pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Introducing Adobe Stock!  (Read 78612 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #200 on: June 18, 2015, 13:46 »
+1
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)."


Yes that does seem a bit extreme but I think it is a significant threat to S Stock and everyone else. I bet its top of their agenda to respond - if not they are sunk!


« Reply #201 on: June 18, 2015, 14:06 »
+1
What will happen to dreamstime,123rf and all the other smaller agencies? If a new powerful player comes into a market, the weaker ones suffer first.

Yes, for SS this will be a real challenge, maybe the first real challenge and more difficult than dealing with istock, but SS has a huge team and a lot of money, they can come up with something.

What about all the other places, including istock?

And what about Getty, Corbis and the macro houses? How will this affect them?

Adobe has a lot of money, at the moment they only offer micro content, but it is fair to assume that they will be looking at macro as well. Why should they leave the money elsewhere? They already have deals with all kinds of corporate customers.

This will be a really interesting year.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #202 on: June 18, 2015, 14:48 »
+2
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.
If they attract customers because of the convenience, they should gradually raise prices, making sure the contributors share in that.
When are they launching the program? I have PS CC and wouldn't have known a thing about this if I hadn't read it here (not that I buy images, but surely they should be telling me about the possibility if I should want to) (not that I want to be spammed but one informative communication wouldn't be OTT).

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #203 on: June 18, 2015, 14:59 »
+11
Now I'm really conflicted here.  I've avoided uploading to FT mostly because of their less than honorable practices as detailed on numerous posts on MSG.  Now with this move, it seems that in order to take advantage of the Adobe CC sales I have to upload to FT and risk all the negative things people have been complaining about for the past year or more.  If I could upload directly to AS it would be a no brainer.  But including FT as a middleman agency is causing a lot of heartburn.

Dook

« Reply #204 on: June 18, 2015, 15:04 »
0
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.

If they attract customers because of the convenience, they should gradually raise prices, making sure the contributors share in that.
When are they launching the program? I have PS CC and wouldn't have known a thing about this if I hadn't read it here (not that I buy images, but surely they should be telling me about the possibility if I should want to) (not that I want to be spammed but one informative communication wouldn't be OTT).

http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/201506/061615AdobeStockLaunchesWorldwide.html

« Reply #205 on: June 18, 2015, 15:10 »
+2
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)."


I saw that and concluded that the writer didn't seem to know much about the business stock agencies were in. The general idea - a strong competitor with deep pockets going after Shutterstock's business caused a dip in SS's stock price - made sense, but that was about it.

Interesting that Getty wasn't mentioned at all as a competitor but Google Images was (is he trying to say that stealing is competition for those who license images for money?).

Also interesting was this quote - even though it's bollocks - the rates are not top of the market, just a bit better than before:

"Moreover, in order to encourage photographers and designers to contribute content to Adobe Stock, the company has assured that it will offer top-of-the-market rates, thus pulling in content providers."

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #206 on: June 18, 2015, 15:11 »
0
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.

If they attract customers because of the convenience, they should gradually raise prices, making sure the contributors share in that.
When are they launching the program? I have PS CC and wouldn't have known a thing about this if I hadn't read it here (not that I buy images, but surely they should be telling me about the possibility if I should want to) (not that I want to be spammed but one informative communication wouldn't be OTT).

http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/201506/061615AdobeStockLaunchesWorldwide.html

Sorry, I meant how would I as a PSCC2015 user know about it? You'd have thought I'd have had an email with a joining offer or something.

ultimagina

« Reply #207 on: June 18, 2015, 15:12 »
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)."


You forgot to quote this:

"Moreover, in order to encourage photographers and designers to contribute content to Adobe Stock, the company has assured that it will offer top-of-the-market rates, thus pulling in content providers"

« Reply #208 on: June 18, 2015, 15:18 »
+3
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)."


You forgot to quote this:

"Moreover, in order to encourage photographers and designers to contribute content to Adobe Stock, the company has assured that it will offer top-of-the-market rates, thus pulling in content providers"

Jo Ann addressed that a few comments above but it would be wise for you to look a bit closer rather than relying on Adobe's press releases.  They are trying to get subscription customers, all the sites are, sub rates are lower at Fotolia than SS (until you get 1,000,000 sales, then it's marginally better, how long will it take you to get to one million sales).  The pricing is lower on Fotolia than SS so you'll earn less for similar sales there and subs don't follow royalty rates, they are set by level.

Rinderart

« Reply #209 on: June 18, 2015, 15:23 »
+6
lets just say..."IF" Adobe were to offer it's suppliers a 50% commission across the board for exclusivity and spend a few Million [Pocket change to them, there worth 80 Billion as compared to 1 Billion of SS] advertizing this move But Offering the same Price structure as SS. I think you would see all competition die in 3 months.....Unless...Unless the other sites offered the same. Adobe has One important thing that a LOT of other sites do Not have...Customers, Loyal Customers. Giving the suppliers 50% wouldn't be a very Big deal if you had No competition. In my 11 years at micro. I've been with 39/40 sites. And...If time is money and I had that time back to shoot more and upload more to Places that worked out..It would have been good. Im with 9 currently. 2/3 are worth it. the rest are useless unless you think 50 Bucks a month is a good thing.

Speaking Just for myself and addressing the issue of being cost effective....Uploading to One Player, getting 50% That was a leader would definitely turn My head.

Same goes for SS. But, SS would need to address a lot of issues with Bugs,reviews,communication etc,etc.

We are, and they are, I think at a crossroads now and whoever steps up and shows us........All of us what there made of besides personal greed and sharing/Giving back to those that made this for them collectively  will be the big winners in this going forward.

Am I dreaming??? I don't know anymore. Last Night I did have a dream... Jon Bought his company Back and took control and did this. He then Became 10 times richer and we all lived happily ever after....LOL!!!!!!

« Reply #210 on: June 18, 2015, 15:26 »
+1
Fotolia has more to offer as subs! My rpd is 4-5 . All people write about subs. Whatever, most of the subs from Adobe Stock will bring us 1,65 euro or dollar.

Gesendet von meinem LG-E975 mit Tapatalk


« Reply #211 on: June 18, 2015, 15:31 »
+2
Fotolia has more to offer as subs! My rpd is 4-5 . All people write about subs. Whatever, most of the subs from Adobe Stock will bring us 1,65 euro or dollar.

Gesendet von meinem LG-E975 mit Tapatalk
Those aren't really subs packages, a one time payment for 10 images doesn't sound much like a subs plan to me.

ultimagina

« Reply #212 on: June 18, 2015, 15:33 »
+1
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)."


You forgot to quote this:

"Moreover, in order to encourage photographers and designers to contribute content to Adobe Stock, the company has assured that it will offer top-of-the-market rates, thus pulling in content providers"

Jo Ann addressed that a few comments above but it would be wise for you to look a bit closer rather than relying on Adobe's press releases.  They are trying to get subscription customers, all the sites are, sub rates are lower at Fotolia than SS (until you get 1,000,000 sales, then it's marginally better, how long will it take you to get to one million sales).  The pricing is lower on Fotolia than SS so you'll earn less for similar sales there and subs don't follow royalty rates, they are set by level.


I only said that you chose to quote only what seems to support your theory.
This shows your bias. Half truths are more dangerous than lies.

Well, future will tell. For the time being, the AS integration with CC looks like a real breakthrough for the industry.
Anyway, it is better to be part of the change instead of complaining from the sides about "who moved my cheese"
« Last Edit: June 18, 2015, 15:39 by ultimagaina »

« Reply #213 on: June 18, 2015, 15:37 »
+2
Anyway, it is better to be part of the change instead of complaining from the sides.

I'll most strongly disagree.  It's only better to be part of the change if the change is better.  When you start earning 20-70% less per sale than you would have at SS I think you'll understand.  Until then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.  In the meantime you can compare like sales:
https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

ultimagina

« Reply #214 on: June 18, 2015, 15:44 »
+3
Anyway, it is better to be part of the change instead of complaining from the sides.

I'll most strongly disagree.  It's only better to be part of the change if the change is better.  When you start earning 20-70% less per sale than you would have at SS I think you'll understand.  Until then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.  In the meantime you can compare like sales:
https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml


Please disagree!

If the change is inevitable, you better go with the winning side. And with such a breakthrough, for me at least, the choice is obvious.

Feel free to watch your exclusive IS revenues slowly sinking while AS converts your buyers.

« Reply #215 on: June 18, 2015, 15:49 »
+2
Anyway, it is better to be part of the change instead of complaining from the sides.

I'll most strongly disagree.  It's only better to be part of the change if the change is better.  When you start earning 20-70% less per sale than you would have at SS I think you'll understand.  Until then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.  In the meantime you can compare like sales:
https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml


Please disagree!

If the change is inevitable, you better go with the winning side. And with such a breakthrough, for me at least, the choice is obvious.

Feel free to watch your exclusive IS revenues slowly sinking while AS converts your buyers.

I'm not sure what this has to do with exclusivity.  Sure it will be bad for me if they take customers, I make almost as much for subs as they pay for single downloads.  The point is that it's actually bad for you as well.  If they do take market share from SS (from SS, yep SS) then most people will lose between 20 and 70% per sale.  I'm certainly not woo yaying that and I'm a little surprised you are.

Shelma1

« Reply #216 on: June 18, 2015, 15:53 »
+6
Anyway, it is better to be part of the change instead of complaining from the sides.

I'll most strongly disagree.  It's only better to be part of the change if the change is better.  When you start earning 20-70% less per sale than you would have at SS I think you'll understand.  Until then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.  In the meantime you can compare like sales:
https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml


Please disagree!

If the change is inevitable, you better go with the winning side. And with such a breakthrough, for me at least, the choice is obvious.

Feel free to watch your exclusive IS revenues slowly sinking while AS converts your buyers.

I'm not sure what this has to do with exclusivity.  Sure it will be bad for me if they take customers, I make almost as much for subs as they pay for single downloads.  The point is that it's actually bad for you as well.  If they do take market share from SS (from SS, yep SS) then most people will lose between 20 and 70% per sale.  I'm certainly not woo yaying that and I'm a little surprised you are.


We might lose 20-70%, but you'll lose 100%. And we'll gain if they convert iStock buyers, while you lose both ways.

« Reply #217 on: June 18, 2015, 15:58 »
+5
Anyway, it is better to be part of the change instead of complaining from the sides.

I'll most strongly disagree.  It's only better to be part of the change if the change is better.  When you start earning 20-70% less per sale than you would have at SS I think you'll understand.  Until then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.  In the meantime you can compare like sales:
https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml


Please disagree!

If the change is inevitable, you better go with the winning side. And with such a breakthrough, for me at least, the choice is obvious.

Feel free to watch your exclusive IS revenues slowly sinking while AS converts your buyers.

I'm not sure what this has to do with exclusivity.  Sure it will be bad for me if they take customers, I make almost as much for subs as they pay for single downloads.  The point is that it's actually bad for you as well.  If they do take market share from SS (from SS, yep SS) then most people will lose between 20 and 70% per sale.  I'm certainly not woo yaying that and I'm a little surprised you are.


We might lose 20-70%, but you'll lose 100%. And we'll gain if they convert iStock buyers, while you lose both ways.

So you're ok with losing 20-70% as long as you can see other people losing more, what a wonderful person you are.  Even though I dislike you I don't want to see you lose.

ultimagina

« Reply #218 on: June 18, 2015, 16:01 »
0
Anyway, it is better to be part of the change instead of complaining from the sides.

I'll most strongly disagree.  It's only better to be part of the change if the change is better.  When you start earning 20-70% less per sale than you would have at SS I think you'll understand.  Until then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.  In the meantime you can compare like sales:
https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml


Please disagree!

If the change is inevitable, you better go with the winning side. And with such a breakthrough, for me at least, the choice is obvious.

Feel free to watch your exclusive IS revenues slowly sinking while AS converts your buyers.

The point is that it's actually bad for you as well. 


You don't know that. Again, you speculate.
It is definitely excellent for the customers. Easier access and convenience drives behaviour. This is good for the industry!

Stay with your dear old faithful Nokia if you want, I'm going with Apple (and Samsung to avoid exclusivity)
:)
« Last Edit: June 18, 2015, 16:07 by ultimagaina »

Shelma1

« Reply #219 on: June 18, 2015, 16:03 »
+2
Anyway, it is better to be part of the change instead of complaining from the sides.

I'll most strongly disagree.  It's only better to be part of the change if the change is better.  When you start earning 20-70% less per sale than you would have at SS I think you'll understand.  Until then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.  In the meantime you can compare like sales:
https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml


Please disagree!

If the change is inevitable, you better go with the winning side. And with such a breakthrough, for me at least, the choice is obvious.

Feel free to watch your exclusive IS revenues slowly sinking while AS converts your buyers.

I'm not sure what this has to do with exclusivity.  Sure it will be bad for me if they take customers, I make almost as much for subs as they pay for single downloads.  The point is that it's actually bad for you as well.  If they do take market share from SS (from SS, yep SS) then most people will lose between 20 and 70% per sale.  I'm certainly not woo yaying that and I'm a little surprised you are.


We might lose 20-70%, but you'll lose 100%. And we'll gain if they convert iStock buyers, while you lose both ways.

So you're ok with losing 20-70% as long as you can see other people losing more, what a wonderful person you are.


Hey, you're the one spending all day gleefully posting about how much everyone will be losing. I'm just pointing out that we could gain if they convert iStock customers, which seems just as likely as them converting SS customers. I think iStock exclusives should be the most concerned, what with the attractive FT combination of in-app convenience and much-lower-than-iStock-exclusive pricing.

« Reply #220 on: June 18, 2015, 16:03 »
+4
Anyway, it is better to be part of the change instead of complaining from the sides.

I'll most strongly disagree.  It's only better to be part of the change if the change is better.  When you start earning 20-70% less per sale than you would have at SS I think you'll understand.  Until then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.  In the meantime you can compare like sales:
https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml


Please disagree!

If the change is inevitable, you better go with the winning side. And with such a breakthrough, for me at least, the choice is obvious.

Feel free to watch your exclusive IS revenues slowly sinking while AS converts your buyers.

The point is that it's actually bad for you as well. 


You don't know that. Again, you speculate.
It is definitely excellent for the customers. Easier access and convenience drives behaviour. This is good for the industry!

What's excellent for customers is most likely not what's best for us.  Remember DPC that was great for customers, not so great for contributors.  Free high quality images are great for customers not so great for us.

« Reply #221 on: June 18, 2015, 16:06 »
+4
Hey, you're the one spending all day gleefully posting about how much everyone will be losing.
I'm most certainly not gleefully posting about this.  I think contributors should not be happily supporting this, it's bad for them.   I'd like contributors to stand up and try to get a better deal that won't undercut their other earnings.

Shelma1

« Reply #222 on: June 18, 2015, 16:08 »
+2
Not necessarily. I know you want to obsess about SS, but most of us contribute to a number of sites, so it could be better, worse or a wash for us. Only time will tell.

« Reply #223 on: June 18, 2015, 16:11 »
+4
Not necessarily. I know you want to obsess about SS, but most of us contribute to a number of sites, so it could be better, worse or a wash for us. Only time will tell.
If Shutterstock changed their pricing to match Adobe Stock would you feel the same?  Look it over is that what you want at SS?  If Adobe Stock is successful they won't have to match that, they'll have to beat it.

« Reply #224 on: June 18, 2015, 16:22 »
+5
For me its quite clear that every agency who take more than 50% is a worse agency. Adobe is on the right way but there are a few % more that we have to catch from them and the other greedy companys. :-*


 

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
40674 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