MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Introducing Adobe Stock!  (Read 106466 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #300 on: June 19, 2015, 15:02 »
+9
Mat comes in here and remains calm, speaks factually as possible and is probably the voice in the new Adobe structure that seems favorable for contributors (for now anyway).
Is this favorable to contributors in your opinion?  Even after 200,000 sales you'll get 10% less than SS at around 10-15,000 sales. 
Sales                     Royalty Rate
0-99                      .25
100-999                .27
1,000-9,999          .29
10,000-24,999      .31   
25,000-99,999      .33 
100,000-249,999  .35

Are we just derailing the thread on purpose or ... ?
How is this derailing, I'm surprised that posting the royalties you'll receive is considered derailing the thread.  It wasn't too long ago that people said sites should be paying 50 cents per sub or they wouldn't consider them and now people are jumping all over this, times have changed I guess.


« Reply #301 on: June 19, 2015, 15:07 »
+5
Well, it is certainly higher than istock and their measly 15%...

and if you are paid in euros, it will be more than SS depending on the exchange rate, at least for me.  I also dont lose in the back conversion of dollars to euros. Single image downloads will be 3.30 euros, not 2.70 dollars, also higher.

overall 33% is a good deal, I really hope they add video soon. Fotolia has been really weak with video.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 15:09 by cobalt »

« Reply #302 on: June 19, 2015, 15:15 »
+3
Well, it is certainly higher than istock and their measly 18%...

and if you are paid in euros, it will be more than SS depending on the exchange rate, at least for me.  I also dont lose in the back conversion of dollars to euros. Single image downloads will be 3.30 euros, not 2.70 dollars, also higher.

overall 33% is a good deal, I really hope they add video soon. Fotolia has been really weak with video.
You're partly right, euros make up some of the difference but not all of it (I don't know how much conversion costs are).  Right now SS pays $4.35 (30% of $14.50) and Fotolia will pay euro contributors 3.30 euros or $3.74 according to XE.com so still less.  If you compare subs you'll have to reach 100,000 sales to equal SS at top level.  And ODs will pay $1.85 at Adobe for Euro contributors while they pay $2.85 at SS for top level contributors, even the lowest level at SS pays more than that.  So euro contributors will not lose as much but they will still lose on Single sales, ODs and subs (which happens to be all the plans).  Also about iStock for nonexclusives I've never told anyone they should accept that either.

ETA:  Just changed SS's payout for single sales, I thought it was 2 for $25 but it's actually 2 for $29 so they pay more than I had stated earlier.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 15:21 by tickstock »

« Reply #303 on: June 19, 2015, 15:28 »
+10
Mat comes in here and remains calm, speaks factually as possible and is probably the voice in the new Adobe structure that seems favorable for contributors (for now anyway).
Is this favorable to contributors in your opinion?  Even after 200,000 sales you'll get 10% less than SS at around 10-15,000 sales. 
Sales                     Royalty Rate
0-99                      .25
100-999                .27
1,000-9,999          .29
10,000-24,999      .31   
25,000-99,999      .33 
100,000-249,999  .35

You keep focusing on only one aspect of that recent change - which is the theoretical loss of buyer conversion from Shutterstock to Fotolia.

While you are right about the subscription plans (US$ royalty is lower), there are many more things to consider:

- for those of us who get paid in Euros the difference is smaller.

- the assumptions you make for single purchases are questionable; If there is any conversion from shutterstock (which does not have single image prices advertised), it is not necessarily only from SODs (that pay according to your posts $3,75 for two images) but also from On Demand purchases (which are packs of five images that pay $2,85). Surprisingly the $3,30 that Adobe will pay for single images is exactly the average of those.

- If buyer conversion happens, than it will also happen from lower paying sites like Istock, 123RF, Bigstock, Canstock,... that all have lower subs rates (and from DT that pays $0,35 per sub); and most of them pay less the $3,30 for single image purchases. The result for the single contributor depends on the mix of whatever buyer conversion will happen, but may well be positive.

- In addition the recent changes by FT / Adobe introduced some other improvements on FT alone: counting subs fully against the levels (retroactively, what bumped several contributors up a level); increasing subs rates for monthly packages from 20% / 25% (DPC opted out / in) to 33% (that is for those sales a royalty increase of 65% !!!)

- last but not least the (very likely, though not easy to quantify) possibility to reach new customers (that never did buy stock before).

If you look at all this together, I believe that this is by far the most positive move I have seen from any of the established agencies for a very long time.


photominer

« Reply #304 on: June 19, 2015, 15:28 »
+2
Well, it is certainly higher than istock and their measly 18%...

and if you are paid in euros, it will be more than SS depending on the exchange rate, at least for me.  I also dont lose in the back conversion of dollars to euros. Single image downloads will be 3.30 euros, not 2.70 dollars, also higher.

overall 33% is a good deal, I really hope they add video soon. Fotolia has been really weak with video.
You're partly right, euros make up some of the difference but not all of it (I don't know how much conversion costs are).  Right now SS pays $4.35 (30% of $14.50) and Fotolia will pay euro contributors 3.30 euros or $3.74 according to XE.com so still less.  If you compare subs you'll have to reach 100,000 sales to equal SS at top level.  And ODs will pay $1.85 at Adobe for Euro contributors while they pay $2.85 at SS for top level contributors, even the lowest level at SS pays more than that.  So euro contributors will not lose as much but they will still lose on Single sales, ODs and subs (which happens to be all the plans).  Also about iStock for nonexclusives I've never told anyone they should accept that either.

ETA:  Just changed SS's payout for single sales, I thought it was 2 for $25 but it's actually 2 for $29 so they pay more than I had stated earlier.

How did this change?
Well, it is certainly higher than istock and their measly 15%... says 15% in one post, 18% in another?

 I checked and istock pays non-exclusives 15% as default, which is as low as it gets.

« Reply #305 on: June 19, 2015, 15:37 »
+1
Mat comes in here and remains calm, speaks factually as possible and is probably the voice in the new Adobe structure that seems favorable for contributors (for now anyway).
Is this favorable to contributors in your opinion?  Even after 200,000 sales you'll get 10% less than SS at around 10-15,000 sales. 
Sales                     Royalty Rate
0-99                      .25
100-999                .27
1,000-9,999          .29
10,000-24,999      .31   
25,000-99,999      .33 
100,000-249,999  .35

You keep focusing on only one aspect of that recent change - which is the theoretical loss of buyer conversion from Shutterstock to Fotolia.

While you are right about the subscription plans (US$ royalty is lower), there are many more things to consider:

- for those of us who get paid in Euros the difference is smaller.

- the assumptions you make for single purchases are questionable; If there is any conversion from shutterstock (which does not have single image prices advertised), it is not necessarily only from SODs (that pay according to your posts $3,75 for two images) but also from On Demand purchases (which are packs of five images that pay $2,85). Surprisingly the $3,30 that Adobe will pay for single images is exactly the average of those.

- If buyer conversion happens, than it will also happen from lower paying sites like Istock, 123RF, Bigstock, Canstock,... that all have lower subs rates (and from DT that pays $0,35 per sub); and most of them pay less the $3,30 for single image purchases. The result for the single contributor depends on the mix of whatever buyer conversion will happen, but may well be positive.

- In addition the recent changes by FT / Adobe introduced some other improvements on FT alone: counting subs fully against the levels (retroactively, what bumped several contributors up a level); increasing subs rates for monthly packages from 20% / 25% (DPC opted out / in) to 33% (that is for those sales a royalty increase of 65% !!!)

- last but not least the (very likely, though not easy to quantify) possibility to reach new customers (that never did buy stock before).

If you look at all this together, I believe that this is by far the most positive move I have seen from any of the established agencies for a very long time.
Thanks for posting probably the first serious argument against what I am saying, I mean that.  I just posted the rates above for Euro contributors and you can see SS still has better payouts (SS actually pays $4.35 using their smallest plan 2 images for $29) and all the other plans are lower except subs which are lower until you get to 100,000 sales.
You are right about conversions from other sites, that probably needs to be looked into a little more comprehensively.  SS is for many contributors 50-65% of their total income so the effect from buyers moving from them could have the greatest impact, that's the main reason I focus on SS.
I'm a little skeptical that Fotolia will continue as it has, I think customers there will be pushed to Adobe Stock or move on their own for convenience and cheaper pricing.  I'm sure that will happen to some extent but it's too early to tell with that one.  Why spend 36 credits on Fotolia when you can get it for $10 or less at Adobe? My feeling is that those royalty raises may mean a lot less in a years time.
The last point I agree is hard to know.  Barriers are pretty low already and many people that have a subscription to Adobe already know about stock so my guess is that totally new customers that wouldn't have signed up somewhere else won't be as many as you expect.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 15:41 by tickstock »

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #306 on: June 19, 2015, 16:00 »
+2
So you saw Adobe Stock coming? I don't think so.

You should have seen it too.  http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/157453/shutterstock-tumbles-as-competitor-inks-deal-with-adobe


Yes I knew Adobe purchased Fotolia when the news came out. I just did not see a new brand called Adobe Stock which is much more than a simple integration into Creative Cloud as the articles suggests. I guess what I was attempting to say is that I did not see as most of us did not, that there would suddenly be a new kid on the block being marketed as a force upon it's own in addition to an already established brand. I did not see the double dipping angle at all, marketing one brand as another brand to get market share etc.

Either way, it is a brilliant move from a business perspective, but my gut does indeed tell me this spells disaster in the long run for the sustainability of photographer stock photos on spec in hopes to make a decent return on ones expenses and efforts.


photominer

« Reply #307 on: June 19, 2015, 16:05 »
+8
I think the industry needs some shaking up. That it seems to be happening in a net positive way for contributors (yes I know some disagree) is a great thing. I am excited to see how it plays out.

And I am also happy to see a relatively positive thread about an agency here on the forums for a change.

« Reply #308 on: June 19, 2015, 16:06 »
+1
Since it was brought up that some contributors get paid in Euros and some in Dollars I was wondering if that is what was meant by:  "Topeka's Harper said Adobe would also need to sort out the "bad blood" between Fotolia's management and U.S. contributors over payments."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/us-adobe-systems-competition-idUSKBN0OZ1VC20150619

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #309 on: June 19, 2015, 16:11 »
0
So you saw Adobe Stock coming? I don't think so.

You should have seen it too.  http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/157453/shutterstock-tumbles-as-competitor-inks-deal-with-adobe


Yes I knew Adobe purchased Fotolia when the news came out. I just did not see a new brand called Adobe Stock which is much more than a simple integration into Creative Cloud as the articles suggests. I guess what I was attempting to say is that I did not see as most of us did not, that there would suddenly be a new kid on the block being marketed as a force upon it's own in addition to an already established brand. I did not see the double dipping angle at all, marketing one brand as another brand to get market share etc.

I assumed that's how it would be as soon as I saw the orignal announcement reported here. In fact, I guessed (so far wrongly) that Fotolia as a separated entity would disappear.

« Reply #310 on: June 19, 2015, 16:22 »
+1
the biggest importance is the mix in subs versus higher downloads. That is why I really need to see how this plays out.

« Reply #311 on: June 19, 2015, 17:11 »
+4
Surely most people saw basically what was coming Fotolia for many is a toxic brand and adobe has achieved with photoshop the kind of recognition that hoover or thermos has. They'd be crazy not to use their brand. They also seem to have some seriously good IT to integrate into workflow.

If Shutterstock didn't see what was coming I overestimated  them as for Istock who knows what they see on their own diminishing planet.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 17:19 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #312 on: June 19, 2015, 18:30 »
+3
the biggest importance is the mix in subs versus higher downloads. That is why I really need to see how this plays out.

One of your Stocksy guys isn't too happy about it.  http://www.diyphotography.net/adobe-slaps-creative-professionals-face-launches-re-branded-microstock-content-leach/

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #313 on: June 19, 2015, 18:49 »
+7
the biggest importance is the mix in subs versus higher downloads. That is why I really need to see how this plays out.

One of your Stocksy guys isn't too happy about it.  http://www.diyphotography.net/adobe-slaps-creative-professionals-face-launches-re-branded-microstock-content-leach/


He speaks the truth. It's a bad deal for everyone who creates stock photography.

« Reply #314 on: June 19, 2015, 19:07 »
+2
the biggest importance is the mix in subs versus higher downloads. That is why I really need to see how this plays out.

One of your Stocksy guys isn't too happy about it.  http://www.diyphotography.net/adobe-slaps-creative-professionals-face-launches-re-branded-microstock-content-leach/



to each his own. I dont really see the point in comparing macro and micro in this case. what was adobe supposed to do, introduce an elite collection with prices of 500 dollars for peoples power point presentations?

microstock isnt really new and there are many stocksy artists that made a fortune with it, including Brianna and Bruce. so the whole microstock bashing is really strange.

i see plenty of people who are excited about adobe stock and have started to upload again, including artists from stocksy.

files that can command higher prices are usually less generic and shouldnt be placed with microstock in the first place.

and i see no risk for stocksy, because they are not competing with the micros anyway.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 19:15 by cobalt »

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #315 on: June 19, 2015, 20:05 »
+1
the biggest importance is the mix in subs versus higher downloads. That is why I really need to see how this plays out.

One of your Stocksy guys isn't too happy about it.  http://www.diyphotography.net/adobe-slaps-creative-professionals-face-launches-re-branded-microstock-content-leach/



to each his own. I dont really see the point in comparing macro and micro in this case. what was adobe supposed to do, introduce an elite collection with prices of 500 dollars for peoples power point presentations?

microstock isnt really new and there are many stocksy artists that made a fortune with it, including Brianna and Bruce. so the whole microstock bashing is really strange.

i see plenty of people who are excited about adobe stock and have started to upload again, including artists from stocksy.

files that can command higher prices are usually less generic and shouldnt be placed with microstock in the first place.

and i see no risk for stocksy, because they are not competing with the micros anyway.


If your introduction to the stock industry was micro as opposed to macro then I think it safe to say that is where the bashing micro comes into play. The micro hipsters knew nothing of making "dollars" per sale from photos and only truly understand "pennies" per sale from photos with the tired excuse of selling yourself short on volume sales.

Yes Bruce made millions from micros ironically from Getty. How ironic is that?








« Reply #316 on: June 19, 2015, 20:16 »
+7
iStock started going down as a result of Getty squeezing the increasing money out of the middle-man position - at the detriment of the suppliers and end users.
iStock was and is a terribly mismanaged company from the beginning. The people who ran it acted like a clique of middle school girls. They gave a large percentage of their suppliers and customers no choice but hate their guts for many reasons. As soon as alternative companies became available iStock started to tank and the process continues to this day.

« Reply #317 on: June 19, 2015, 20:31 »
+3
The micro hipsters knew nothing of making "dollars" per sale from photos and only truly understand "pennies" per sale from photos with the tired excuse of selling yourself short on volume sales.

i have files that made over 10 000 dollars and I started with the micros. And also now with being indie I already have files with several hundred dollars in just two years. The key is to identify files that will sell in high enough volume.

And if you send content to the macros, again you have to know what the customer is ready to pay more money for. Otherwise, youll just have a huge port of dead macro files.

But then I am not a hipster, maybe that is the trick :)

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #318 on: June 19, 2015, 20:40 »
+4
Have we finally hit bottom? This is a step in the right direction but a pretty small step with a long way to go. My personal experience with direct sales shows a ton of money is being left on the table at these prices.

« Reply #319 on: June 19, 2015, 23:56 »
0
Mat comes in here and remains calm, speaks factually as possible and is probably the voice in the new Adobe structure that seems favorable for contributors (for now anyway).
Is this favorable to contributors in your opinion?  Even after 200,000 sales you'll get 10% less than SS at around 10-15,000 sales. 
Sales                     Royalty Rate
0-99                      .25
100-999                .27
1,000-9,999          .29
10,000-24,999      .31   
25,000-99,999      .33 
100,000-249,999  .35

Are we just derailing the thread on purpose or ... ?
How is this derailing, I'm surprised that posting the royalties you'll receive is considered derailing the thread.  It wasn't too long ago that people said sites should be paying 50 cents per sub or they wouldn't consider them and now people are jumping all over this, times have changed I guess.

Did any sites ever pay .50 per sub?  If they did it was before my time. 

« Reply #320 on: June 20, 2015, 00:04 »
+5
@Mat:  what will be done about the disparity between those getting paid in and the ones paid in $?  For those outside of EU this was always extremely unfair and should be changed so everyone gets their fair royalty % of the price and currency the customer paid in.

« Reply #321 on: June 20, 2015, 00:58 »
+1
I am in EU but paid in USD. Just for less. They have to do standard for all and move up if they want attract higher quality content

« Reply #322 on: June 20, 2015, 05:03 »
+1
I am in EU but paid in USD. Just for less. They have to do standard for all and move up if they want attract higher quality content

Why is that?


« Reply #323 on: June 20, 2015, 07:38 »
+9
I am in EU but paid in USD. Just for less. They have to do standard for all and move up if they want attract higher quality content

Why is that?



Those of us who signed up when Fotolia started (or happened to be on the english US site when we signed up) had our accounts set up with the US currency (even though we wer based in Europe).  People who signed up later, and happened upon the EU site when they signed up, got the EU currency.  1 credit = 1 USD = 1 EUR
Those who get to cash out in EUR get a much better deal than those who have to cash out in USD.
Many people based in europe who have USD accounts have asked Fotolia to switch their accounts over to EUR currency but Fotolia hasn't been willing to do so.

« Reply #324 on: June 20, 2015, 09:24 »
+3
I am in EU but paid in USD. Just for less. They have to do standard for all and move up if they want attract higher quality content

Why is that?



Those of us who signed up when Fotolia started (or happened to be on the english US site when we signed up) had our accounts set up with the US currency (even though we wer based in Europe).  People who signed up later, and happened upon the EU site when they signed up, got the EU currency.  1 credit = 1 USD = 1 EUR
Those who get to cash out in EUR get a much better deal than those who have to cash out in USD.
Many people based in europe who have USD accounts have asked Fotolia to switch their accounts over to EUR currency but Fotolia hasn't been willing to do so.

With all that is happening in Greece, the UK and now Denmark, you might want to keep getting paid in dollars.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
5674 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 13:09
by Rage
3 Replies
4758 Views
Last post June 18, 2015, 13:29
by Sean Locke Photography
17 Replies
7518 Views
Last post November 27, 2015, 10:38
by logeeker
6 Replies
9182 Views
Last post August 18, 2017, 17:25
by SpaceStockFootage
402 Replies
81675 Views
Last post June 13, 2022, 14:36
by JaenStock

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors