  The end.

« Reply #191 on: June 17, 2015, 15:54 »
+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!
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
The problem is, as you can see, every option at Adobe pays less than the similar option at SS.  FT has a different pricing model than Adobe and Adobe isn't going to get new customers to convert to Fotolia, if anything they are going to get Fotolia customers to convert to Adobe.

So let's hope they don't take too many sales from Shutterstock but rather from Istock. 8)

What are the comparisons there btw?
There are probably at least 4x as many SS subscribers as iStock essentials subscribers (maybe a lot more, I'm not counting Signature subscriptions) so if Adobe takes an equal share from both sites you'll come out down if you are at the top level in Shutterstock.  You'll have 4x more sales that result in a 7 cent per sale loss than you will have of sales that gain 3 cents.  So if you lose 100 sales from SS and 25 sales at iStock you'll be down 5 cents per sale overall.  This is just a rough guess obviously but I think it's probably true that there are at least 4x as many SS subscriptions as iS essentials subscriptions and both sites will probably lose about the same percentage of buyers.

« Reply #192 on: June 18, 2015, 05:31 »
+3
There is a rather good article around this here at Paul Melcher's Thoughts of a Bohemian blog. In particular his focus on how selling stock is now about being on the inside of the client's existing workflow.

Quote
Shutterstock, as well as Getty Images and now Adobe,  have long understood that in order to compete in this space, you have to be where your clients are. Not by sticking a pretty website somewhere and waiting for clients to find you, but rather, deep into their workflows.

« Reply #193 on: June 18, 2015, 07:47 »
+3
Hi Mat,
I noticed a difference between AS and FT. On AS you can't search by a certain keyword within a certain author portfolio. Any chance on changing that?
Thank you.

« Reply #194 on: June 18, 2015, 10:30 »
+2
A few days ago, you were ranting all over fotolia, and now you're crawling back. Heh.
+10   :o

« Reply #195 on: June 18, 2015, 12:58 »
+4
Are they still playing the currency game (paying different rates if you sign up in Europe vs. USA for example?)

It will be interesting to see what happens. I am of course very leery of any "exciting news" etc. from the agencies. This one looks to mostly be good (at least for those that are on FT - and possibly will require other sites to be more contributor friendly which would be great across the board).

I wonder what happens to all your stuff if you cancel CC (from the buyers side).

Maybe Adobe can regain some trust, but FT itself still has little to none.


« Reply #196 on: June 18, 2015, 13:08 »
+1
I think what excites me most is to see which type of my content will sell there. What sells on Fotolia is very,very different to what sells on Shutterstock or on istock. So with adobe there is now a new and very big opportunity for other files to be discovered and become bestsellers.

We will have three big marketplaces, SS with Facebook integration, Fotolia with adobe integration and istock with...well, I think they have some partnerships.

This will bring choices and balance.

« Reply #197 on: June 18, 2015, 13:30 »
0
Maybe this is a bit too alarmist?  http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock

"Adobes CC users are some of the biggest users of stock images, videos and so forth, so Shutterstock is likely to lose this business entirely (unless maybe it competes very aggressively on price)."

Shelma1

« Reply #198 on: June 18, 2015, 13:44 »
+5
Everyone focuses on SS because they're the market leader, but if Adobe Stock attracts more customers due to the convenience, that will affect all the stock sites, not just SS.

« Reply #199 on: June 18, 2015, 13:45 »
+1
Yep it will affect all sites but probably SS the most significantly from a contributor's point of view.


 

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