MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: MatHayward on June 15, 2015, 23:27
-
We are thrilled to announce the launch of a brand new stock marketplace, Adobe Stock!
As most of you will know, Adobe has continually strived to ensure those working in the creative industry, including photographers, are at the forefront of their company environment and ethos. We are together working to expand this vision towards a multi-billion dollar sharing economy which you are now part of. All images available in Fotolia’s standard collection have automatically been added to Adobe Stock’s platform.
The integration of Adobe Stock with Creative Cloud allows Creative Cloud customers to launch Adobe Stock directly within CC desktop software, and add watermarked or licensed images to their Creative Cloud Libraries. This in turn allows them to access and work with images across multiple desktop tools. When creatives are ready to license the image for the final project, they can do so directly within the desktop software they are working in. In short, your images will be far more accessible and easy to purchase than ever before.
Adobe Stock will act in addition as a standalone website expanding again the potential reach for your images to be seen by millions. This will no doubt have a phenomenal effect on your sales.
The good news does not stop there. Fotolia subscription payouts have been raised, from 20-25% to 33% for all contributors! Adobe Stock payouts will be 33% on all products. And are maintaining the existing Fotolia guaranteed payout floors to protect your commissions on large subscriptions.
In addition, all subscription sales at Fotolia and Adobe Stock will be equal to one full download towards your rank. This gives you an opportunity to jump through the ranks and increase your income at a much faster rate. All you have to do is continue to submit your images through Fotolia.
-
Beautiful words!
What to make us trust you?
-
And my question: i tried now to convert credits and send them to my PayPal address. I entered the sum which was convertible and then your system tells that i don't have credits enough for convertion - "Vous n'avez pas assez de crédits disponibles pour procéder à leur conversion."
Your instruction tells "Dès lors que vous atteignez 50 Crédits gagnés, vous pouvez les convertir en argent via PayPal ou Skrill (anciennement Moneybookers)" and my available credits were more than 50. Tax form ok.
New "bug"? Before i had no problems.
-
It will take a 300% increase to get where I have been with fotolia 2 years ago. I'd sure like to see that happen with the new adobe stock deal. However, somehow I don't feel like holding my breath...
-
Image prices seem to range from $9.99 for a single image, to as low as 26c for the super heavy users (750 images / month).
$3.33 for a DL isn't bad (I think; it's been a while since I've thought about indie commissions), but I'm positive that 9c is terrible.
I'd guess that the most common sale price will be 10 images a month for $30 to CC subscribers, so $1 commission per sale.
It could be worse.
-
Image prices seem to range from $9.99 for a single image, to as low as 26c for the super heavy users (750 images / month).
$3.33 for a DL isn't bad (I think; it's been a while since I've thought about indie commissions), but I'm positive that 9c is terrible.
I'd guess that the most common sale price will be 10 images a month for $30 to CC subscribers, so $1 commission per sale.
It could be worse.
@KB You can learn more information about the commission structure here: https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
No commissions will drop below the minimum amount which is based on your Fotolia rank.
-Mat
-
Sounds nice, thank you for this great info! Let's hope that things come true.
From January 2015, my rank (sell) fall from 300 to 1000, So there must be some change. I upload new photos twice per week, but nothing change. I hope that it will now.
Greetings,
Robert
-
No answer - found myself. You have a bug. Your system shows different digits for credits on sales page and on convertion page. Entered the smaller one from sales page and payment pass
-
http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/16/8785627/adobe-stock-creative-cloud-2015-launch (http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/16/8785627/adobe-stock-creative-cloud-2015-launch)
http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-stock-opens-photo-sales-channel-straight-into-photoshop/ (http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-stock-opens-photo-sales-channel-straight-into-photoshop/)
http://gizmodo.com/adobe-now-supplies-terrible-stock-images-straight-into-1711597514 (http://gizmodo.com/adobe-now-supplies-terrible-stock-images-straight-into-1711597514)
-
I'm going offline for the night. I will be back here asap to answer your questions.
-Mat
-
Fotolia subscription payouts have been raised, from 20-25% to 33% for all contributors!
I can't see anything like this on Fotolia site yet. All it says in the note is: "All other products - 33% of the sale price"
In addition, all subscription sales at Fotolia and Adobe Stock will be equal to one full download towards your rank.
Is there something you are not telling us? Is contributors' ranking changed too? I'm bronze but when mouseover my rank, it shows that I need 9,xxx downloads to reach the next rank which is gold. It seams that silver (1,000-9,000) is gone though I still see it here: https://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Conditions (https://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Conditions). Is this a bug or if not, where can I see the new ranking system?
-
Will there be an opt out? I ask because I don't want to be tied in for life as is the case with Canva, I wish to retain my right to withdraw my labour.
-
so if now everbody will use adobe stock instead of fotolia the ranking has in future no sense. like the exklusiv member status too. :(
-
Did anyone else's ranking position changed? I had a "bronze" medal, for "658" downloads. Now I just checked, and apparently I have silver medal, despite having less than 1000 downloads. And when I go with a mouse on silver medal icon, it says only 9,342 more sales needed for next (gold) level.
-
so if now everbody will use adobe stock instead of fotolia the ranking has in future no sense. like the exklusiv member status too. :(
As I understand Mat's post, all sales from Adobe Stock will count for the Fotolia rank.
-
As I see the changes right now it's all positive:
- prices on Adobe Stock seem reasonable
- royalty rate is higher than on Fotolia up to Gold level (from emerald on FT onwards people get paid less on Adobe Stock)
- royalty rates for some products on FT moved up (those subs packages that pay above minimum rates)
- sub sales on FT (and the new ones on Adobe Stock) now count as a full sale towards the rank
Add to that the (possible) reach of Adobe Stock, it all sounds like really good news!
A few questions I have:
-What happens to exclusive files when moved to Adobe Stock? Higher price / higher royalty?
- I did not find anything about extended licenses on Adobe Stock. Are they available? At what price?
Overall very positive.
-
As I see the changes right now it's all positive:
- prices on Adobe Stock seem reasonable
- royalty rate is higher than on Fotolia up to Gold level (from emerald on FT onwards people get paid less on Adobe Stock)
- royalty rates for some products on FT moved up (those subs packages that pay above minimum rates)
- sub sales on FT (and the new ones on Adobe Stock) now count as a full sale towards the rank
Add to that the (possible) reach of Adobe Stock, it all sounds like really good news!
A few questions I have:
-What happens to exclusive files when moved to Adobe Stock? Higher price / higher royalty?
- I did not find anything about extended licenses on Adobe Stock. Are they available? At what price?
Overall very positive.
Agree with you.
-
Thanks for the great news Matt. I'm excited to see how this new move by Adobe affects sales!
-
And my question: i tried now to convert credits and send them to my PayPal address. I entered the sum which was convertible and then your system tells that i don't have credits enough for convertion - "Vous n'avez pas assez de crédits disponibles pour procéder à leur conversion."
Your instruction tells "Dès lors que vous atteignez 50 Crédits gagnés, vous pouvez les convertir en argent via PayPal ou Skrill (anciennement Moneybookers)" and my available credits were more than 50. Tax form ok.
New "bug"? Before i had no problems.
I've had the same problem but then I changed my requested credits to 50 and it worked. The remainging credits stayed on my account. Hope this helps.
Dirk
-
Since Adobe stepped into fotolia things seems to improve a lot. Hope the sales are going the same way. Thanks for the good work. :)
-
Did anyone else's ranking position changed? I had a "bronze" medal, for "658" downloads. Now I just checked, and apparently I have silver medal, despite having less than 1000 downloads. And when I go with a mouse on silver medal icon, it says only 9,342 more sales needed for next (gold) level.
Mat's post had this part about how sub sales also will count for 1 sale and not 0.25 sale.
...
In addition, all subscription sales at Fotolia and Adobe Stock will be equal to one full download towards your rank. This gives you an opportunity to jump through the ranks and increase your income at a much faster rate. All you have to do is continue to submit your images through Fotolia.
It appears that they may retroactively recalculate the number of downloads which will bump many to higher levels. Hopefully Mat will confirm this when he comes back online.
-
Did anyone else's ranking position changed? I had a "bronze" medal, for "658" downloads. Now I just checked, and apparently I have silver medal, despite having less than 1000 downloads. And when I go with a mouse on silver medal icon, it says only 9,342 more sales needed for next (gold) level.
Same here, I had bronze too and now it is silver.
As I understand Mat's post, all sales from Adobe Stock will count for the Fotolia rank.
That is very possible as portfolios on Adobe site mirror the ones on Fotolia.
Anyway, I was excited to see my port on Adobe, nice feeling (for now) but I am sure we will have many surprises yet.
It appears that they may retroactively recalculate the number of downloads which will bump many to higher levels.
This would be the only explanation for the rank change, still I would like to see the new commission rates based on contributors ranks.
-
Did anyone else's ranking position changed? I had a "bronze" medal, for "658" downloads. Now I just checked, and apparently I have silver medal, despite having less than 1000 downloads. And when I go with a mouse on silver medal icon, it says only 9,342 more sales needed for next (gold) level.
Mat's post had this part about how sub sales also will count for 1 sale and not 0.25 sale.
...
In addition, all subscription sales at Fotolia and Adobe Stock will be equal to one full download towards your rank. This gives you an opportunity to jump through the ranks and increase your income at a much faster rate. All you have to do is continue to submit your images through Fotolia.
It appears that they may retroactively recalculate the number of downloads which will bump many to higher levels. Hopefully Mat will confirm this when he comes back online.
That would be nice, but in my account I can't see that (yet). I'm silver and when I hover over the icon with my mouse it still shows the same number of sales for the ranking (which is number of credit sales + 1/4 number of subs sales).
But the wording that sub sales count one quarter is missing (it was there before, IIRC).
I haven't had a sub sale since the announcement, so I am waiting to see what happens with the next one.
-
I have to be honest, I feel kind of crap that I am not able to sell my photos through Adobe. Missing out on good money, all because I wanted to protect my intellectual property.
-
I'm still at bronze rank. Nothing change for me. :-\
-
I am positively surprised!
-
i dont see any improvment
10 images on shutter we get 28,5$, here we will get 10$
Shutterstock should go exclusive i'll close all other accounts
Since Adobe stepped into fotolia things seems to improve a lot. Hope the sales are going the same way. Thanks for the good work. :)
-
This is very good news and very exciting. I really appreciate the 33%! Thank you!
Will sales on adobe stock be reported in real time on fotolia? Can we see on fotolia which sales came via adobe?
Good luck!
(any chance for video to be included soon?)
-
@Matt
Will Adobe undercut his prices by DPC?
When will Adobe close DPC?
-
i dont see any improvment
Me neither yet but let us hope.
10 images on shutter we get 28,5$, here we will get 10$
for you maybe but not for all of us. No of dl on FT are much higher than on SS for many contributors, they are just not so vocal as SS partisans.
Shutterstock should go exclusive i'll close all other accounts
That would be a huge mistake in my opinion but nobody stops you.
-
I have to be honest, I feel kind of crap that I am not able to sell my photos through Adobe. Missing out on good money, all because I wanted to protect my intellectual property.
Ron, don't feel bad for having the integrity to stand up for yourself. Right or wrong, the decision/s you made or influenced were for the right reasons, a few dollars shouldn't change that.
Anyway, don't assume this is all rosy, it sounds good but so many things do when they first come to light in this business, they can very quickly look a lot less appealing.
-
they should allow ron, anyka... and others to return - it is a new owner - chance to show a goodwill...
-
As Fotolia contributors we should get a discount on Adobe CC :)
-
As Fotolia contributors we should get a discount on Adobe CC :)
+10
-
they should allow ron, anyka... and others to return - it is a new owner - chance to show a goodwill...
I agree, let´s have a fresh start together. Happy endings are the best.
-
This is great news. Let's see how this will translate in numbers for the next months. I have also jumped to silver.
All in all makes my "new independent life easier". I wonder if this action will make other "unfriendly to contributors" agencies make a move. How many independent contributors are no longer submitting to agencies that pay below 20%? I hope that the times of DPCs shady third party deals (DP) etc etc will slowly dissappear . In any case here we have a start......... :)
-
In addition, all subscription sales at Fotolia and Adobe Stock will be equal to one full download towards your rank.
Mat, how about past sub sales? will they count as one full download as well?
-
there is no happy ending in capitalism, be realistic.
they should allow ron, anyka... and others to return - it is a new owner - chance to show a goodwill...
I agree, let´s have a fresh start together. Happy endings are the best.
-
I have also jumped to silver.
How did you jump to silver?
When I check my account I still see past sub sales count as 1/4
-
Well last time I checked I needed like a few hundred sales to reach Silver. Now I am there. So it is a bug or there was some new calculation (for past subscriptions) applied retroactively. I am sure we will find out in the next hours.......
I have also jumped to silver.
How did you jump to silver?
When I check my account I still see past sub sales count as 1/4
-
In addition, all subscription sales at Fotolia and Adobe Stock will be equal to one full download towards your rank.
Mat, how about past sub sales? will they count as one full download as well?
I hope it does not become a step towards annual ranking.
-
Why am I not allowed to convert all my credits? As I see I can only convert my earnings in 50 credits installment.
When I try to convert a second portion of 50 credits, it doesn't let me: "You can't make a new conversion until the previous one has been processed." Sometimes processing takes several weeks and even so, what is >50< cannot be converted (say 135 credits).
If I want to withdraw my money I have to pay PayPal fees for each portion of 50 euros. That is not good.
-
This is a big news! Fotolia was in a huge decline for me during the last few years so I even stopped uploading. Since I heard Adobe took it over I restarted uploading.
33% This 33% covers your equipment, your time, the cost of the models, the location, retouching, keywording, uploading. 33% - 1/3 of the price and we are happy whith it! Nothing shows the sate of this industry better. Because yes: this offer is quite fair if you compare it to other leading agencies. Unless photographers can found a strong union (what will never happen on the internet) Adobes offer remains one of the best on the market.
Anyway, I have high hopes in Adobe! Good luck to all!
-
Considering that all everyone will get 33% maybe the accounts stepping up to Silver have something to do with that and it is easier just to bump a ranking than changing anything else?
-
Mat, can you please clarify how will videos be treated by Adobe Stock?
-
Considering that all everyone will get 33% maybe the accounts stepping up to Silver have something to do with that and it is easier just to bump a ranking than changing anything else?
Though jumped to silver, I don't see any revenue changes in today's downloads.
-
Wow, positive news from an agency?
That sounds crazy!
Actually , this is a very good positive step. Every creative uses Adobe, and now to have access to images at your fingertips as your working, I can only see positive growth as it relates to volume of sales.
It is also good that the rates are competitive, as this will keep the market place and the agancies like SS at least status quo for now.
Now Ill have to start uploading like mad
One more thing: Adobe - please reconsider accepting editorial content. There is a need in the marketplace for these kind of images as well!
-
Considering that all everyone will get 33% maybe the accounts stepping up to Silver have something to do with that and it is easier just to bump a ranking than changing anything else?
Though jumped to silver, I don't see any revenue changes in today's downloads.
same here
-
Considering that all everyone will get 33% maybe the accounts stepping up to Silver have something to do with that and it is easier just to bump a ranking than changing anything else?
Though jumped to silver, I don't see any revenue changes in today's downloads.
same here
I see it. Was getting 1.84 credits for L sale, today it was 2.0. Subs also, 0,29 instead of 0.27 that was yesterday.
-
This is what I expected. A sea change, IMO. I'm very glad to see royalties have risen. That's extremely positive and a development iS and SS should pay attention to.
Now it's just a matter of trust.
-
Wish I could get my CC app to work so I can update PS and see how this integrates.
Is there any way to see which DLs come from this source on the FT site - or how does reporting work?
Sounds like good news. Thanks!
-
Considering that all everyone will get 33% maybe the accounts stepping up to Silver have something to do with that and it is easier just to bump a ranking than changing anything else?
Though jumped to silver, I don't see any revenue changes in today's downloads.
same here
I see it. Was getting 1.84 credits for L sale, today it was 2.0. Subs also, 0,29 instead of 0.27 that was yesterday.
1.84 is a 8 credit L sale, it is not new, it was changed in March - http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/credits-price-change/msg411547/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/credits-price-change/msg411547/?topicseen#new)
I had in May: sub L=3.13; sub M = 2.50; sub M = 1.07; sub M = 0.8 and others. I have no idea where are they coming from but they are not new.
I am happy too for the extra exposure but I don't remember Adobe being a charitable org. Let's wait up.
-
Looks like I was jumped to silver sometime between 10 and 12:30 Uk time. Some proper competition for SS at last? Which I.m specially pleased about as they seem to think my focus control on my camera is bust!
-
https://stock.adobe.com/plans
-
Considering that all everyone will get 33% maybe the accounts stepping up to Silver have something to do with that and it is easier just to bump a ranking than changing anything else?
Though jumped to silver, I don't see any revenue changes in today's downloads.
same here
I see it. Was getting 1.84 credits for L sale, today it was 2.0. Subs also, 0,29 instead of 0.27 that was yesterday.
1.84 is a 8 credit L sale, it is not new, it was changed in March - [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/credits-price-change/msg411547/?topicseen#new[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/credits-price-change/msg411547/?topicseen#new[/url])
I had in May: sub L=3.13; sub M = 2.50; sub M = 1.07; sub M = 0.8 and others. I have no idea where are they coming from but they are not new.
I am happy too for the extra exposure but I don't remember Adobe being a charitable org. Let's wait up.
Yes it's 8 credit sale. I'm talking about level change, not price change. Yesterday I got 1.84 commission, and today I got 2.00 commission.
-
You get a royalty. Agencies take commission. Just to be pedantic. ;)
-
Wow!
I am shocked at how many NEGATIVE post have come out of this great news... Maybe that's why I come less often on this forum. All contributors have been stating about the cut in the commissions in Fotolia. Now that we have big increase and receive a 1/3 commission along with a new platform to generate revenue, most of you still find place to complain instead of taking one small moment to say Thank You to Adobe for taking a step forward in fixing a flawed system.
Cheer up everyone! :)
-
Well, under a thumbnail of a sold file, it says commission. Doesn't matter anyway.
-
@Dumc Yesterday was a buyer from US and today from other world. US taxes.
-
Did anyone else's ranking position changed? I had a "bronze" medal, for "658" downloads. Now I just checked, and apparently I have silver medal, despite having less than 1000 downloads. And when I go with a mouse on silver medal icon, it says only 9,342 more sales needed for next (gold) level.
Mat's post had this part about how sub sales also will count for 1 sale and not 0.25 sale.
...
In addition, all subscription sales at Fotolia and Adobe Stock will be equal to one full download towards your rank. This gives you an opportunity to jump through the ranks and increase your income at a much faster rate. All you have to do is continue to submit your images through Fotolia.
It appears that they may retroactively recalculate the number of downloads which will bump many to higher levels. Hopefully Mat will confirm this when he comes back online.
My total downloads which are taken for ranking has now been updated to the total of the sales in credits plus sales with subscription. But the bump was not sufficient for a jump in level :)
-
My total downloads which are taken for ranking has now been updated to the total of the sales in credits plus sales with subscription. But the bump was not sufficient for a jump in level :)
Same happen to me !
-
Adobe is a massive shop window for our business and a pay rise is refreshing and motivating. Other agencies should take note and take positive action for both customers and suppliers or they will rue the day.
-
Wow!
I am shocked at how many NEGATIVE post have come out of this great news... Maybe that's why I come less often on this forum. All contributors have been stating about the cut in the commissions in Fotolia. Now that we have big increase and receive a 1/3 commission along with a new platform to generate revenue, most of you still find place to complain instead of taking one small moment to say Thank You to Adobe for taking a step forward in fixing a flawed system.
Cheer up everyone! :)
Is it a pay raise? 750 images for $199 means you would get something like 8 or 9 cents per sale doesn't it?
-
I am still at the same rank but now need -491 to get to the next one. If they really make this retroactive it will be great although obviously they still have a few bugs to work out of the system. I would also like to see for sure what the minimums are, but in general this sounds like positive news where an agency actually listened and thought about contributors. I haven't had any DLs since the announcement but am looking forward hopefully to an increase in revenue and this makes me want to start submitting again.
-
common, bronze is until cca. 1500, bone is thrown only to small contributors, be real.
why silver and gold dont get more..
Yes it's 8 credit sale. I'm talking about level change, not price change. Yesterday I got 1.84 commission, and today I got 2.00 commission.
-
@Dumc Yesterday was a buyer from US and today from other world. US taxes.
You're wrong.
-
@Dumc Yesterday was a buyer from US and today from other world. US taxes.
You're wrong.
If u are from EU than it's correct.
-
Did anyone else's ranking position changed? I had a "bronze" medal, for "658" downloads. Now I just checked, and apparently I have silver medal, despite having less than 1000 downloads. And when I go with a mouse on silver medal icon, it says only 9,342 more sales needed for next (gold) level.
Mat's post had this part about how sub sales also will count for 1 sale and not 0.25 sale.
...
In addition, all subscription sales at Fotolia and Adobe Stock will be equal to one full download towards your rank. This gives you an opportunity to jump through the ranks and increase your income at a much faster rate. All you have to do is continue to submit your images through Fotolia.
It appears that they may retroactively recalculate the number of downloads which will bump many to higher levels. Hopefully Mat will confirm this when he comes back online.
My total downloads which are taken for ranking has now been updated to the total of the sales in credits plus sales with subscription. But the bump was not sufficient for a jump in level :)
Same here. But I managed to climb from bronze to silver level.
-
Though jumped to silver, I don't see any revenue changes in today's downloads.
same here
I see it. Was getting 1.84 credits for L sale, today it was 2.0. Subs also, 0,29 instead of 0.27 that was yesterday.
1.84 is a 8 credit L sale, it is not new, it was changed in March - [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/credits-price-change/msg411547/?topicseen#new[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/credits-price-change/msg411547/?topicseen#new[/url])
I had in May: sub L=3.13; sub M = 2.50; sub M = 1.07; sub M = 0.8 and others. I have no idea where are they coming from but they are not new.
I am happy too for the extra exposure but I don't remember Adobe being a charitable org. Let's wait up.
Yes it's 8 credit sale. I'm talking about level change, not price change. Yesterday I got 1.84 commission, and today I got 2.00 commission.
I am talking about the same thing, those values mentioned above are commissions (revenues), money in hand.
I have no idea what level change is.
-
Wow!
I am shocked at how many NEGATIVE post have come out of this great news... Maybe that's why I come less often on this forum. All contributors have been stating about the cut in the commissions in Fotolia. Now that we have big increase and receive a 1/3 commission along with a new platform to generate revenue, most of you still find place to complain instead of taking one small moment to say Thank You to Adobe for taking a step forward in fixing a flawed system.
Cheer up everyone! :)
Is it a pay raise? 750 images for $199 means you would get something like 8 or 9 cents per sale doesn't it?
If you look into this link (https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties) that Mat had given on page 1, it appears that "Adobe Stock - 750 images per month" will give the "Minimum guarantee" which starts at 25 cents. On the same page in Adobe FT words "Get 33% on every sale on a Fotolia subscription or on Adobe Stock. Actual payout will depend on the price of the image paid by the buyer. Minimum guarantee applies to make sure contributors are always fairly compensated, whatever the price is."
This is my take reading the link; I hope we will be able to get a reply from Mat on this.
-
Wow!
I am shocked at how many NEGATIVE post have come out of this great news... Maybe that's why I come less often on this forum. All contributors have been stating about the cut in the commissions in Fotolia. Now that we have big increase and receive a 1/3 commission along with a new platform to generate revenue, most of you still find place to complain instead of taking one small moment to say Thank You to Adobe for taking a step forward in fixing a flawed system.
Cheer up everyone! :)
Is it a pay raise? 750 images for $199 means you would get something like 8 or 9 cents per sale doesn't it?
If you look into this link (https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties) that Mat had given on page 1, it appears that "Adobe Stock - 750 images per month" will give the "Minimum guarantee" which starts at 25 cents. On the same page in Adobe FT words "Get 33% on every sale on a Fotolia subscription or on Adobe Stock. Actual payout will depend on the price of the image paid by the buyer. Minimum guarantee applies to make sure contributors are always fairly compensated, whatever the price is."
This is my take reading the link; I hope we will be able to get a reply from Mat on this.
I think that's correct but then is it a raise since everyone will get the guaranteed minimum? Did they raise that or is it staying the same?
-
SS still pays more. 38 cents compared to 25 cents. I am only a little touched by the generosity ::)
-
When something changes in positive way I always try to emphasize that as well as when it's other way around.
So, keep on good work and positive changes for contributors Fotolia/Adobe team, get rid of DPC if you can(more buyers on ft/adobe stock) and count on my vector illustrations and photos for a long time!
After DPC thing (it wasn't a deal) I almost deleted my portfolio, but when you made option to exclude my portfolio I stayed.
I wish you win the market battle against all agencies that pay contributors less commission compared to you.
-
Screenshot take it today after i login in to my creative cloud account...
-
SS still pays more. 38 cents compared to 25 cents. I am only a little touched by the generosity ::)
However, in terms of average $/DL, FT was already paying slightly better than SS.
This upgrade will only increase the gap.
Glad to see the sub sales counting as a full point, now. My stats have been also updated. Now, instead of waiting for 5 years, I will probably need only 1 year to reach gold.
-
Its a refreshing change to have something happen that appears to be positive.
Hopefully a good chance for growth etc.
Am I dreaming or did I also see mention of Adobe Stock as a seperate website too? (i was running out the door when i started reading all the gubbins so maybe it was just a lack of oxygen)
Also, i got bumped up to emerald (!YAY!) which is another real buzz as I thought it was going to take easily another 4-5 months.
Hope everyone gets to see some increased earnings anyway, we deserve it!
-
All they need to do now is change the name of FT so I could feel like maybe I could trust them again. But so nice to wake up to some positive news for once!
-
In one of the articles it says video coming soon, I shoot video, just wondering if content like what I shoot and a lot of it is branded editorial, especially my students on campus and severe weather stuff, will be accepted. Don't want to go through what I did with VB, all the emails and ads saying they want my content, only to have almost all of it being rejected for being, editorial, too shaky, grainy, unusable, and....not likely to sell. commissions for photos or video need to be at least 50% like on P5. We are doing half the work, it's only fair and agencies need to show some respect for our work OR, pay all the costs of my equipment, fuel, travel, etc, and then maybe I will take less than 50% in pay on sales.
So, have a look and thoroughly browse what I have at P5 and then tell me if that would be accepted on your new Adobe stock site, not going through the waste of time I did with VB, SS, Dissolve.
admin edit: removed double signature
-
I expect another positive spin.
Only 20% of my FT sales come from US.
Now, with the increased exposure through Adobe Cloud, the US sales will probably get a visible boost!
And since FT has already a slightly better average $/DL than SS, with this increase, it's good news for the contributors, even if FT eats up some of the SS US market share.
-
I expect another positive spin.
Only 20% of my FT sales come from US.
Now, with the increased exposure through Adobe Cloud, the US sales will probably get a visible boost!
And since FT has already a slightly better average $/DL than SS, with this increase, it's good news for the contributors, even if FT eats up some of the SS US market share.
What do you think SS will do if they lose market share to FT?
-
I expect another positive spin.
Only 20% of my FT sales come from US.
Now, with the increased exposure through Adobe Cloud, the US sales will probably get a visible boost!
And since FT has already a slightly better average $/DL than SS, with this increase, it's good news for the contributors, even if FT eats up some of the SS US market share.
What do you think SS will do if they lose market share to FT?
You never know. I'm only guessing that it might be more convenient for a busy PS user to try and then buy a photo without leaving PS.
If FT can now grow in US, without affecting the SS sales, that's even better.
-
I expect another positive spin.
Only 20% of my FT sales come from US.
Now, with the increased exposure through Adobe Cloud, the US sales will probably get a visible boost!
And since FT has already a slightly better average $/DL than SS, with this increase, it's good news for the contributors, even if FT eats up some of the SS US market share.
What do you think SS will do if they lose market share to FT?
You never know. I'm only guessing that it might be more convenient for a busy PS user to try and then buy a photo without leaving PS.
I agree but SS will probably respond so they don't lose too much market share. The most obvious way would be by lowering prices. It seems very unlikely that they will grow without taking some market share from SS, it may not mean much but SS shares are down 4% in the first couple hours of trading today so it seems like investors believe market share will be taken.
-
I just hope Adobe fix that page that
shows our Social Securuty numbers....and blur some numbers out just like all other companies do.
Because that is a huuuuuuuuuuuge flaw in their system.
-
SS still pays more. 38 cents compared to 25 cents. I am only a little touched by the generosity ::)
No that's not correct - you are comparing the top tier at SS to the bottom at FT. They both start at 25 cents, and FT ends with diamond at 40 cents while SS stops at 38 cents. So they pay the same at the lowest levels while SS pays less at the highest - your statement is dead wrong. It has been harder to advance at FT in my experience but with subs now counting as a full DL that is changed. With the new method I should be up a level but they still have me listed at the old one with a negative number of DLs required to go up - hope they get that sorted out soon.
-
Since Adobe stepped into fotolia things seems to improve a lot. Hope the sales are going the same way. Thanks for the good work. :)
I agree. But I hate the company for trying to turn us into software rental sharecroppers with the CC scheme, but I'm making much more per sale. Most of them have been non-subscription.
-
I agree but SS will probably respond so they don't lose too much market share. The most obvious way would be by lowering prices.
Anything is possible, but that solution seems to ignore the last 5 years in micro for SS.
-
I agree but SS will probably respond so they don't lose too much market share. The most obvious way would be by lowering prices.
Anything is possible, but that solution seems to ignore the last 5 years in micro for SS.
How so? Shutterstock has been taking market share for the last 5 years this seems like it could be a real challenge.
-
I expect another positive spin.
Only 20% of my FT sales come from US.
Now, with the increased exposure through Adobe Cloud, the US sales will probably get a visible boost!
And since FT has already a slightly better average $/DL than SS, with this increase, it's good news for the contributors, even if FT eats up some of the SS US market share.
What do you think SS will do if they lose market share to FT?
I don't think SS will lower prices, price isn't the attraction with CC/FT, it's the convenience of staying in program and using the image before you buy it. Difficult to see how SS or anyone else can compete with that. BIG USP for them and probably one of the most attractive in the marketplace. Buyers will pay a bit more for that to save their time.
You think of all the service businesses out there who only thrive because they provide services that people either haven't got the skills to do themselves, can't be bothered to do or do not have the time to do; cleaners, chaffeurs, gardeners, printers, photographers, etc, etc. People will pay for convenience and in a business like the creative market where the more time you have the more money you earn it, will be accepted wholesale.
-
I expect another positive spin.
Only 20% of my FT sales come from US.
Now, with the increased exposure through Adobe Cloud, the US sales will probably get a visible boost!
And since FT has already a slightly better average $/DL than SS, with this increase, it's good news for the contributors, even if FT eats up some of the SS US market share.
What do you think SS will do if they lose market share to FT?
I don't think SS will lower prices, price isn't the attraction with CC/FT, it's the convenience of staying in program and using the image before you buy it. Difficult to see how SS or anyone else can compete with that. BIG USP for them and probably one of the most attractive in the marketplace. Buyers will pay a bit more for that to save their time.
You think of all the service businesses out there who only thrive because they provide services that people either haven't got the skills to do themselves, can't be bothered to do or do not have the time to do; cleaners, chaffeurs, gardeners, printers, photographers, etc, etc. People will pay for convenience and in a business like the creative market where the more time you have the more money you earn it, will be accepted wholesale.
So you think they'll just sit back and allow FT to take market share without doing anything?
-
Increased royalties is definitely a step in the right direction for contributors, but how sad that a few pennies are rejoiced as a HUGE game changer. Adobe makes gazillions, contributors get peanuts. But one must look on the bright side at this point in microstock history. The increased exposure definitely should help sales, too. I will be interested to see how it all develops for contributors.
-
Potentially, this is very bad news indeed for those of us who could not accept Fotolia's behaviour and quit the agency (and very bad news for the other agencies). I wish they'd bought up DT or one of the others. I guess I'm just lucky that things have happened which mean my stock earnings are no longer a vital part of my finances.
-
Hi Everyone,
Thank you so much for the great questions. I will do my best to continue to answer them all as the day goes on.
"Mat, how about past sub sales? will they count as one full download as well?"
@cidepix, Yes that is correct. All past subscription downloads have been adjusted to equal 1 full sale towards your rank.
“Will sales on adobe stock be reported in real time on fotolia? Can we see on fotolia which sales came via adobe?”
@cobalt: Yes, sales are recorded in real time. Those sales will not be differentiated in your dashboard at this time.
“ Will Adobe undercut his prices by DPC?
When will Adobe close DPC?”
@r2d2 The prices that have been announced are what we are offering.
Dollar Photo Club will continue to run as normal. However, we have stopped promoting and marketing the site.
“Mat, can you please clarify how will videos be treated by Adobe Stock?”
@ultimagaina, Videos are not currently available on Adobe Stock but we are constantly considering the best ways to improve the product based on client and contributor’s feedback and needs.
"Adobe - please reconsider accepting editorial content. There is a need in the marketplace for these kind of images as well!"
@noodle; We aren’t offering editorial at this time.
"Is it a pay raise? 750 images for $199 means you would get something like 8 or 9 cents per sale doesn't it?"
@tickstock, There is a minimum payout as seen in the link I shared earlier.
"I think that's correct but then is it a raise since everyone will get the guaranteed minimum? Did they raise that or is it staying the same?"
The minimum payout structure remains the same according to your rank.
"Am I dreaming or did I also see mention of Adobe Stock as a seperate website too? (i was running out the door when i started reading all the gubbins so maybe it was just a lack of oxygen)"
@smilla, the standalone site for Adobe Stock is here: www.stock.adobe.com (http://www.stock.adobe.com)
-
I expect another positive spin.
Only 20% of my FT sales come from US.
Now, with the increased exposure through Adobe Cloud, the US sales will probably get a visible boost!
And since FT has already a slightly better average $/DL than SS, with this increase, it's good news for the contributors, even if FT eats up some of the SS US market share.
What do you think SS will do if they lose market share to FT?
I don't think SS will lower prices, price isn't the attraction with CC/FT, it's the convenience of staying in program and using the image before you buy it. Difficult to see how SS or anyone else can compete with that. BIG USP for them and probably one of the most attractive in the marketplace. Buyers will pay a bit more for that to save their time.
You think of all the service businesses out there who only thrive because they provide services that people either haven't got the skills to do themselves, can't be bothered to do or do not have the time to do; cleaners, chaffeurs, gardeners, printers, photographers, etc, etc. People will pay for convenience and in a business like the creative market where the more time you have the more money you earn it, will be accepted wholesale.
So you think they'll just sit back and allow FT to take market share without doing anything?
Not at all, I think they will need to do something eventually, I just don't think it will be prices. Putting prices down will put pressure on their margins against a back drop of what we assume will be dropping market share, also assuming they would not reduce royalties any lower than they currently pay, that would mean a direct hit on their bottom line - reducing income and static costs - which would then have an immediate impact on share price and dividends. Something they cannot permit to happen.
They would be better off putting prices up to maintain margin and static royalties and try to come up with an innovative technological solution.
-
SS still pays more. 38 cents compared to 25 cents. I am only a little touched by the generosity ::)
No that's not correct - you are comparing the top tier at SS to the bottom at FT. They both start at 25 cents, and FT ends with diamond at 40 cents while SS stops at 38 cents. So they pay the same at the lowest levels while SS pays less at the highest - your statement is dead wrong. It has been harder to advance at FT in my experience but with subs now counting as a full DL that is changed. With the new method I should be up a level but they still have me listed at the old one with a negative number of DLs required to go up - hope they get that sorted out soon.
FT diamond needs 1.000.000 downloads!!! How many contributors are diamond? Come on please. Stay realistic.
-
I agree but SS will probably respond so they don't lose too much market share. The most obvious way would be by lowering prices.
Anything is possible, but that solution seems to ignore the last 5 years in micro for SS.
How so? Shutterstock has been taking market share for the last 5 years this seems like it could be a real challenge.
In that SS has had most of its growth in the last years based on higher priced packages. It clearly seems like the trend they have been moving towards. Obviously, subs are a stable workhorse, but lowering prices on those is a double-edged sword. They will probably have to bear some of the brunt of any price lowering with losses in profit, since contributor claw backs have not typically gone well for companies. But if they want to ignore all that, then they can. It would seem weird to do that though.
That and as others have said, they'd be losing market share on services offered not price. So, what impact would it have to lower prices? Are cheaper subs going to lure you away from convenience? Probably not. Since there isn't much of an Adobe competitor they could work on their Facebook deal or something with another company like the Microsoft deal, but I'm not sure how well any of those have gone. I guess you could try to buy Adobe, but that seems insane.
-
Potentially, this is very bad news indeed for those of us who could not accept Fotolia's behaviour and quit the agency (and very bad news for the other agencies). I wish they'd bought up DT or one of the others. I guess I'm just lucky that things have happened which mean my stock earnings are no longer a vital part of my finances.
I wouldn't kick myself just yet. Let the dust settle and see how it pans out. If it goes the way of all the other agencies, once adobe gets everybody hooked, they will raise prices to buyers and drop royalties to contributors. I would LOVE to eat my words and see that not happen.
-
Mat, any plans to give exclusive contributors a better deal on Adobe sales than nonexclusive contributors or files.?
-
Mat, what about extended licenses on Adobe Stock (or via CC)?
-
Shutterstock next to make a new piece of software to compete with Photoshop? :D 8)
-
Still Emerald. ONLY need 48,000 dls to reach the next rank. :D
-
How do you find rank? I haven't looked since the site redesign
-
I expect another positive spin.
Only 20% of my FT sales come from US.
Now, with the increased exposure through Adobe Cloud, the US sales will probably get a visible boost!
And since FT has already a slightly better average $/DL than SS, with this increase, it's good news for the contributors, even if FT eats up some of the SS US market share.
What do you think SS will do if they lose market share to FT?
I don't think SS will lower prices, price isn't the attraction with CC/FT, it's the convenience of staying in program and using the image before you buy it. Difficult to see how SS or anyone else can compete with that. BIG USP for them and probably one of the most attractive in the marketplace. Buyers will pay a bit more for that to save their time.
You think of all the service businesses out there who only thrive because they provide services that people either haven't got the skills to do themselves, can't be bothered to do or do not have the time to do; cleaners, chaffeurs, gardeners, printers, photographers, etc, etc. People will pay for convenience and in a business like the creative market where the more time you have the more money you earn it, will be accepted wholesale.
Yep agree - I suspect the biggest cost for buyers is the time they spend looking for images rather than the low cost of the images. S Stock will need to raise their game - will be interesting to see how they do after having an easy ride.
-
Wow! I go to bed and all this great stuff happens!
Thank you Adobe for these improvements in the marketplace!! I hope other sites will follow your lead of raising commissions and treating contributors as the valuable partners we are. If they don't maybe down the line you could take the whole market by offering a sweet exclusivity deal.
Anyways, thanks for this huge step in the right direction. And congrats to Mat for getting to be the bearer of GOOD news for once! ;)
-
SS still pays more. 38 cents compared to 25 cents. I am only a little touched by the generosity ::)
No that's not correct - you are comparing the top tier at SS to the bottom at FT. They both start at 25 cents, and FT ends with diamond at 40 cents while SS stops at 38 cents. So they pay the same at the lowest levels while SS pays less at the highest - your statement is dead wrong. It has been harder to advance at FT in my experience but with subs now counting as a full DL that is changed. With the new method I should be up a level but they still have me listed at the old one with a negative number of DLs required to go up - hope they get that sorted out soon.
FT diamond needs 1.000.000 downloads!!! How many contributors are diamond? Come on please. Stay realistic.
OK, but it is still not reasonable to compare the highest tier at one agency with the lowest at another.
To allow for a direct comparison, my lifetime average RPDL at SS is $0.67. Based on that you would need to have about 750 DLs to get to 0.33, 4500 DLs to get to 0.36 and 15,000 DLS to get to 0.38. Those correspond to FT levels bronze, silver and gold which pay 0.27. 0.29 and 0.31. So at SS it is much easier to get to higher levels - at the first raise you are already above the gold level at FT and actually at the minimum subs guarantee for emerald. If FT consistently pays above the minimum guarantee then the levels don't matter too much. I would say probably 30-40% of my subs DLs at FT the past few months have been above the minimum. So far today only one and it was the minimum for the level I used to be - I should go up a level with the new changes but that hasn't occurred yet.
-
Wow! I go to bed and all this great stuff happens!
Thank you Adobe for these improvements in the marketplace!! I hope other sites will follow your lead of raising commissions and treating contributors as the valuable partners we are. If they don't maybe down the line you could take the whole market by offering a sweet exclusivity deal.
Anyways, thanks for this huge step in the right direction. And congrats to Mat for getting to be the bearer of GOOD news for once! ;)
agree. This comes at a perfect time and was predictable. I do think However that the commission structure is still to Low. If you raised it and offered exclusivity, I think you would see the competition folding overnight and.....it should. Adobe could have a complete Monopoly in a very short time if they did this and if they did, with their Tech and customer base......? they could be the biggest and most Profitable company Out there, even More than they are Now and deserve it. hello Adobe and Thank you for doing something to at least make us feel needed and a bit more respected.. Your company has always been about the creative community.
Good for you.
-
History has shown that the more dominant any one company gets, the more they try to push back the boundaries of acceptibility with their suppliers.
Also, Adobe had its own image library for a while, and it folded, (though IIRC that one was RM [?]) though at that time it seemed like a winner.
-
Mat, any plans to give exclusive contributors a better deal on Adobe sales than nonexclusive contributors or files.?
@Tickstock, not at this time. All contributors receive a 33% commission on Adobe Stock sales that exceed the minimum payout regardless of rank or exclusivity.
-Mat
-
Mat, what about extended licenses on Adobe Stock (or via CC)?
@dirkr, Adobe Stock is not selling extended licenses at this time. All requests for this type of use will be referred to Fotolia.
-Mat
-
How do you find rank? I haven't looked since the site redesign
@dbvirago you can find your rank on the contributor area page within your account: https://us.fotolia.com/Contributor
-Mat
-
It was right in front of me. How am I supposed to see that?
-
It was right in front of me. How am I supposed to see that?
LOL, I will let the tech team know they need to bury that information deeper :)
-
However, in terms of average $/DL, FT was already paying slightly better than SS.
This upgrade will only increase the gap.
Really? Is that, like, a general thing?
My RPD on SS is 50% higher than on FT...
-
However, in terms of average $/DL, FT was already paying slightly better than SS.
This upgrade will only increase the gap.
Really? Is that, like, a general thing?
My RPD on SS is 50% higher than on FT...
Really! Only IS pays less/DL than SS.
These are my stats:
1. DT - $1.45/DL
2. 123- $1.02/DL
3. FT - $0.88/DL
4. SS - $0.85/DL
5. IS - $0.65/DL
-
However, in terms of average $/DL, FT was already paying slightly better than SS.
This upgrade will only increase the gap.
Really? Is that, like, a general thing?
My RPD on SS is 50% higher than on FT...
Really! Only IS pays less/DL than SS.
These are my stats:
1. DT - $1.45/DL
2. 123- $1.02/DL
3. FT - $0.88/DL
4. SS - $0.85/DL
5. IS - $0.65/DL
Hmm... my RPD at iStock just for subs is higher than any of those sites. Too bad Adobe didn't choose to go a bit (a lot) higher with sub royalties.
-
Comparing RPD - in 2015 FT is having a better year falling between .56 and .88 and SS is growing also - between .7 and 1.99. I'm still Silver on FT though.
-
Really! Only IS pays less/DL than SS.
These are my stats:
1. DT - $1.45/DL
2. 123- $1.02/DL
3. FT - $0.88/DL
4. SS - $0.85/DL
5. IS - $0.65/DL
Similar on SS, but I have no idea why it's so low on FT for me (around 0.5).
Oh well.
-
Hi Matt, I'm still not seeing any rise in royalty payments. When should I see a difference..?
-
Comparing RPD - in 2015 FT is having a better year falling between .56 and .88 and SS is growing also - between .7 and 1.99. I'm still Silver on FT though.
Just to clarify: I'm also silver on FT. And top tier on SS.
-
I have to be honest, I feel kind of crap that I am not able to sell my photos through Adobe. Missing out on good money, all because I wanted to protect my intellectual property.
Apply through the adobe site. The thing i would be most worried about is whether Adobe is relying on the likes of "The Chad" and that greedy Oleg to run adobe stock. That will be a disaster for adobe. There needs to be separate management structure.
-
I have to be honest, I feel kind of crap that I am not able to sell my photos through Adobe. Missing out on good money, all because I wanted to protect my intellectual property.
Apply through the adobe site. The thing i would be most worried about is whether Adobe is relying on the likes of "The Chad" and that greedy Oleg to run adobe stock. That will be a disaster for adobe. There needs to be separate management structure.
The Adobe site just points to Fotolia.
-
SS will have to pull something out of the bag to counter Adobe, exclusivity, curation or gateway to Offset.
Adobe have moved impressively fast since their acquisition, Fotolia website looks better, Adobe Stock site looks clean, Royalties increased, stock images baked into CC software all in the space of 6 months.
-
SS will have to pull something out of the bag to counter Adobe, exclusivity, curation or gateway to Offset.
Adobe have moved impressively fast since their acquisition, Fotolia website looks better, Adobe Stock site looks clean, Royalties increased, stock images baked into CC software all in the space of 6 months.
I was just thinking the same thing. Exclusivity is probably looking like much more of an option now. I'm sure Shutterstock has something planned, everyone knew this was going to happen sometime soon. We'll probably see what that is in the next month or two.
-
I think this is the first "good news" change I've seen from an agency that might actually be good news.
-
Did anybody notice that the "Save Preview to Desktop" in AdobeStock, is twice as big as that in Fotolia? I like it! Shows more detail. Here's an example shown at 75% of actual size.
(http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz187/rimglow/Preview_zpscppo3io5.jpg)
-
They definetly have a plan and are executing it from a business standpoint
These moves can only be positive for contributers, and to boot they threw in a couple of goodies like raising the levels and raising coms
I keep having to pinch myself that contributers are finally on the receiving end of something positive, even if it is small benefits. All we've been seeing from just about every other agency is clawbacks in one form or another
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
-
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.
-
SS will have to pull something out of the bag to counter Adobe, exclusivity, curation or gateway to Offset.
Adobe have moved impressively fast since their acquisition, Fotolia website looks better, Adobe Stock site looks clean, Royalties increased, stock images baked into CC software all in the space of 6 months.
Yup. Although they have stated several times before that exclusivity is not an option, I'm thinking that they might be reconsidering. At least I would.
Maybe they partner with Affinity, so we'll have fotolia+photoshop vs shutterstock+affinity. I mean, who knows. Their stock already fell from 64 to 60 in just one day, so I'm sure the shareholders are not very happy. Let's just hope they don't undercut with pricing and screw the contributors. Then a lot of people will probably start thinking of going exclusive at fotolia.
-
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.
That would be great but they can start by cleaning up the atrocious review process - then do the rest, bump us up raise coms and give us shares in the company 😆
-
Another question for Mat. Will the Instant collection be included in Adobe Stock? I see existing Instant Collection images appear to be, but wanted to clarify if that will continue to be the case moving forward?
-
Shutterstock stock was down today more than 5% (on a day when the general stock market was up about .5%). Probably not a coincidence.
Shutterstock management should immediately begin to rethink the way they have been treating contributors, such as diverting traffic away from our ports on SS and onto OFFSET where we are not allowed to contribute. I used to love SS, but their recent behavior is one of the reasons I decided to stop creating microstock and move on to things which have a future. SS should give microstockers a raise immediately. Time for them to stop investing their profits in other businesses and start thinking about the people who really contributed to their success.
-
Did anybody notice that the "Save Preview to Desktop" in AdobeStock, is twice as big as that in Fotolia? I like it! Shows more detail.
You can edit the watermarked comps and then buy the stock image later and CC auto applies the edits to the full res version, all the assets are handled CC libraries, very useful. Their technologies seem to be converging in a very powerful way. For a lot of web and design firms this will be a big time saver, plus it will begin to streamline the headache of digital asset management for designers and clients.
It will be interesting to see if they upgrade PS and Lightroom to allow direct uploading into Fotolia.
iS and SS must be worried, they'll start seeing these features maturing in the very software they are using to review images for their libraries. It's only a short step for Adobe to ramp up customer and contributor support and cut out the need to ever leave the editing software.
-
Another question for Mat. Will the Instant collection be included in Adobe Stock? I see existing Instant Collection images appear to be, but wanted to clarify if that will continue to be the case moving forward?
@KerinF yes, the Instant Collection is in Adobe Stock. As far as I know those images will continue to be added as they are approved at Fotolia.
-Mat
-
Finally, some good news!
Glad to see something that's looking positive for a change. I noticed I've jumped to Silver status overnight and I had my first Adobe Stock On Demand sale for 3.30 Cr., so we're off to a nice start.
Questions:
1. Do I understand correctly that the royalty percentage for subscriptions and Adobe Stock sales will from now on be 33%, and credit sales will still be according to rank percentage (25% at Silver)?
2. I have video subscriptions disabled at the moment (because the returns were too low), but I noticed that video subscriptions are now 35% royalty, with a minimum of 17.50 for HD? So that means video subscriptions are now worth it to opt in?
-
Another question for Mat. Will the Instant collection be included in Adobe Stock? I see existing Instant Collection images appear to be, but wanted to clarify if that will continue to be the case moving forward?
@KerinF yes, the Instant Collection is in Adobe Stock. As far as I know those images will continue to be added as they are approved at Fotolia.
-Mat
I hope your right Mat. Site Looks clean and fresh. If not..........OH WELL. So, "Bridge to Adobe" is in full swing. sounds better than Bridge to Bigstock....LOL
Interesting Old thread. 2008
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-macrostock/adobe-stock-photos-service-to-be-discontinued/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-macrostock/adobe-stock-photos-service-to-be-discontinued/)
And here>>http://www.microstockgroup.com/blog-updates/adobe-should-create-a-stock-agency/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/blog-updates/adobe-should-create-a-stock-agency/)
-
Shutterstock next to make a new piece of software to compete with Photoshop? :D 8)
How has no one commented yet on the fact that Andres Rodriguez made an appearance in this thread?? ;D
Where you been, dude? Good to see you around again.
-
Perhaps even more interesting was the announcement that there will be no further marketing of Dollar Photo Club. I just looked at their FB page and there haven't been any updates for over three months.
-
Is it a pay raise? 750 images for $199 means you would get something like 8 or 9 cents per sale doesn't it?
Shutterstock is 199$ per month for 750 and they still give .38$ per download. They do those plans as most users do not download 750 every month but download for use.
-
Another question for Mat. Will the Instant collection be included in Adobe Stock? I see existing Instant Collection images appear to be, but wanted to clarify if that will continue to be the case moving forward?
@KerinF yes, the Instant Collection is in Adobe Stock. As far as I know those images will continue to be added as they are approved at Fotolia.
-Mat
Thanks Mat! One for the "suggestion box". It would be good if it was possible to access Creative Cloud library from inside Instant, so can upload images from there as well as the camera roll. I often find my iPhone get too full before I have a chance to deal with all the images, so often upload them to Lightroom for later (Snapwire has this feature ;)).
-
Do you think that the Adobe Stock watermark is good/big enough to protect the image at this new size? I feel like it is not covering enough the image. I believe iStock had a diagonal lines as an addition to the logo.
-
So I'm wondering how many people had earnings higher than normal on FT today (launch day).
I know I did, and they were significantly higher. But it's hard to tell how much of that was from this being a good microstock day in general (all agencies were up for me today) or the increased commissions on FT, as opposed to business driven by Adobe Stock.
I have to think with all the media attention many CC subscribers would have tried it out today. Perhaps they would have downloaded a lot of watermarked images to use in comps, but maybe too soon to see actual sales as those comps would now be routing for approvals and purchase decisions could take some time.
(This logic would at least suggest that we've had higher than normal FT image views today, and indeed... today I had more daily FT image views than any other day in the past month.)
-
Fantastic news - highly anticipated and welcomed!
-
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.
Another question: do you have plans for Editorial and RM content ?
Guarantee of settings stability, like "no free section" , "no exclusive" ?
-
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.
Another question: do you have plans for Editorial and RM content ?
Guarantee of settings stability, like "no free section" , "no exclusive" ?
earLy days....Hold On. Im sure theres gonna be more and better news.
-
I’m eager to reap the benefits of a possible surge in sales.
-
Shutterstock next to make a new piece of software to compete with Photoshop? :D 8)
How has no one commented yet on the fact that Andres Rodriguez made an appearance in this thread?? ;D
Where you been, dude? Good to see you around again.
I actually noticed it, but it felt like i was dreaming and didnt comment on it. :)
-
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.
Another question: do you have plans for Editorial and RM content ?
Guarantee of settings stability, like "no free section" , "no exclusive" ?
@Skyfish, I appreciate your feedback. I will share your comments about the watermark.
There are no plans in place for editorial content or rights managed licensing that I am aware of.
Your feedback regarding default settings for indexing has also been noted.
Thank you,
Mat
-
Another thing I've noticed lately is that I've gotten the payout really fast the last two times I requested it. It used to take about three weeks. The last request I made took three hours. I made the request in the morning and got paid for it three hours later. I hope this is a permanent change. It used to be really frustrating to not be able to make another request for payout because I had one pending.
-
Mat, how long does the transfer from FT to AS take for new images?
-
Mat, how long does the transfer from FT to AS take for new images?
@Sean, I don't know the answer to that question. I will ask.
-Mat
-
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.
-
Matt, What is the income range, i.e. money per download received by the photographer for clips?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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 (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 (http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/2015010/012815AdobeCompletesFotoliaAcquisition.html), 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 (https://www.fotolia.com) 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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
Seminar right now: http://seminars.adobeconnect.com/photography (http://seminars.adobeconnect.com/photography)
-
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 % :-
-
Seminar right now: [url]http://seminars.adobeconnect.com/photography[/url] ([url]http://seminars.adobeconnect.com/photography[/url])
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?
-
Maybe they're full? I used an anonymous name.
-
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.
-
... and I got booted.
-
... and I got booted.
probably overload
-
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 $2.85
All you say is right.
The difference comes from the ratio subs/on demand.
This is what made FT RPD slightly higher. Moreover, SS has increased this ratio, lately.
It remains to be seen if the Adobe RPD will continue the FT trend or will fall down to SS levels, or, God forbid, IS levels.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
The problem is, as you can see, every option at Adobe pays less than the similar option at SS. FT has a different pricing model than Adobe and Adobe isn't going to get new customers to convert to Fotolia, if anything they are going to get Fotolia customers to convert to Adobe.
-
The worst case scenario:
Most of the Fotolia costumers buy in the future via Adobe-Stock (9,99 €/$ 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%)
-
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 $2.85
All you say is right.
The difference comes from the ratio subs/on demand.
This is what made FT RPD slightly higher. Moreover, SS has increased this ratio, lately.
It remains to be seen if the Adobe RPD will continue the FT trend or will fall down to SS levels, or, God forbid, IS levels.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
The problem is, as you can see, every option at Adobe pays less than the similar option at SS. FT has a different pricing model than Adobe and Adobe isn't going to get new customers to convert to Fotolia, if anything they are going to get Fotolia customers to convert to Adobe.
So let's hope they don't take too many sales from Shutterstock but rather from Istock. 8)
What are the comparisons there btw?
-
The worst case scenario:
Most of the Fotolia costumers buy in the future via Adobe-Stock (9,99 €/$ 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
-
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!
-
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.
-
A few days ago, you were ranting all over fotolia, and now you're crawling back. Heh.
-
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.
-
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.
-
There is a rather good article around this here (http://blog.melchersystem.com/2015/06/17/a-few-thought-on-adobe-stock/) 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.
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.
-
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.
-
A few days ago, you were ranting all over fotolia, and now you're crawling back. Heh.
+10 :o
-
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.
-
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.
-
Maybe this is a bit too alarmist? http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock (http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock)
"Adobe’s 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)."
-
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.
-
Yep it will affect all sites but probably SS the most significantly from a contributor's point of view.
-
Maybe this is a bit too alarmist? [url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock[/url] ([url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock[/url])
"Adobe’s 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!
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/201506/061615AdobeStockLaunchesWorldwide.html)
-
Maybe this is a bit too alarmist? [url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock[/url] ([url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock[/url])
"Adobe’s 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."
-
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).
[url]http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/201506/061615AdobeStockLaunchesWorldwide.html[/url] ([url]http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/201506/061615AdobeStockLaunchesWorldwide.html[/url])
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.
-
Maybe this is a bit too alarmist? [url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock[/url] ([url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock[/url])
"Adobe’s 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"
-
Maybe this is a bit too alarmist? [url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock[/url] ([url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock[/url])
"Adobe’s 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.
-
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!!!!!!
-
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
-
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.
-
Maybe this is a bit too alarmist? [url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock[/url] ([url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock[/url])
"Adobe’s 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"
-
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 (https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)
-
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:
[url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url] ([url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url])
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
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.
-
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:
[url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url] ([url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url])
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
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.
-
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:
[url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url] ([url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url])
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
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.
-
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:
[url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url] ([url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url])
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
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.
-
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:
[url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url] ([url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url])
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
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)
:)
-
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:
[url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url] ([url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url])
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
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.
-
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:
[url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url] ([url]https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties[/url])
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :-*
-
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.
Why? They haven't matched iStock's low prices, or dropped my royalties down to 20%, and they're not running a 20%-off special right now that lasts forever and gives me 20% lower royalties.
-
A few days ago, you were ranting all over fotolia, and now you're crawling back. Heh.
+10 :o
I deleted my whole port and gave up a few weeks of earnings to try and improve the way agencies treat us. Whether the efforts of a few contributors had anything to do with it or not, FT has decided to make a few changes that benefit us all.
So please do tell us, Dod and Dum, what exactly you guys did to try and bring about some change?
-
I am sure the stand the community took against the dollar photo club (and before against google) helped to make it clear how important it is to treat us fairly. SS has a lot more content than all the other agencies because more people trust them and they make a big effort to communicate well.
Technically speaking our content has also just been moved to adobe without giving us a choice or opt out. But because it comes across as a fair opportunity, at least to me, I doubt we will see a shitstorm demanding to pull content.
But if we had not made a stand..would we be offered 33% on AS, a change in the way subs are counted towards rank, which moved many people up one ladder etc...? Adobe is huge, they really don´t want a drama with millions of files disappearing over night.
All we want is a reliable work environment and sensible discussions with respect. Give everyone a chance to make money together.
So I hope this really is a new chapter for fotolia and us.
-
I doubt it's going to hurt Shutterstock all that much. Shutterstock has a larger library -- especially in editorials --- a better search and a loyal customer base. It has also expanded its reach into direct sales that we see show up as SODs, which have increased my earnings 25-30 percent. Three or four decent-size SODs a month has made a big difference.
Smaller sites like 123RF or Canstock and struggling sites like Istock would probably be hit much harder. I think you'll see the number of sites get squeezed down until it's Adobe and Shutterstock.
Fotolia needs to rethink editorial acceptance. It will always be an incomplete stock agency without it. Regular editorials and illustrative editorials are important categories.
-
I doubt it's going to hurt Shutterstock all that much. Shutterstock has a larger library -- especially in editorials --- a better search and a loyal customer base. It has also expanded it's reach into direct sales that we see show up as SODs, which have increased my earnings 25-30 percent. Three or four decent-size SODs a month has made a big difference.
Smaller sites like 123RF or Canstock and struggling sites like Istock would probably be hit much harder. I think you'll see the number of sites get squeezed down until it's Adobe and Shutterstock.
Fotolia needs to rethink editorial acceptance. It will always be an incomplete stock agency without it. Regular editorials and illustrative editorials are important categories.
Agree.
-
I am sure the stand the community took against the dollar photo club (and before against google) helped to make it clear how important it is to treat us fairly. SS has a lot more content than all the other agencies because more people trust them and they make a big effort to communicate well.
Technically speaking our content has also just been moved to adobe without giving us a choice or opt out. But because it comes across as a fair opportunity, at least to me, I doubt we will see a shitstorm demanding to pull content.
But if we had not made a stand..would we be offered 33% on AS, a change in the way subs are counted towards rank, which moved many people up one ladder etc...? Adobe is huge, they really don´t want a drama with millions of files disappearing over night.
All we want is a reliable work environment and sensible discussions with respect. Give everyone a chance to make money together.
So I hope this really is a new chapter for fotolia and us.
"and they make a big effort to communicate well." really???
-
Adobe Stock is not good for any of us in the long run. I am surprised more of you can't see it.
-
If SS decides to compete on pricing - well, that can be a two edged sword with contributers
Its time we see some creativity , like Adobe bumping up levels and coms, and see what the competition really has to offer.
If you thinkSS has deep pockets then Adobe has bottomless pockets
I like what Adobe has done, lets all hope that we end up as the benefactors of all of this
-
Adobe Stock is not good for any of us in the long run. I am surprised more of you can't see it.
OK, "newbie." ::)
-
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).
[url]http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/201506/061615AdobeStockLaunchesWorldwide.html[/url] ([url]http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/201506/061615AdobeStockLaunchesWorldwide.html[/url])
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.
As a Adobe CC 2014 user, I did get an email about the CC 2015 update, which has been including news about the stock photos. It is implemented into all the CC 2015 updates. Seems like you should have gotten an email.
-
Just remember that Adobe is a whole different animal to all of the current agency offerings.
If, for example, Adobe were to offer highly lucrative payouts to contributors, that would necessarily attract more contributors to the arena. In doing so, they would almost certainly see an increase in the amount of their software licenses that are sold, and are also inadvertently creating future customers for both software and stock photos, since these same contributors can also purchase stock photos through this same software.
The important thing to understand here is that Adobe is in a win-win situation in regards to contributors, and all they have to do is keep contributors contributing and they slowly grow their overall customer base, which will increase revenue.
This means that increases in contributor compensation may hit their stock photo profit, but in the long run provides them more reliable customers. This is why this is a huge move and a huge game changer. Unlike every other agency out there, Adobe is not trying to squeeze the last few dollars it can out of your artwork; they are trying to make you long term artists so they can make money out of it in the long term.
It necessitates a change in the way every other agency has been operating thus far and makes the agency arena suddenly highly competitive.
-
A few days ago, you were ranting all over fotolia, and now you're crawling back. Heh.
+10 :o
I deleted my whole port and gave up a few weeks of earnings to try and improve the way agencies treat us. Whether the efforts of a few contributors had anything to do with it or not, FT has decided to make a few changes that benefit us all.
So please do tell us, Dod and Dum, what exactly you guys did to try and bring about some change?
I applaud you for deleting your port and taking a stand. There are a whole lot of people who won't do that, even if they could, financially. But I really doubt that that had anything to do with FT making changes. I think this Adobe/Fotolia deal has been in the works and planning stages for quite a long time, long before you took a stand.
-
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).
[url]http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/201506/061615AdobeStockLaunchesWorldwide.html[/url] ([url]http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/201506/061615AdobeStockLaunchesWorldwide.html[/url])
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.
As a Adobe CC 2014 user, I did get an email about the CC 2015 update, which has been including news about the stock photos. It is implemented into all the CC 2015 updates. Seems like you should have gotten an email.
Ha, I didn't even know about the 2015 update until a few days ago when I got an email from Lynda.com about Deke's new tuts about CC2015.
-
I am sure the stand the community took against the dollar photo club (and before against google) helped to make it clear how important it is to treat us fairly. SS has a lot more content than all the other agencies because more people trust them and they make a big effort to communicate well.
...
So I hope this really is a new chapter for fotolia and us.
It has made a difference for me.
I'm one who completely pulled out of Fotolia during the DPC protest, and I never regretted it.
But with this positive development and the better attitude towards contributors that Adobe seems to have brought to FT, two days ago I decided to rejoin FT and upload 100 images, to see how it would go. Most of those have been accepted now (very fast!), with only 3 rejections, which is a significant improvement over my lousy acceptance ratio under "Old FT".
So yes, this looks like a good time to jump back into FT… especially since I can now opt out of DPC.
The protest made its point. Better management seems to be treating contributors with more respect. All this could change down the line, of course, but for the moment, I'm willing to give FT another try.
-
Good to remember too that selling stock is 100% of SS business
For Adobe selling stock is just the gravy on top
-
Good to remember too that selling stock is 100% of SS business
For Adobe selling stock is just the gravy on top
Actually their business is selling 'subscription packages' :o
-
According to Jon they are a "Technology" business.
-
Adobe Stock is not good for any of us in the long run. I am surprised more of you can't see it.
In the long run its important that SS has some serious competition monopolies, which was the way the industry was headed, are bad for buyers and sellers the detailed "calculations" being made show an heroic ability to make assumptions based on flawed logic.
-
Good to remember too that selling stock is 100% of SS business
For Adobe selling stock is just the gravy on top
I expect that Adobe is also well aware that most of the hundreds of thousands of microstock contributors are Adobe customers as well. Another reason to try to keep us happy.
-
Good to remember too that selling stock is 100% of SS business
For Adobe selling stock is just the gravy on top
I expect that Adobe is also well aware that most of the hundreds of thousands of microstock contributors are Adobe customers as well. Another reason to try to keep us happy.
Then they should raise prices, sub royalties, and give exclusive files and contributors more. Gold level (about the same as top level in SS by sales) gives 31 cents compared to 38 at SS, that doesn't sound too good to me.
-
Good to remember too that selling stock is 100% of SS business
For Adobe selling stock is just the gravy on top
I expect that Adobe is also well aware that most of the hundreds of thousands of microstock contributors are Adobe customers as well. Another reason to try to keep us happy.
You can bet your last dollar they are aware of this. They are also aware that hundreds of thousands of microstock photographers will sell themselves short.
-
Adobe Stock is not good for any of us in the long run. I am surprised more of you can't see it.
This is a surprisingly negative comment coming from someone whose screen name is "Rose Tinted Glasses". ;)
-
Were doomed all doomed I tell ye!
-
I am sure the stand the community took against the dollar photo club (and before against google) helped to make it clear how important it is to treat us fairly. SS has a lot more content than all the other agencies because more people trust them and they make a big effort to communicate well.
Technically speaking our content has also just been moved to adobe without giving us a choice or opt out. But because it comes across as a fair opportunity, at least to me, I doubt we will see a shitstorm demanding to pull content.
But if we had not made a stand..would we be offered 33% on AS, a change in the way subs are counted towards rank, which moved many people up one ladder etc...? Adobe is huge, they really don´t want a drama with millions of files disappearing over night.
All we want is a reliable work environment and sensible discussions with respect. Give everyone a chance to make money together.
So I hope this really is a new chapter for fotolia and us.
"and they make a big effort to communicate well." really???
I recoil every time I hear this XXXX and other often repeated fallacy's. Please they have permanent blinders and ear muffs on and have for years.
I would buy that they are making an effort to recruit and positively influence those who have a track record of promoting sites.
-
the best thing I've read in this thread is that they will no longer marketing DPC.
-
Ah yes, SS as the ultimate villain that destroyed everyones income...and artists als naive idiots that can't make sensible decisions...and just Upload blindly because they have been ordered to do so...well, adobe is a much bigger company.
I guess the list of favorite stock enemies will be reshuffled as well. :)
You can always go exclusive with istock, there still are people making thousands of dollars a month there...
So many options in the market now, life is wonderful ;)
-
Mat, how long does the transfer from FT to AS take for new images?
@Sean, I don't know the answer to that question. I will ask.
-Mat
I got 50 approved images yesterday, and today they are on AS. So it is very quick.
Today I received mail 11:06 AM and now is 12:09 and it is there.
-
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.
You said, the end, that's why I added no text earlier. If you just want to have the last word you have no luck with me. Be aware that English is not my first language, so the easiest way to express myself is to be straightforward, without the intention of being rude. Here you have what you asked for:
I don't need to justify my opinion, free speech is for everyone not just for you. Denigration and instigation instead is against the law worldwide (I think).
Many people raised their voices back than for the DPC thing. Some were simply agitators and manipulators, not even FT contributors, others left FT in a decent manner, good for them.
Don't speak in the name of those people and try to drag them in you denigrating champagne from two weeks ago when though compensated for the mistake, you continued with your accusations and asked for more.
There are a whole lot of people who won't do that, even if they could, financially. But I really doubt that that had anything to do with FT making changes. I think this Adobe/Fotolia deal has been in the works and planning stages for quite a long time, long before you took a stand.
That's right, nothing has changed at FT since than except the money and FT/Adobe changes are definitely not the victory of forum agitators.
So please do tell us, Dod and Dum, what exactly you guys did to try and bring about some change?
DO TELL US What? Who do you think you are? And who is us? Those who dare not to agree with you are others and you are us?
What did I do? Sure not furor. Photography is a dear hobby of mine and the money is welcome, still I don't think any agency or business can be influenced by the revolt of forum members.
Just for the record, I have nothing against you, just against your big mouth. In fact I'm glad for anyone who came back to FT.
Now it is the end.
-
a small question, the earning which is made here at adobe stock, how are we going to track it?
Will they credit to our fotolia balance instantly if someone purchased stock from adobe stock or
are we going to get the share monthly wise.
-
Good to remember too that selling stock is 100% of SS business
For Adobe selling stock is just the gravy on top
I expect that Adobe is also well aware that most of the hundreds of thousands of microstock contributors are Adobe customers as well. Another reason to try to keep us happy.
I see this as a (good) repeat of history. iStock started as designers sharing their images with other designers. Then the site started charging nickels and dimes per download so iStock could skim some middle-man money to help cover the server and internet costs. This also opened the market to buyers who did not have images to share. Hence, Microstock was born and iStock was the leader in making it all work.
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. Perhaps now we can be back to the supplier to user model with less drain by the middle-man. Perhaps we are now getting back to the seller/buyer community that was the fundamental start of iStock. However, this time, with Adobe at the middle-man helm, we are starting at a much larger scale, and with a company that has other intended revenue streams so they need not squeeze out the middle to pay the investment bills.
I am a long time iS Exclusive so will be watching Adobe/FT from the sidelines, for now, to see how it develops and to see how the other stock sites respond. I can only hope the other sites, including iS, respond in a manner to regrow the seller/buyer relationships. It is only with good seller/buyer relationships that the middle-man can skim off transactional costs for his part in the interaction. I can only hope the stock sites relearn the lesson that the relationships are what make the stock business work, not just the management school calculations of squeezing the most money out of the middle-man business position.
-
Can´t see adobe stock webstite :-\
-
Maybe a location thing? The site is up for me, in the US.
edit: yes, sorry, just read the fine print...it's an area thing. ???
-
Mat, how long does the transfer from FT to AS take for new images?
@Sean, I don't know the answer to that question. I will ask.
-Mat
I got 50 approved images yesterday, and today they are on AS. So it is very quick.
Today I received mail 11:06 AM and now is 12:09 and it is there.
Wow, yes, new uploads are already there. Super quick. Good system.
-
Mat, how long does the transfer from FT to AS take for new images?
@Sean, I don't know the answer to that question. I will ask.
-Mat
I got 50 approved images yesterday, and today they are on AS. So it is very quick.
Today I received mail 11:06 AM and now is 12:09 and it is there.
Wow, yes, new uploads are already there. Super quick. Good system.
Accordingto yesterday's presentation they use the same database. So it should actually be instant.
-
Has anyone been able to find the license terms for AS? I was going to ask in the session, but then I got booted.
-
Has anyone been able to find the license terms for AS? I was going to ask in the session, but then I got booted.
Took some digging on the site, here they are: http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Terms_en_US-20150313_hpc.pdf (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Terms_en_US-20150313_hpc.pdf)
-
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.
You said, the end, that's why I added no text earlier. If you just want to have the last word you have no luck with me. Be aware that English is not my first language, so the easiest way to express myself is to be straightforward, without the intention of being rude. Here you have what you asked for:
I don't need to justify my opinion, free speech is for everyone not just for you. Denigration and instigation instead is against the law worldwide (I think).
Many people raised their voices back than for the DPC thing. Some were simply agitators and manipulators, not even FT contributors, others left FT in a decent manner, good for them.
Don't speak in the name of those people and try to drag them in you denigrating champagne from two weeks ago when though compensated for the mistake, you continued with your accusations and asked for more.
There are a whole lot of people who won't do that, even if they could, financially. But I really doubt that that had anything to do with FT making changes. I think this Adobe/Fotolia deal has been in the works and planning stages for quite a long time, long before you took a stand.
That's right, nothing has changed at FT since than except the money and FT/Adobe changes are definitely not the victory of forum agitators.
So please do tell us, Dod and Dum, what exactly you guys did to try and bring about some change?
DO TELL US What? Who do you think you are? And who is us? Those who dare not to agree with you are others and you are us?
What did I do? Sure not furor. Photography is a dear hobby of mine and the money is welcome, still I don't think any agency or business can be influenced by the revolt of forum members.
Just for the record, I have nothing against you, just against your big mouse. In fact I'm glad for anyone who came back to FT.
Now it is the end.
Ignore.
-
Has anyone been able to find the license terms for AS? I was going to ask in the session, but then I got booted.
Took some digging on the site, here they are: [url]http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Terms_en_US-20150313_hpc.pdf[/url] ([url]http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Terms_en_US-20150313_hpc.pdf[/url])
I like those terms.
-
Has anyone been able to find the license terms for AS? I was going to ask in the session, but then I got booted.
Took some digging on the site, here they are: [url]http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Terms_en_US-20150313_hpc.pdf[/url] ([url]http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Terms_en_US-20150313_hpc.pdf[/url])
I like those terms.
Agreed. Very plainly written - meaning it is (for the most part) easy to know what you can and can't do. It could use an editor to clean it up (for example "These Terms does not effectuate any sale of the work.")
Here is the general terms of use agreement (that points to various "Additional Terms" documents, including the above):
https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html (https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html)
There is a section in the additional terms, 3.3, about social media use and it describes works being designated as "Social Media Enabled" with copyright information being visibly embedded in the work.
I looked at some images on Adobe Stock but couldn't see anything marked as Social Media Enabled. Does anyone know any more about this? It's nice to see someone trying to tackle the issue of using stock images on social media without effectively giving them away as a result.
They have a FAQ (https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/faq.html) which includes the following response to a question about whether Adobe Stock is available to CC for enterprise customers (http://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/business/enterprise.html): "Adobe Stock is not currently available for Creative Cloud for enterprise customers."
Wouldn't that be potentially the most interesting market for stock photos? Where the most volume is? In answer to the question about video, the FAQ notes that they hope to add it soon, but there's no "stay tuned" note for this. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'd think this was an area they'd want to address pronto.
-
My images—uploaded to FT on Tuesday, approved yesterday—are now on Adobe Stock. Very impressive.
They're gonna get a whole lot more from me. :D
-
"I can only hope the stock sites relearn the lesson that the relationships are what make the stock business work, not just the management school calculations of squeezing the most money out of the middle-man business position."
Great Post Stan!!!!!!!
-
Interesting article from Reuters:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html)
-
My images—uploaded to FT on Tuesday, approved yesterday—are now on Adobe Stock. Very impressive.
They're gonna get a whole lot more from me. :D
Congrats, Martha. The FT techs are in the process of getting mine back online without me having to re-upload, which would take days. I'm really, really hoping Adobe stock is a good thing for everyone, not just Adobe.
-
Interesting article from Reuters:
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html[/url])
Yep, Getty unsettled, Shutterstock lowers prices, and Adobe takes a big share of the market. Wouldn't be so bad if subs royalties weren't way lower than even SS or if their pricing for on demand images wasn't also much lower. When they take market share and SS lowers prices (bigstock royalties coming too?) to match or beat Adobe how will overall income be affected?
-
My images—uploaded to FT on Tuesday, approved yesterday—are now on Adobe Stock. Very impressive.
They're gonna get a whole lot more from me. :D
Congrats, Martha. The FT techs are in the process of getting mine back online without me having to re-upload, which would take days. I'm really, really hoping Adobe stock is a good thing for everyone, not just Adobe.
Money smells nice, doesn't it?
-
I think Shutterstock has to react carefully. Lowering prices without raising royalties would result in a huge backlash from contributors. They don't want to erode their library growth by encouraging people to upload more to FT for higher royalties. (And we're already frustrated with the inspection process.)
But I do think customers are more likely to switch to FT from struggling Getty/iStock. And with their low royalties and their current sale lowering those royalties even more, iS also faces losing even more ground when it comes to the size of their library.
-
Interesting article from Reuters:
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html[/url])
Yep, Getty unsettled, Shutterstock lowers prices, and Adobe takes a big share of the market. Wouldn't be so bad if subs royalties weren't way lower than even SS or if their pricing for on demand images wasn't also much lower. When they take market share and SS lowers prices (bigstock royalties coming too?) to match or beat Adobe how will overall income be affected?
I don't think the analyst or the article author understand the image market.
Time is money when it comes to delivering creatives.
Shutterstock bought Webdamn (digital asset management software) last year to make it easier for large enterprises to manage, integrate and buy their content.
If Adobe does a good job of making content faster to download, integrate and deliver the end creative product it will be a big win for them as far as content providers are concerned.
-
Interesting article from Reuters:
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html[/url])
Yep, Getty unsettled, Shutterstock lowers prices, and Adobe takes a big share of the market. Wouldn't be so bad if subs royalties weren't way lower than even SS or if their pricing for on demand images wasn't also much lower. When they take market share and SS lowers prices (bigstock royalties coming too?) to match or beat Adobe how will overall income be affected?
I think this move by Adobe is one of the most brilliant moves I have seen in any business. Outstanding. However once this agency gets some traction of which I believe it will, you can kiss the future of supplying stock photos anywhere goodbye. This offering I feel is a complete game changer for the whole industry and is establishing the new valuation of the future of stock photos direct to the desktops of designers.
It only makes sense neither SS or Getty were available to comment. Getty has now been sideswiped twice, the first time by SS and now Adobe. SS has been sideswiped for the first time as they know this will cut into their business big time, and my bet says they did not see this one coming.
-
Interesting article from Reuters:
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html[/url])
Yep, Getty unsettled, Shutterstock lowers prices, and Adobe takes a big share of the market. Wouldn't be so bad if subs royalties weren't way lower than even SS or if their pricing for on demand images wasn't also much lower. When they take market share and SS lowers prices (bigstock royalties coming too?) to match or beat Adobe how will overall income be affected?
I think this move by Adobe is one of the most brilliant moves I have seen in any business. Outstanding. However once this agency gets some traction of which I believe it will, you can kiss the future of supplying stock photos anywhere goodbye. This offering I feel is a complete game changer for the whole industry and is establishing the new valuation of the future of stock photos direct to the desktops of designers.
It only makes sense neither SS or Getty were available to comment. Getty has now been sideswiped twice, the first time by SS and now Adobe. SS has been sideswiped for the first time as they know this will cut into their business big time, and my bet says they did not see this one coming.
Everyone saw this coming, I think most people thought it would be even worse for contributors than this deal is which might explain why people are so excited even though they are going to lose money in the long run (or maybe very quickly depending how fast Adobe can convert subscribers). My guess is you'll see something from SS within 2 months, before the busy season when a lot of renewals are up.
-
With over 20,000 results for a simple two word search phrase, at least one of the photos that I uploaded yesterday is on page one of Adobe Stock and another on page 2. My work was reviewed quickly and Matt responded to my in site email question right away. So far the new fotolia/adobe looks promising. A 100% acceptance rate - albeit for about 15 files indexed so far, is nice too. 8)
SS is back to normal this month but only time will tell how things will go. So far, the moves at F/A are positive and this is microstock after all so we can't really expect them to go with mid stock pricing for the same files that are on micros elsewhere.
It would be great if F/A ends up adding a mid or upper level priced option going forward. On balance, though, IMHO the news is positive.
-
With over 20,000 results for a simple two word search phrase, at least one of the photos that I uploaded yesterday is on page one of Adobe Stock and another on page 2. My work was reviewed quickly and Matt responded to my in site email question right away. So far the new fotolia/adobe looks promising. A 100% acceptance rate - albeit for about 15 files indexed so far, is nice too. 8)
Maybe they are trying to catch up to SS as quickly as possible now, another selling point taken away from the higher paying SS.
-
With over 20,000 results for a simple two word search phrase, at least one of the photos that I uploaded yesterday is on page one of Adobe Stock and another on page 2. My work was reviewed quickly and Matt responded to my in site email question right away. So far the new fotolia/adobe looks promising. A 100% acceptance rate - albeit for about 15 files indexed so far, is nice too. 8)
Maybe they are trying to catch up to SS as quickly as possible now, another selling point taken away from the higher paying SS.
People are creatures of habit. I'm guessing many will just stay with SS or iS or whoever they buy their microstock photos from. Large bureaucracies especially change slowly, which means companies are not likely to switch - at least not right away - so I really don't think that this is the threat to SS that some people fear. But then, no one has a crystal ball so we'll just have to wait and see. I figure that uploading to fotolia and SS at this point just makes the most sense.
-
Interesting article from Reuters:
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html[/url])
Yep, Getty unsettled, Shutterstock lowers prices, and Adobe takes a big share of the market. Wouldn't be so bad if subs royalties weren't way lower than even SS or if their pricing for on demand images wasn't also much lower. When they take market share and SS lowers prices (bigstock royalties coming too?) to match or beat Adobe how will overall income be affected?
I think this move by Adobe is one of the most brilliant moves I have seen in any business. Outstanding. However once this agency gets some traction of which I believe it will, you can kiss the future of supplying stock photos anywhere goodbye. This offering I feel is a complete game changer for the whole industry and is establishing the new valuation of the future of stock photos direct to the desktops of designers.
It only makes sense neither SS or Getty were available to comment. Getty has now been sideswiped twice, the first time by SS and now Adobe. SS has been sideswiped for the first time as they know this will cut into their business big time, and my bet says they did not see this one coming.
Everyone saw this coming, I think most people thought it would be even worse for contributors than this deal is which might explain why people are so excited even though they are going to lose money in the long run (or maybe very quickly depending how fast Adobe can convert subscribers). My guess is you'll see something from SS within 2 months, before the busy season when a lot of renewals are up.
So you saw Adobe Stock coming? I don't think so. The key point here is that contributors across the board will lose money once this gains some traction and I do believe it will, and with such low pricing and serving up the ease of purchase, the only way other agencies can even hope to compete is to sweeten the pot by lowering prices. Adobe has the edge in the sense most of the world's designers/creatives use one Adobe product or the other, and now they are totally Creative Cloud, they already have a captive audience with their multiple offerings and they have Fotolia to get them instantly into the game of stock photography. If you think about it, Adobe Stock offers pretty much everything and anything any competing agency does with the added conveniences of SS pricing and the ability to incorporate into a product most people already use. I personally don't see how any agency can compete with that. I think it's only a matter of time before Adobe Stock is the industry leader, and in the process it sets a relatively new benchmark on what the value of photos will be and also the royalty rates. They win, we lose.
-
Interesting article from Reuters:
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html[/url])
Yep, Getty unsettled, Shutterstock lowers prices, and Adobe takes a big share of the market. Wouldn't be so bad if subs royalties weren't way lower than even SS or if their pricing for on demand images wasn't also much lower. When they take market share and SS lowers prices (bigstock royalties coming too?) to match or beat Adobe how will overall income be affected?
I think this move by Adobe is one of the most brilliant moves I have seen in any business. Outstanding. However once this agency gets some traction of which I believe it will, you can kiss the future of supplying stock photos anywhere goodbye. This offering I feel is a complete game changer for the whole industry and is establishing the new valuation of the future of stock photos direct to the desktops of designers.
It only makes sense neither SS or Getty were available to comment. Getty has now been sideswiped twice, the first time by SS and now Adobe. SS has been sideswiped for the first time as they know this will cut into their business big time, and my bet says they did not see this one coming.
Everyone saw this coming, I think most people thought it would be even worse for contributors than this deal is which might explain why people are so excited even though they are going to lose money in the long run (or maybe very quickly depending how fast Adobe can convert subscribers). My guess is you'll see something from SS within 2 months, before the busy season when a lot of renewals are up.
I actually agree with most of this. Except that I don't see most contributors losing money from other sites overall. I think Adobe will have a whole bunch of "new" buyers as opposed to converting from other sites. I know you disagree and think it's a bad thing for SS contribs specifically (and no need to point out royalty structures for the umpteenth time), but I don't. In some cases yes, in some cases no. I think the majority will see no change in existing sites like SS. Istock yes, they simply have done too much damage to themselves not to feel the heat from this. I think we'll see FT move past them in the side poll in a few months.
-
I believe the whole idea that the market is a fixed size is incorrect. Like when micro started, a whole new market was developed. I think this will (partially) be the case here.
I also sincerely hope that with this incorporation to CC, Adobe brings some education for designers and other users about things like copyright and licensing. I think that could be the net big bonus for contributors out of all of this.
-
Everybody is saying as if only designers buy stock photos. What about other user? Magazines, newspapers, blogs, websites. They don't need Adobe, do they? And if the pricing on SS is similar to Fotolia, why would they change agency, if they don't use and need Adobe's products.
-
Everybody is saying as if only designers buy stock photos. What about other user? Magazines, newspapers, blogs, websites. They don't need Adobe, do they? And if the pricing on SS is similar to Fotolia, why would they change agency, if they don't use and need Adobe's products.
Which software do you suppose they use to deliver magazine, blog and website content?
I just checked InDesign which I used when I worked for a large Co with 50,000 employees. Content providers in the promotional design department downloaded small version of the images we needed to deliver the final product and then higher dpi lg versions when departments signed off on the final product.
Adobe removes some of the headaches of digital asset management as well as the cost of content that never makes into the final product.
https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/how-to/creative-cloud-libraries-stock-linked-assets.html
Libraries has been updated with all-new features for 2015.
Browse Adobe Stock for stock images and automatically add them to your libraries.
Step 1 of 3
Add Adobe Stock assets to Libraries
Use Adobe Stock to browse and license stock images for your creative projects. Open the Libraries panel in Photoshop (shown here), Illustrator, InDesign, After Effects, or Premiere Pro, and click the Adobe Stock icon to launch the Adobe Stock website in a separate browser.
Use the Adobe Stock website to browse for compelling images to use in your work. When you've found the right image, you can download a watermarked version or buy a licensed, non-watermarked version.
Save a watermarked version by clicking Save Preview to [Library Name]. You can license the image later directly from the Libraries panel.
Note: Use the drop down menu to save to multiple libraries if necessary.
Re multiple libraries these could be based on client, department, etc.
-
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 (http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/157453/shutterstock-tumbles-as-competitor-inks-deal-with-adobe)
-
Everybody is saying as if only designers buy stock photos. What about other user? Magazines, newspapers, blogs, websites. They don't need Adobe, do they? And if the pricing on SS is similar to Fotolia, why would they change agency, if they don't use and need Adobe's products.
Which software do you suppose they use to deliver magazine, blog and website content?
http://mac.appstorm.net/roundups/web-dev/the-best-alternative-apps-to-everything-in-adobe-creative-cloud/ (http://mac.appstorm.net/roundups/web-dev/the-best-alternative-apps-to-everything-in-adobe-creative-cloud/)
-
So you saw Adobe Stock coming? I don't think so.
or this one:
http://www.responsivebc.com/responsive-bc-blog/adobe-buys-fotolio (http://www.responsivebc.com/responsive-bc-blog/adobe-buys-fotolio)
They seem to imply that Adobe will leave istock in the dust. Its been talked about here for months.
-
So you saw Adobe Stock coming? I don't think so.
or this one:
[url]http://www.responsivebc.com/responsive-bc-blog/adobe-buys-fotolio[/url] ([url]http://www.responsivebc.com/responsive-bc-blog/adobe-buys-fotolio[/url])
They seem to imply that Adobe will leave istock in the dust. Its been talked about here for months.
They don't actually say that at all, which line are you reading? "Fotolia falls in the same category as competing stock photo websites like iStockPhoto and Getty Images, both of which sell licenses of photos and artwork for businesses and entrepreneurs to use as they see fit." They could have said like Shutterstock or like Envato but I think they chose Getty because it's a more well known company.
-
...
or this one:
[url]http://www.responsivebc.com/responsive-bc-blog/adobe-buys-fotolio[/url] ([url]http://www.responsivebc.com/responsive-bc-blog/adobe-buys-fotolio[/url])
"While we still don't know exactly how Adobe plans to use Fotolia, we do know that it won't be a free tool added to its Creative Cloud subscription (unfortunately). "
If they tried that, I'd be wanting a discount for not using it.
I hate it when companies keep adding stuff you don't need. My ISP is always doing it :(
One feature is very attractive for many buyers compared to iS. On the Adobe T&C, all members of a company can use an image for the one low price. On iS, buyers are supposed to pay for a multi-seat EL or buy extra licences for more than one user, but that's pretty much unpoliceable.
-
So you saw Adobe Stock coming? I don't think so.
or this one:
[url]http://www.responsivebc.com/responsive-bc-blog/adobe-buys-fotolio[/url] ([url]http://www.responsivebc.com/responsive-bc-blog/adobe-buys-fotolio[/url])
They seem to imply that Adobe will leave istock in the dust. Its been talked about here for months.
They don't actually say that at all, which line are you reading? "Fotolia falls in the same category as competing stock photo websites like iStockPhoto and Getty Images, both of which sell licenses of photos and artwork for businesses and entrepreneurs to use as they see fit."
Yes, they were already on equal footing and are advancing past istock/getty with their new offering. The assumption would be that istock will be left behind even further.
Although in recent days istock isn't even mentioned as a competitor, so its a moot point.
edit:
(obviously, I don't care for istock. In case that wasn't clear)
-
Seems that everyone is up in arms all of the sudden (typical MSG) I for one think it's an amazing idea, and using a preview of an image during the process of projects is going to save a lot of people headache, tears and wages (clients sometimes are a bit ignorant as far as design goes).
Seems that my images are already integrated to Adobe Stock, and if it starts bringing in anything I might start uploading again.
-
Seems that everyone is up in arms all of the sudden (typical MSG) I for one think it's an amazing idea, and using a preview of an image during the process of projects is going to save a lot of people headache, tears and wages (clients sometimes are a bit ignorant as far as design goes).
Seems that my images are already integrated to Adobe Stock, and if it starts bringing in anything I might start uploading again.
I am hopeful its a good thing. So far so good!
-
(obviously, I don't care for istock. In case that wasn't clear)
Obviously, but you shouldn't let that cloud your thinking.
-
Seems that everyone is up in arms all of the sudden (typical MSG) I for one think it's an amazing idea, and using a preview of an image during the process of projects is going to save a lot of people headache, tears and wages (clients sometimes are a bit ignorant as far as design goes).
Seems that my images are already integrated to Adobe Stock, and if it starts bringing in anything I might start uploading again.
I am hopeful its a good thing. So far so good!
I also hope it's a good thing for you folks, too. My frustration all along is what I consider retaliatory management. Just because we voice real concerns and, in my case, frustration, some of us get our accounts closed. I blame Chad for that, a management role who is playing a bad game with suppliers, an inappropriate game, one who is unwilling to participate here and interact with us to resolve complaints. Mat, on the other hand, is probably a real good dude caught up in having to deal with people like me. I am sure he is a stand up guy and would be willing to iron out differences between contributors and management. 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).
But this isn't about me. This is about the industry. None of us knows the repercussions yet and that will simply take time. I wish everyone who has stuck it out with FT success in the Adobe Stock adventure.
-
(obviously, I don't care for istock. In case that wasn't clear)
Obviously, but you shouldn't let that cloud your thinking.
I am as unclouded in my opinions as you are in yours. :)
-
Seems that everyone is up in arms all of the sudden (typical MSG) I for one think it's an amazing idea, and using a preview of an image during the process of projects is going to save a lot of people headache, tears and wages (clients sometimes are a bit ignorant as far as design goes).
Seems that my images are already integrated to Adobe Stock, and if it starts bringing in anything I might start uploading again.
I am hopeful its a good thing. So far so good!
I also hope it's a good thing for you folks, too. My frustration all along is what I consider retaliatory management. Just because we voice real concerns and, in my case, frustration, some of us get our accounts closed. I blame Chad for that, a management role who is playing a bad game with suppliers, an inappropriate game, one who is unwilling to participate here and interact with us to resolve complaints. Mat, on the other hand, is probably a real good dude caught up in having to deal with people like me. I am sure he is a stand up guy and would be willing to iron out differences between contributors and management. 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).
But this isn't about me. This is about the industry. None of us knows the repercussions yet and that will simply take time. I wish everyone who has stuck it out with FT success in the Adobe Stock adventure.
I also commend Mat for coming in here to help smooth relations, after all the D-day drama and everything else, I doubt that I'd want to talk to us.
-
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
-
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
No, you're right. I was referring to general comments about it "seeming more fair" but I should have dug deeper. Stand by what I said about Mat but, in your example, you are most correct regarding subs.
-
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 ... ?
-
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
Commission for sub sales are not only .25 or .27 or.... They range from .25 to 3€. For example, I had today and yesterday sub sales:0.90$, 1.50$, 0.99$, 0.33$, 0.57$, 0.80$. And your constant comparison with SS is starting to get really annoying.
I sell less files on FT than SS, but I earn more money.
-
My images—uploaded to FT on Tuesday, approved yesterday—are now on Adobe Stock. Very impressive.
They're gonna get a whole lot more from me. :D
Congrats, Martha. The FT techs are in the process of getting mine back online without me having to re-upload, which would take days. I'm really, really hoping Adobe stock is a good thing for everyone, not just Adobe.
Money smells nice, doesn't it?
It certainly never hurts!
However, my images are only just showing up right now. Time will tell if the money follows.
PS: Thanks, Gel-O!
-
Mat comes in here and remains calm, speaks factually as possible and is probably the voice in the new Adobe structure that seems favorable for contributors (for now anyway).
Is this favorable to contributors in your opinion? Even after 200,000 sales you'll get 10% less than SS at around 10-15,000 sales.
Sales Royalty Rate
0-99 .25
100-999 .27
1,000-9,999 .29
10,000-24,999 .31
25,000-99,999 .33
100,000-249,999 .35
Commission for sub sales are not only .25 or .27 or.... They range from .25 to 3€. For example, I had today and yesterday sub sales:0.90$, 1.50$, 0.99$, 0.33$, 0.57$, 0.80$. And your constant comparison with SS is starting to get really annoying.
I sell less files on FT than SS, but I earn more money.
I'm talking about Adobe Stock, not Fotolia here. The growth is going to come from Adobe not Fotolia. You will not get 3 euro subs from Adobe Stock, look at the earnings schedule https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
The highest priced "subs" if you want to call 10 dls per month a subs plan will earn you .99.
-
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.
-
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 don´t 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.
-
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 don´t 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 $29 so they pay more than I had stated earlier.
-
Mat comes in here and remains calm, speaks factually as possible and is probably the voice in the new Adobe structure that seems favorable for contributors (for now anyway).
Is this favorable to contributors in your opinion? Even after 200,000 sales you'll get 10% less than SS at around 10-15,000 sales.
Sales Royalty Rate
0-99 .25
100-999 .27
1,000-9,999 .29
10,000-24,999 .31
25,000-99,999 .33
100,000-249,999 .35
You keep focusing on only one aspect of that recent change - which is the theoretical loss of buyer conversion from Shutterstock to Fotolia.
While you are right about the subscription plans (US$ 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.
-
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 don´t 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 $29 so they pay more than I had stated earlier.
How did this change?
Well, it is certainly higher than istock and their measly 15%... says 15% in one post, 18% in another?
I checked and istock pays non-exclusives 15% as default, which is as low as it gets.
-
Mat comes in here and remains calm, speaks factually as possible and is probably the voice in the new Adobe structure that seems favorable for contributors (for now anyway).
Is this favorable to contributors in your opinion? Even after 200,000 sales you'll get 10% less than SS at around 10-15,000 sales.
Sales Royalty Rate
0-99 .25
100-999 .27
1,000-9,999 .29
10,000-24,999 .31
25,000-99,999 .33
100,000-249,999 .35
You keep focusing on only one aspect of that recent change - which is the theoretical loss of buyer conversion from Shutterstock to Fotolia.
While you are right about the subscription plans (US$ 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.
-
So you saw Adobe Stock coming? I don't think so.
You should have seen it too. [url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/157453/shutterstock-tumbles-as-competitor-inks-deal-with-adobe[/url] ([url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/157453/shutterstock-tumbles-as-competitor-inks-deal-with-adobe[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/us-adobe-systems-competition-idUSKBN0OZ1VC20150619)
-
So you saw Adobe Stock coming? I don't think so.
You should have seen it too. [url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/157453/shutterstock-tumbles-as-competitor-inks-deal-with-adobe[/url] ([url]http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/157453/shutterstock-tumbles-as-competitor-inks-deal-with-adobe[/url])
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.
-
the biggest importance is the mix in subs versus higher downloads. That is why I really need to see how this plays out.
-
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.
-
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/ (http://www.diyphotography.net/adobe-slaps-creative-professionals-face-launches-re-branded-microstock-content-leach/)
-
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. [url]http://www.diyphotography.net/adobe-slaps-creative-professionals-face-launches-re-branded-microstock-content-leach/[/url] ([url]http://www.diyphotography.net/adobe-slaps-creative-professionals-face-launches-re-branded-microstock-content-leach/[/url])
He speaks the truth. It's a bad deal for everyone who creates stock photography.
-
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. [url]http://www.diyphotography.net/adobe-slaps-creative-professionals-face-launches-re-branded-microstock-content-leach/[/url] ([url]http://www.diyphotography.net/adobe-slaps-creative-professionals-face-launches-re-branded-microstock-content-leach/[/url])
to each his own. I don´t 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 people´s power point presentations?
microstock isn´t 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 shouldn´t be placed with microstock in the first place.
and i see no risk for stocksy, because they are not competing with the micros anyway.
-
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. [url]http://www.diyphotography.net/adobe-slaps-creative-professionals-face-launches-re-branded-microstock-content-leach/[/url] ([url]http://www.diyphotography.net/adobe-slaps-creative-professionals-face-launches-re-branded-microstock-content-leach/[/url])
to each his own. I don´t 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 people´s power point presentations?
microstock isn´t 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 shouldn´t 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?
-
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.
-
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, you´ll just have a huge port of dead macro files.
But then I am not a hipster, maybe that is the trick :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Great news! I look forward to seeing a rise in sales on FT (thanks to AS).
I totally agree though with what alot of you have been saying regarding the fact that FT need to consider accepting Editorial images. Editorial images are a big big seller for me through SS and FT really do need to consider 'tapping' into this.
-
Haven't had a single sale to tip me over to silver in 9 days! Unusual.
-
Wonder what the hangup on editorial Is?...mat?
-
Wonder what the hangup on editorial Is?...mat?
a legal wasp nest they don't want to get in to. Too much cost involved to train reviewers and review editorial images. Same goes for CanStockPhoto
-
Could be it. Thanks.
-
Editorial on fotolia will be a good step.
As of now, is fotolia Adobe stock? Or will they partner with other players as well
-
Matt, found on other forums that Adobe does massive give away of imagery to attract new clients. Here msg members can comment on this, because i am not a new user. For all of us it will be interesting to know that Fotolia and Adobe will keep guarantees of user setting, for example: no free, no exclusive. You answered that you forwarded this to the team, but now this question about give away arrives regarding Adobe itself. Any progress on this? Please comment.
-
Matt, one more question, i live in Lima, Peru, from here i can´t see adobe stock website, why i not avaible in my country? in which countrys is avaible? and when i can see adobe stock website? :-\
-
Wonder what the hangup on editorial Is?...mat?
a legal wasp nest they don't want to get in to. Too much cost involved to train reviewers and review editorial images. Same goes for CanStockPhoto
Maybe. But smaller sites like 123RF, DepositPhotos and Dreams time seem to manage it. It would seem to me that if Fotolia is serious about taking on Shutterstock and Getty, then they need to step it up and get into editorial.
-
Wonder what the hangup on editorial Is?...mat?
a legal wasp nest they don't want to get in to. Too much cost involved to train reviewers and review editorial images. Same goes for CanStockPhoto
Maybe. But smaller sites like 123RF, DepositPhotos and Dreams time seem to manage it. It would seem to me that if Fotolia is serious about taking on Shutterstock and Getty, then they need to step it up and get into editorial.
From the outside, the FT and AS "Dream Team" looks a whole lot more competitive and this will worry SS - adding editorial images to their repetoire will surely have SS quaking in their boots.
-
Matt, one more question, i live in Lima, Peru, from here i can´t see adobe stock website, why i not avaible in my country? in which countrys is avaible? and when i can see adobe stock website? :-\
https://stock.adobe.com/ doesn't work?
Does clicking the stock tab on your creative cloud app pull up the search and such?
-
Matt, one more question, i live in Lima, Peru, from here i can´t see adobe stock website, why i not avaible in my country? in which countrys is avaible? and when i can see adobe stock website? :-\
https://stock.adobe.com/ doesn't work?
Does clicking the stock tab on your creative cloud app pull up the search and such?
In my country doesn´t work :-[ i wonder, how many countries have the same resault?
-
Matt, one more question, i live in Lima, Peru, from here i can´t see adobe stock website, why i not avaible in my country? in which countrys is avaible? and when i can see adobe stock website? :-\
https://stock.adobe.com/ doesn't work?
Does clicking the stock tab on your creative cloud app pull up the search and such?
In my country doesn´t work :-[ i wonder, how many countries have the same resault?
wull darn.
Guess moving is your only option. lol
-
Matt, one more question, i live in Lima, Peru, from here i can´t see adobe stock website, why i not avaible in my country? in which countrys is avaible? and when i can see adobe stock website? :-\
https://stock.adobe.com/ doesn't work?
Does clicking the stock tab on your creative cloud app pull up the search and such?
In my country doesn´t work :-[ i wonder, how many countries have the same resault?
wull darn.
Guess moving is your only option. lol
mmmmm you make me smile, but, i´m don´t kidding!
how many countries can´t buy from adobe stock right now? think about it! adobe make this big release but don´t work for everybody! ok in US work but what happend with all adobe users around the world?
-
they will continue to roll it out in other markets, just give it time
they had to do the bigger markets rollouts first - the rest will follow
-
Shurely shome mishtake:
I went to update my Adobe apps and got a message that I'd save 40% by purchasing stock via Adobe Stock.
(http://www.lizworld.com/40.jpg)
Then when I clicked on Add Adobe Stock, suddenly the offer changed to a reduction of 33%:
(http://www.lizworld.com/33.jpg)
Classic bait-and-switch.
I decided to compare with what the Fotolia prices are. It seems I'm entitled to a 20% discount at Ft, but the original prics are there too, scored out:
(http://www.lizworld.com/Fot.jpg)
Can someone please explain to me how the Adobe price is 40%, or even 33%, off the Fotolia price?
-
The annual plan is 33% off the monthly plan. The monthly plan can't seriously be called a subscription but they do.
-
The annual plan is 33% off the monthly plan. The monthly plan can't seriously be called a subscription but they do.
Can't you get an annual plan directly from Ft? I couldn't find it.
And what's the 40%, which wasn't qualified in any way on the first screenshot?
-
Fotolia has a very complex system for pricing with what seems like hundreds of options, I think they'll simplify it and then slowly phase Fotolia out.
-
And what's the 40%, which wasn't qualified in any way on the first screenshot?
40% is 33% rounded up. ;D
-
So, customers get a big discount when buying images if they pay a monthly fee to Adobe C.C. ... but photographer's don't get nothing of this monthly fee.
-
Matt, we need you comments, please.
-
So, customers get a big discount when buying images if they pay a monthly fee to Adobe C.C. ... but photographer's don't get nothing of this monthly fee.
That's not so weird. We aren't selling Adobe CC, we're selling images. And we're guaranteed a price floor.
-
Maybe I need to hold off for a minute before I go down on my knees to ask for my return to FT ;)
-
So, customers get a big discount when buying images if they pay a monthly fee to Adobe C.C. ... but photographer's don't get nothing of this monthly fee.
As I understand it we (contributors) get nothing of that discount (in terms of reduced royalty rates).
Which is fine.
I never expected to get a share of Adobe's monthly fee for their software.
If they promote their new stock offering by reducing fees for existing CC subscribers (without making us pay for their marketing efforts like most of the other micros do - when e.g. IS give customers rebates contributors received reduced royalties) I don't see anything negative about that.
-
That sounds good. I will say I hope pricing and royalties become more simplified, PLEASE 😊
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So, customers get a big discount when buying images if they pay a monthly fee to Adobe C.C. ... but photographer's don't get nothing of this monthly fee.
As I understand it we (contributors) get nothing of that discount (in terms of reduced royalty rates).
Which is fine.
I never expected to get a share of Adobe's monthly fee for their software.
If they promote their new stock offering by reducing fees for existing CC subscribers (without making us pay for their marketing efforts like most of the other micros do - when e.g. IS give customers rebates contributors received reduced royalties) I don't see anything negative about that.
^^ +1
They seem to be doing everything right from a contributers POV
-
Isn't it deceitful when they say on the first page you'll get a 40% discount but on the next page it's already down to 33%? And the 33% turns out to be a normal discount everyone gets?
If they are dishonest to potential buyers (I'm not a stock buyer, but if I were looking to buy anything online and that sort of scam happened, I'd be out of that site and never go back), there's a good chance they'll be duplicitous towards suppliers too.
-
Maybe I need to hold off for a minute before I go down on my knees to ask for my return to FT ;)
I think you can hold off on that for a while - so far I haven't seen any uptick in sales. What about everyone else? Have sales increased significantly since this change?
-
I had higher number of sales this week then the previous two weeks before the Adobe stock announcment, also had one EL sale today. But I can't tell if it's just a good week or it's Adobe thing.
Also have one question: Does everybody raise their EL price to the maximum? I have a possiblitiy now to raise price of all photos to 100 credits. For some of the photos I did that (luckily also for the one I sold EL today), but most are still set to 30 credits.
-
Also have one question: Does everybody raise their EL price to the maximum? I have a possiblitiy now to raise price of all photos to 100 credits. For some of the photos I did that (luckily also for the one I sold EL today), but most are still set to 30 credits.
I always set EL prices to the maximum possible. They are quite rare at FT anyways, so at least you'll get something when you sell one. I experimented with lower prices a while ago, made no difference in EL sale numbers.
-
Maybe I need to hold off for a minute before I go down on my knees to ask for my return to FT ;)
I think you can hold off on that for a while - so far I haven't seen any uptick in sales. What about everyone else? Have sales increased significantly since this change?
I don't think there will be much of an uptick until the real buyers' subscriptions end elsewhere. But, when is that - month end? Year end?
-
Maybe I need to hold off for a minute before I go down on my knees to ask for my return to FT ;)
I think you can hold off on that for a while - so far I haven't seen any uptick in sales. What about everyone else? Have sales increased significantly since this change?
Not yet. Bit of a decline. But I'm not discouraged. Maybe it will take some time to change buyers habits.
-
And time for CC users to merge it into their existing workflow.
-
Maybe I need to hold off for a minute before I go down on my knees to ask for my return to FT ;)
I think you can hold off on that for a while - so far I haven't seen any uptick in sales. What about everyone else? Have sales increased significantly since this change?
I don't think there will be much of an uptick until the real buyers' subscriptions end elsewhere. But, when is that - month end? Year end?
Probably around September.
-
Maybe I need to hold off for a minute before I go down on my knees to ask for my return to FT ;)
I think you can hold off on that for a while - so far I haven't seen any uptick in sales. What about everyone else? Have sales increased significantly since this change?
No increase here. Still the same pitiful amount of sales!
-
Hi All,
I'm sorry for the delayed response. The weekend was pretty busy for me in my personal life. On that note, Happy belated Father's Day to all you Dads out there!
Here are the questions I believe were unanswered. Let me know if I missed anything and as always feel free to email me directly if you would like: [email protected]
Wonder what the hangup on editorial Is?...mat?
@Rinderart we are constantly considering the best ways to improve the product based on client and contributors feedback and needs.
Matt, found on other forums that Adobe does massive give away of imagery to attract new clients. Here msg members can comment on this, because i am not a new user. For all of us it will be interesting to know that Fotolia and Adobe will keep guarantees of user setting, for example: no free, no exclusive. You answered that you forwarded this to the team, but now this question about give away arrives regarding Adobe itself. Any progress on this? Please comment.
@Skyfish if a license is issued on your image, you will be paid a commission. That commission will never be less than the minimum guarantee.
Matt, one more question, i live in Lima, Peru, from here i can´t see adobe stock website, why i not avaible in my country? in which countrys is avaible? and when i can see adobe stock website?
@Ana currently Adobe Stock is available in 42 regions. The market will continue to expand. The list of countries can be seen at stock.adobe.com by clicking the “change region” link in the lower left corner of the screen.
Does clicking the stock tab on your creative cloud app pull up the search and such?
@DallasP a good source of information on how to use Adobe Stock from a customer’s perspective can be found here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/help/using-adobe-stock.html
So, customers get a big discount when buying images if they pay a monthly fee to Adobe C.C. ... but photographer's don't get nothing of this monthly fee.
@Loop contributors are paid 33% of the amount paid. This amount is never less than the minimum guarantee which is based on your rank.
Thank you for your questions, keep them coming if you have more!
-Mat Hayward
-
Thanks Matt, nice to hear from a rep.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
@Ana currently Adobe Stock is available in 42 regions. The market will continue to expand. The list of countries can be seen at stock.adobe.com by clicking the “change region” link in the lower left corner of the screen.
-Mat Hayward
Hi Matt, thankyou for your answer, i just try what you say, but nothing happend, change region to united states, and still see https://stock.adobe.com/comingsoon and if i change to another country like Mexico, this is the website i see https://stock.adobe.com/mx/comingsoon if i delete in the address the word comingsoon still have the same resaut!!! :-\
i´m a contributor, and want to see my portfolio but i can´t, i have a creative accound and if i want to buy something, can´t see adobe stock too.
My country is not in fotolia list but i can see the website!!! i dont know why !!!
please can you take a look!
-
@Ana currently Adobe Stock is available in 42 regions. The market will continue to expand. The list of countries can be seen at stock.adobe.com by clicking the “change region” link in the lower left corner of the screen.
-Mat Hayward
Hi Matt, thankyou for your answer, i just try what you say, but nothing happend, change region to united states, and still see https://stock.adobe.com/comingsoon and if i change to another country like Mexico, this is the website i see https://stock.adobe.com/mx/comingsoon if i delete in the address the word comingsoon still have the same resaut!!! :-\
i´m a contributor, and want to see my portfolio but i can´t, i have a creative accound and if i want to buy something, can´t see adobe stock too.
My country is not in fotolia list but i can see the website!!! i dont know why !!!
please can you take a look!
I don't think you will be able to see the site from Peru. Here is the list of countries currently supported by Adobe Stock according to the site:
Americas
Canada - English
Canada - Français
México
United States
Europe, Middle East, and Africa
Belgium - English
Belgique - Français
België - Nederlands
Česká republika
Cyprus - English
Danmark
Deutschland
Eesti
España
France
Greece - English
Ireland
Italia
Latvija
Lietuva
Luxembourg - Deutsch
Luxembourg - English
Luxembourg - Français
Magyarország
Malta - English
Nederland
Norge
Österreich
Polska
Portugal
România
Schweiz
Slovenija
Slovensko
Suisse
Suomi
Sverige
Svizzera
United Kingdom
България
Asia Pacific
Australia
日本
New Zealand
-
and this is because .... ?????
-
and this is because .... ?????
I feel kind of discrimination from adobestock.
I from Peru can buy adobe software but I can not see adobestock.com ¿? this makes no sense
-
Poor girl.
-
Poor girl.
Dumc, are you trying to be funny????
think how many sales you're losing because your portfolio is not enabled worldwide and only in some countries, believe it or not Peru and a lot of countries that aren´t in the list has a large market of designers who would be happy to buy images from your portfolio in adobe stock!!!! Here we all lose!!!
-
As Mat told you, the market will expand. So, just take a deep breath, sit down, relax and wait.
-
As Mat told you, the market will expand. So, just take a deep breath, sit down, relax and wait.
Dunc, what i read from Matt is: Sorry you are not in the list!!! this is why you don´t see adobestock
Matt i´m wrong??? my portfolio is in adobe stock, peruvian contributor portfolio are there? if is there, i will be able to see my portfolio in adobe stock?, cause i can´t see the website, and my portfolio too? in my fotolia portfolio i don´t know if sales come from adobestock... i dont like this situation at all!!!
Matt waiting your answer!!!!
-
As Mat told you, the market will expand. So, just take a deep breath, sit down, relax and wait.
Dunc, what i read from Matt is: Sorry you are not in the list!!! this is why you don´t see adobestock
Matt i´m wrong??? my portfolio is in adobe stock, peruvian contributor portfolio are there? if is there, i will be able to see my portfolio in adobe stock?, cause i can´t see the website, and my portfolio too? in my fotolia portfolio i don´t know if sales come from adobestock... i dont like this situation at all!!!
Matt waiting your answer!!!!
@Ana, I'm sorry that you are unhappy. As mentioned, we will be expanding the marketplace as quickly as we can. Your entire Fotolia portfolio is automatically added to Adobe Stock so you will still be receiving sales from the site. The sales are not differentiated in your Fotolia statistics for anyone at this time.
-Mat
-
As Mat told you, the market will expand. So, just take a deep breath, sit down, relax and wait.
Dunc, what i read from Matt is: Sorry you are not in the list!!! this is why you don´t see adobestock
Matt i´m wrong??? my portfolio is in adobe stock, peruvian contributor portfolio are there? if is there, i will be able to see my portfolio in adobe stock?, cause i can´t see the website, and my portfolio too? in my fotolia portfolio i don´t know if sales come from adobestock... i dont like this situation at all!!!
Matt waiting your answer!!!!
@Ana, I'm sorry that you are unhappy. As mentioned, we will be expanding the marketplace as quickly as we can. Your entire Fotolia portfolio is automatically added to Adobe Stock so you will still be receiving sales from the site. The sales are not differentiated in your Fotolia statistics for anyone at this time.
-Mat
Yes Matt, i´m not happy not just because don´t see my portfolio, remember i´m a contributor not a customer, all contributors lose a lot of sales from people how live in contries that aren´t in your list, i don´t understand why adebestock is not worldwide? like fotolia...
-
by the way, is very easy make me happy, Matt you know what you have to do ;)
make adobe stock worldwide!!! i know you can ;)
-
ana, they just opened this week...in 42 countries...have a little patience...:) they will certainly come to your country in time. adobe wants your customers money...
all kinds of online stores do a gradual roll out, amazon,ebay,itunes...they all launch online products gradually.
Thank you Mat, for being here. It is great to hear that adobe will always pay us at least a minimal commission when they give files to clients for free in test phases or promotions. I really appreciate that very much, I have had such bad experiences with "promotional uses" before at other places.
-
Here are the questions I believe were unanswered. Let me know if I missed anything and as always feel free to email me directly if you would like: [email protected]
SNIP
Thank you for your questions, keep them coming if you have more!
-Mat Hayward
Mat, maybe I missed it but I didn't see an answer to my question about when or if FT/AS will correct the disparity between sellers who are paid in euros and ones paid in dollars. This is unjustified.
-
Here are the questions I believe were unanswered. Let me know if I missed anything and as always feel free to email me directly if you would like: [email protected]
SNIP
Thank you for your questions, keep them coming if you have more!
-Mat Hayward
Mat, maybe I missed it but I didn't see an answer to my question about when or if FT/AS will correct the disparity between sellers who are paid in euros and ones paid in dollars. This is unjustified.
It is justified for FT.
FT is strong in Western Europe where it gets paid euros. Only 20% of my FT sales come from US. I can probably assume that this ratio is roughly the same for all of us.
At the same time, a huge majority of contributors from outside EU is being paid in US$.
So if 80% of the sales are made in euros and 80% (just a guess) of payments are made in US$, there is a nice $7.2 gain for every 100 credits sold by the "Bank of Fotolia" (assuming a real 1.12 euro/US$ exchange rate)
It can become an issue, if the euro falls below the US$ or if FT/AS gains a lot of market share in US flipping their EU/US sales around. The breakeven point is US/EU sales ratio = share of contributors paid in US$. Until then, FT/AS has no incentive to give-up their lucrative currency exchange business.
-
if the deal with greece fails and the euro falls, you might all be glad you get paid in dollars...the exchange rate is not fixed, right now it might be a benefit to get euros, but this could easily change.
i understand people want to always get the best rate, but how will an agency fix exchange rates forever? they can´t.
maybe they can give artists an offer between euros and dollars and yen, so then it will be their own choice, but once you make that decision, you will have to live with the results.
-
if the deal with greece fails and the euro falls, you might all be glad you get paid in dollars...the exchange rate is not fixed, right now it might be a benefit to get euros, but this could easily change.
i understand people want to always get the best rate, but how will an agency fix exchange rates forever? they can´t.
maybe they can give artists an offer between euros and dollars and yen, but once you make that decision, you will have to live with the results.
If the euro tumbles, don't be surprised if FT/AS will suddenly make a move, presented to us as "contributor friendly", by restructuring their credit system and starting to charge EU customers at the official euro/US$ exchange rate and paying everybody in US$ (eg. the way SS is doing it).
-
While being paid in Euros is an advantage, FT has already countered that effect.
By moving files from Euro contributors to the back of the search on the US site. This also explains the real low number of US sales for Euro contributors - your files will not be found on the US site.
@Mat: any plans to change that?
-
While being paid in Euros is an advantage, FT has already countered that effect.
By moving files from Euro contributors to the back of the search on the US site. This also explains the real low number of US sales for Euro contributors - your files will not be found on the US site.
@Mat: any plans to change that?
I'm an US contributor and, as said, I only have 20% of sales (or less) coming from US. What is your ratio?
-
While being paid in Euros is an advantage, FT has already countered that effect.
By moving files from Euro contributors to the back of the search on the US site. This also explains the real low number of US sales for Euro contributors - your files will not be found on the US site.
@Mat: any plans to change that?
I'm an US contributor and, as said, I only have 20% of sales coming from US. What is your ratio?
Just checked:
Lifetime (since 2007) roughly 2%.
This year below 1%.
-
I am not suggesting that people who get paid in Euros make less, just that when I make a sale in Euros, which is often cuz I have always sold well in Europe, that I get paid the correct % of the sale, and not less due to exchange rate. This is fair and it is a way that in the past FT took more than their promised % of the royalties from many contributors.
Adobe is trying to be more honest and fair to contributors and I celebrate them for that. Changing the underhand currency situation would be another way to improve relations with many contributors who been getting the short stick.
-
I earn around 50% of credits from US-based sales. :/
I'm from EU, but registered on the US site, so I get paid in $.
-
@PixelBytes Actually you are implicitly suggesting to pay less the euro-contributors for their sales made in US, in US$.
Anyway it is hard to imagine that The "Bank of Fotolia" will give away 7.9% or so coming from their artificial exchange rate (see above) even if it is fair for us.
Otherwise, I also praise their recent move and the improved communication coming from Mat.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
@PixelBytes Actually you are implicitly suggesting to pay less the euro-contributors for their sales made in US, in US$.
Anyway it is hard to imagine that The "Bank of Fotolia" will give away 7.9% or so coming from their artificial exchange rate (see above) even if it is fair for us.
Otherwise, I also praise their recent move and the improved communication coming from Mat.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Well, still no answer on my question from Mat.
I don't think it is a give away to pay the rightful percentage the contributor earns. Maybe FT didn't mind shafting contributors, but I thought that is not what Adobe is about. This is an area that still needs correcting.
-
Mat,
Please try to get an answer from support for this question:
How can I keyword my images that they will be accepted by FT and not changed to something else.
I already addressed this question, maybe not clearly enough or not polite enough to get an answer;
e.g. knuckle means a lot of things but together with pork, ham, smoked, I always get the same images on Google search. Why does FT change the keyword knuckle to long legs?
I would really like to do this thing right (keywording). I reduced the no. of keywords to the most relevant ones but if even those are changed than some images will only be found accidentally.
Please, do you have some advice on how to cope with this?
Thanks.
-
One more question,
could we somehow get a "link up" to fotolia infinite for exclusive files. At least the option to suggest it for macro editors so they can take a look at it?
You can couple that privilege to reaching gold or something or just give us a monthly budget (3 files a month, more if the files sell... etc...), but I think this would be really interesting for many people and give fotolia access to a lot of interesting material.
If the editors don´t like it, it just stays on as normal exclusive fotolia stock.
-
@PixelBytes I'm sorry I didn't answer this before. There are no changes to the currency and payment policy.
-
Mat,
Please try to get an answer from support for this question:
How can I keyword my images that they will be accepted by FT and not changed to something else.
I already addressed this question, maybe not clearly enough or not polite enough to get an answer;
e.g. knuckle means a lot of things but together with pork, ham, smoked, I always get the same images on Google search. Why does FT change the keyword knuckle to long legs?
I would really like to do this thing right (keywording). I reduced the no. of keywords to the most relevant ones but if even those are changed than some images will only be found accidentally.
Please, do you have some advice on how to cope with this?
Thanks.
@Dodie, I'm not sure I understand the issue. Can you provide me with the image number for the file that changed "knuckle" into "long legs." I have never heard of keywords being changed in the system other than translations. Please email me directly so we can dig into this: [email protected]
-Mat
-
@PixelBytes I'm sorry I didn't answer this before. There are no changes to the currency and payment policy.
Not the answer I was hoping for, but thank you for answering anyhow.
+1
-
@PixelBytes I'm sorry I didn't answer this before. There are no changes to the currency and payment policy.
Not the answer I was hoping for, but thank you for answering anyhow.
The reply shouts the company attitude, loud and clear.
Note: Mat isn't sorry for the unfair policy; just sorry for not answering earlier.
(Who would be a company mouthpiece?)
-
Unfair policy for whom? I'm getting pain in euros, but I'm from EU. But if I was getting paid in US dollars and then loosing money, when converting to €, would that be fair?
-
Fair means everybody gets the same % from what FT is charging the customers when selling our photos.
Right now, FT is paying you a fair % for what you sell in euros, but retains a higher % from my euro sales. This is what is not fair.
I expect a % from my euro sales, instead of a % from a bogus currency called FT credit.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
@Dodie, I'm not sure I understand the issue. Can you provide me with the image number for the file that changed "knuckle" into "long legs." I have never heard of keywords being changed in the system other than translations. Please email me directly so we can dig into this: [email protected]
-Mat
Thank you Mat. Email sent.
-
What is Adobe Stock in Europe pricing?
-
What is Adobe Stock in Europe pricing?
I posted UK prices above but not Eurozone prices. Obviously the Euro prices will be different, as will they be in the other non Eurozone European countries. There can't be one price.
-
What is Adobe Stock in Europe pricing?
I posted UK prices above but not Eurozone prices. Obviously the Euro prices will be different, as will they be in the other non Eurozone European countries. There can't be one price.
Right, but the royalty rate will fluctuate depending on the country you are in and where the sale happened. A $10 US sale results in 3.30 Euro or $3.70 USD for Europeans so Europeans get 37% on US sales and Americans (those on the dollar) get 33%. A 6.99 single sale in the UK gets a European contributor 34% and an American contributor 30%.
I think Euro pricing is 10 euros for single images, right? That would mean European contributors get 33% and contributors paid in dollars get 29% and if the exchange rate was the same as last year you would get 24%.
-
if the deal with greece fails and the euro falls, you might all be glad you get paid in dollars...the exchange rate is not fixed, right now it might be a benefit to get euros, but this could easily change.
As a European contributor, the falling Euro has its advantages. Due to the fact that dollar payments (from other agencies) have to be converted to Euros, we'll gain a little more because of the currency exchange rate.
Last year, European contributors received €75 for every $100 cashout, right now it's €87 for the same $100. Perhaps if the Euro falls, it might be €105 for every $100. (Although we'd be feeling the effects of a falling European economy then, so in the end it's looking very dire for Europe).
-
We get paid the minimum guarantee rate based on our ranking but have we been told what the minimum guarantee rate is?
https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
I've been doing some searching but don't see it listed anywhere. I thought it was on that page the other day but don't see it now.
Perhaps I'm just blind or am forgetting what we've been told many times already :-\
-
We get paid the minimum guarantee rate based on our ranking but have we been told what the minimum guarantee rate is?
https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
I've been doing some searching but don't see it listed anywhere. I thought it was on that page the other day but don't see it now.
Perhaps I'm just blind or am forgetting what we've been told many times already :-\
That's the subs rate per level.
In the text hover your mouse over the green words "Minimum guarantee", it'll show the rate table per level.
-
We get paid the minimum guarantee rate based on our ranking but have we been told what the minimum guarantee rate is?
https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
I've been doing some searching but don't see it listed anywhere. I thought it was on that page the other day but don't see it now.
Perhaps I'm just blind or am forgetting what we've been told many times already :-\
The minimum guarantee is for subs sales, .25-.40 fotolia dollars
-
We get paid the minimum guarantee rate based on our ranking but have we been told what the minimum guarantee rate is?
https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
I've been doing some searching but don't see it listed anywhere. I thought it was on that page the other day but don't see it now.
Perhaps I'm just blind or am forgetting what we've been told many times already :-\
That's the subs rate per level.
In the text hover your mouse over the green words "Minimum guarantee", it'll show the rate table per level.
Got it, thanks. it took me a few seconds to find even after you explained where it was. I kept looking for the mouse-over on the table to right right...
-
It seems strange to call it a minimum guarantee. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's not possible for sub sales to be higher than that is it?
-
It seems strange to call it a minimum guarantee. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's not possible for sub sales to be higher than that is it?
As Fotolia calls sale per monthly packs "subs" as well, yes, you do get sub sales with higher values (out of my last 10 subs at Fotolia 4 paid the regular rate - 0.29 credits for silver rank -, the rest paid more: 0,40 up to 1,89).
Obviously you can argue if these should be called subs at all, but that's what it is at FT currently.
When they introduced those they really paid subs rate (there was some anger about that also here in the forum).
With the big noise about DPC they changed that and decided to pay 20% / 25% (for DPC opted out / in).
Now with the Adobe deal they raised that to 33% (independent of DPC opt out).
Always keeping the minimum payout per sale at the regular subs rate.
-
It seems strange to call it a minimum guarantee. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's not possible for sub sales to be higher than that is it?
As Fotolia calls sale per monthly packs "subs" as well, yes, you do get sub sales with higher values (out of my last 10 subs at Fotolia 4 paid the regular rate - 0.29 credits for silver rank -, the rest paid more: 0,40 up to 1,89).
Obviously you can argue if these should be called subs at all, but that's what it is at FT currently.
When they introduced those they really paid subs rate (there was some anger about that also here in the forum).
With the big noise about DPC they changed that and decided to pay 20% / 25% (for DPC opted out / in).
Now with the Adobe deal they raised that to 33% (independent of DPC opt out).
Always keeping the minimum payout per sale at the regular subs rate.
You are talking about Fotolia not Adobe Stock. Their 'subs' plan which isn't really subs pays 1.65 and their 10 per month subs plan pays .99.
-
You are talking about Fotolia not Adobe Stock.
Yes.
I just tried to explain where that wording (probably) comes from.
I don't expect to ever receive more than this "minimum guarantee" for a subs sale on Adobe Stock (nor for a "real" subs sale on FT either).
-
You are talking about Fotolia not Adobe Stock.
Yes.
I just tried to explain where that wording (probably) comes from.
I don't expect to ever receive more than this "minimum guarantee" for a subs sale on Adobe Stock (nor for a "real" subs sale on FT either).
Ok, that's what I thought.
-
Just one thing to add:
"Minimum guarantee" makes sense on FT, because for their biggest monthly packs the price per image is €0,80, so the 33% royalty would fall below those minimum values.
-
Just one thing to add:
"Minimum guarantee" makes sense on FT, because for their biggest monthly packs the price per image is €0,80, so the 33% royalty would fall below those minimum values.
It could say maximum guarantee just as well, that's all I'm saying. It seems to imply you could get more even though that's not true.
Now with the Adobe deal they raised that to 33% (independent of DPC opt out).
That's not exactly true either. Adobe will pay Europeans 33%, even more for some sales but contributors on the dollar will get much less from European sales. If you look back at the exchange rates over the last 10 years the royalty rate ranged from a high of 31% to a low of 20%.
-
Just one thing to add:
"Minimum guarantee" makes sense on FT, because for their biggest monthly packs the price per image is €0,80, so the 33% royalty would fall below those minimum values.
It could say maximum guarantee just as well, that's all I'm saying. It seems to imply you could get more even though that's not true.
Now with the Adobe deal they raised that to 33% (independent of DPC opt out).
That's not exactly true either. Adobe will pay Europeans 33%, even more for some sales but contributors on the dollar will get much less from European sales. If you look back at the exchange rates over the last 10 years the royalty rate ranged from a high of 31% to a low of 20%.
But that didn't change, before Adobe they paid 20%/25% for those sales on FT, now they pay 33%.
The currency issues stays the same - it's been here before, it's still here.
-
Just one thing to add:
"Minimum guarantee" makes sense on FT, because for their biggest monthly packs the price per image is €0,80, so the 33% royalty would fall below those minimum values.
It could say maximum guarantee just as well, that's all I'm saying. It seems to imply you could get more even though that's not true.
Now with the Adobe deal they raised that to 33% (independent of DPC opt out).
That's not exactly true either. Adobe will pay Europeans 33%, even more for some sales but contributors on the dollar will get much less from European sales. If you look back at the exchange rates over the last 10 years the royalty rate ranged from a high of 31% to a low of 20%.
But that didn't change, before Adobe they paid 20%/25% for those sales on FT, now they pay 33%.
The currency issues stays the same - it's been here before, it's still here.
Yep a 20% rate would really have been like 12% for most sales, now it's better but it's still lower than the advertised 33%. (up to 40% lower)
-
We get paid the minimum guarantee rate based on our ranking but have we been told what the minimum guarantee rate is?
https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
I've been doing some searching but don't see it listed anywhere. I thought it was on that page the other day but don't see it now.
Perhaps I'm just blind or am forgetting what we've been told many times already :-\
@Leaf, on the page you linked under the 33% Royalty header if you hover your mouse over "minimum guarantee" the rates will pop up. They are the same as before. Rates range from .25 for white rank to .40 for diamond.
-Mat
-
We get paid the minimum guarantee rate based on our ranking but have we been told what the minimum guarantee rate is?
https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
I've been doing some searching but don't see it listed anywhere. I thought it was on that page the other day but don't see it now.
Perhaps I'm just blind or am forgetting what we've been told many times already :-\
@Leaf, on the page you linked under the 33% Royalty header if you hover your mouse over "minimum guarantee" the rates will pop up. They are the same as before. Rates range from .25 for white rank to .40 for diamond.
-Mat
WOW .25 up to .40 royalty rate. I think I will go out and spend a few thousand dollars on camera gear, computers and programs and spend hours shooting and editing. I am inspired.
-
We get paid the minimum guarantee rate based on our ranking but have we been told what the minimum guarantee rate is?
https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
I've been doing some searching but don't see it listed anywhere. I thought it was on that page the other day but don't see it now.
Perhaps I'm just blind or am forgetting what we've been told many times already :-\
@Leaf, on the page you linked under the 33% Royalty header if you hover your mouse over "minimum guarantee" the rates will pop up. They are the same as before. Rates range from .25 for white rank to .40 for diamond.
-Mat
WOW .25 up to .40 royalty rate. I think I will go out and spend a few thousand dollars on camera gear, computers and programs and spend hours shooting and editing. I am inspired.
Now there's yer rose glasses talking.
-
At least Mat is coming here and being helpful and answering all our questions.
Where is SS, IS, DT?
-
Here is Getty's take on Adobe Stock.
Following the launch of Adobe Stock, we felt it was a good time to reach out and communicate to you – our exclusive artists – with some thoughts on what this means for Getty Images, iStock by Getty Images, and our valued relationship with you.
We start with the point that competition is not necessarily a bad thing. Competition can drive us forward in better serving current and potential customers. It can also help grow our customer base as new marketing builds awareness of the need for and availability of licensed content. The negatives of competition come when you do not have a clearly differentiated product.
Thanks to your content and ongoing submissions, we enjoy and will continue to enjoy a clear point of differentiation – superior content. This is the very core of our customers’ needs. Without great content, customers cannot produce great projects. iStock by Getty Images is the only service in the value space that provides a meaningfully different and superior content offering. Adobe Stock is the same content offered historically via Fotolia and many other providers. Adding a statement that it is curated by Adobe, does not make it true.
We also enjoy the full reach and assets of Getty Images. Only Getty Images offers a comprehensive offering to service all customers, across all projects, in all geographies – creative and editorial, new and archival, global and local, premium and value. Only Getty Images has a 700-person dedicated sales force that are experts in content licensing. Only Getty Images has 20 years of building strong customer relationships.
Moving beyond what we believe Adobe’s entry means to Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images, we wanted to share some thoughts on broader implications for photographers as a whole.
With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10. We simply do not agree with this view. Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers. This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.
The launch of Adobe Stock also under-scores Adobe’s true focus. Adobe is under-pricing the work of photographers to increase the overall attractiveness of Creative Cloud. In fact, Creative Cloud customers receive an additional 40 percent discount with this discount subsidized by photographers via lowered royalties.
We struggle to understand how Adobe Stock helps to sustainably support the creation of imagery and photographers, many of which are paying Creative Cloud customers. Instead, in current form, we only see how Adobe Stock helps support Adobe’s broader software ambitions at the expense of the creation of imagery and photographers.
Getty Images remains focused on licensing content with an emphasis on superior material. We will continue to price this superior content to an appropriate premium and provide a higher royalty. We thank you for your contributions and loyalty. We are more committed than ever to maintain your loyalty and will intensify our efforts to compete on the basis of quality and a comprehensive offering. In the coming months, you will see marketing, site merchandising, partnerships and other improvements that only reinforce this strategy and our intensity.
Thank you for being our partners.
-
Its again just comments of a deer staring in a couple of headlights. There is absolute dross on Istock, probably more than on Fotolia. And Getty thinks images are worth nothing because they gave millions away for free. Their comments are just comical.
Here is Getty's take on Adobe Stock.
Following the launch of Adobe Stock, we felt it was a good time to reach out and communicate to you – our exclusive artists – with some thoughts on what this means for Getty Images, iStock by Getty Images, and our valued relationship with you.
We start with the point that competition is not necessarily a bad thing. Competition can drive us forward in better serving current and potential customers. It can also help grow our customer base as new marketing builds awareness of the need for and availability of licensed content. The negatives of competition come when you do not have a clearly differentiated product.
Thanks to your content and ongoing submissions, we enjoy and will continue to enjoy a clear point of differentiation – superior content. This is the very core of our customers’ needs. Without great content, customers cannot produce great projects. iStock by Getty Images is the only service in the value space that provides a meaningfully different and superior content offering. Adobe Stock is the same content offered historically via Fotolia and many other providers. Adding a statement that it is curated by Adobe, does not make it true.
We also enjoy the full reach and assets of Getty Images. Only Getty Images offers a comprehensive offering to service all customers, across all projects, in all geographies – creative and editorial, new and archival, global and local, premium and value. Only Getty Images has a 700-person dedicated sales force that are experts in content licensing. Only Getty Images has 20 years of building strong customer relationships.
Moving beyond what we believe Adobe’s entry means to Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images, we wanted to share some thoughts on broader implications for photographers as a whole.
With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10. We simply do not agree with this view. Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers. This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.
The launch of Adobe Stock also under-scores Adobe’s true focus. Adobe is under-pricing the work of photographers to increase the overall attractiveness of Creative Cloud. In fact, Creative Cloud customers receive an additional 40 percent discount with this discount subsidized by photographers via lowered royalties.
We struggle to understand how Adobe Stock helps to sustainably support the creation of imagery and photographers, many of which are paying Creative Cloud customers. Instead, in current form, we only see how Adobe Stock helps support Adobe’s broader software ambitions at the expense of the creation of imagery and photographers.
Getty Images remains focused on licensing content with an emphasis on superior material. We will continue to price this superior content to an appropriate premium and provide a higher royalty. We thank you for your contributions and loyalty. We are more committed than ever to maintain your loyalty and will intensify our efforts to compete on the basis of quality and a comprehensive offering. In the coming months, you will see marketing, site merchandising, partnerships and other improvements that only reinforce this strategy and our intensity.
Thank you for being our partners.
-
Here is Getty's take on Adobe Stock.
Following the launch of Adobe Stock, we felt it was a good time to reach out and communicate to you – our exclusive artists – with some thoughts on what this means for Getty Images, iStock by Getty Images, and our valued relationship with you.
We start with the point that competition is not necessarily a bad thing. Competition can drive us forward in better serving current and potential customers. It can also help grow our customer base as new marketing builds awareness of the need for and availability of licensed content. The negatives of competition come when you do not have a clearly differentiated product.
Thanks to your content and ongoing submissions, we enjoy and will continue to enjoy a clear point of differentiation – superior content. This is the very core of our customers’ needs. Without great content, customers cannot produce great projects. iStock by Getty Images is the only service in the value space that provides a meaningfully different and superior content offering. Adobe Stock is the same content offered historically via Fotolia and many other providers. Adding a statement that it is curated by Adobe, does not make it true.
We also enjoy the full reach and assets of Getty Images. Only Getty Images offers a comprehensive offering to service all customers, across all projects, in all geographies – creative and editorial, new and archival, global and local, premium and value. Only Getty Images has a 700-person dedicated sales force that are experts in content licensing. Only Getty Images has 20 years of building strong customer relationships.
Moving beyond what we believe Adobe’s entry means to Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images, we wanted to share some thoughts on broader implications for photographers as a whole.
With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10. We simply do not agree with this view. Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers. This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.
The launch of Adobe Stock also under-scores Adobe’s true focus. Adobe is under-pricing the work of photographers to increase the overall attractiveness of Creative Cloud. In fact, Creative Cloud customers receive an additional 40 percent discount with this discount subsidized by photographers via lowered royalties.
We struggle to understand how Adobe Stock helps to sustainably support the creation of imagery and photographers, many of which are paying Creative Cloud customers. Instead, in current form, we only see how Adobe Stock helps support Adobe’s broader software ambitions at the expense of the creation of imagery and photographers.
Getty Images remains focused on licensing content with an emphasis on superior material. We will continue to price this superior content to an appropriate premium and provide a higher royalty. We thank you for your contributions and loyalty. We are more committed than ever to maintain your loyalty and will intensify our efforts to compete on the basis of quality and a comprehensive offering. In the coming months, you will see marketing, site merchandising, partnerships and other improvements that only reinforce this strategy and our intensity.
Thank you for being our partners.
Well, either you got a job at Getty or this is copy/paste.
Either way, the same argument can be applied to Istock which as of the last price changes believes a photo is worth no more than $30-ish dollars which I absolutely disagree. And from my royalty statements Getty seems to also think that images that sell for $600 for one client also should be sold for $1 to another which I absolutely disagree. Getty also thinks that .001 cents through partner deals should appeal to contributors which it doesn't. Getty also thinks free image imbeds are a good idea for contributors and I disagree.
Istock recently lost me as an exclusive partner. I suggest you start looking at providing more value to your exclusive partners rather than trying to show you're the better of two suboptimal business relationships.
-
Thanks for posting that. Some exclusives had mentioned that but I hadn't seen the whole text.
I just received e-mail about the Ambassador Program which sounds (me summarizing) like an effort to have contributors help market iStock. I assume that's because they're either not spending on marketing as much/any more or it isn't working well.
"With your social media participation, together we can spread the message, build our brands, and ultimately attract many more people to the amazing content you’ve created for iStock and Getty Images licensing."
Possibly I received the e-mail because I used to be exclusive? Not sure if this is open to indie contributors or not.
Regarding the message to exclusives, I think the issue is that they conflate superior content and exclusive content (and some exclusive content is spectacular; some is just the same as other content but from a different artist).
I believe Adobe Stock has issues in comparison to Shutterstock - because there is so much more choice at Shutterstock and the WebDAM approach to managing assets is broader (they'll manage any digital asset, not just the subset Adobe will put into the Creative Cloud Library). I'm not sure iStock/Getty even competes in the same arena (do they offer some sort of digital asset management solution?) and their library is smaller if the numbers in recent articles about Adobe Stock are correct (they were saying about 25 million images on iStock.
Getty has a lot of other images at much higher prices (the 100 million number includes editorial and lots of RM stuff) and so isn't really a useful comparison vis-a-vis Adobe Stock. Not to mention quite a number of people are no longer exclusive so it's hit or miss whether their content will draw them to iStock
The argument about Adobe not having photographer's interests at heart is true, but it's also true for iStock, Getty, SS and the rest of the agencies. (Stocksy's a cooperative so that's an exception). I won't rehash all the anti-contributor moves Getty has made, or Jonathan Klein's remarks that Getty wasn't photographer cuddly but was photographer friendly.
if iStock wants to push the superior content message, they have to actually walk the walk. That means dumping the underexposed fruit slices and all that other imported dreck at premium prices (or at least pricing them at the lowest level).
-
Here is Getty's take on Adobe Stock.
Following the launch of Adobe Stock, we felt it was a good time to reach out and communicate to you – our exclusive artists – with some thoughts on what this means for Getty Images, iStock by Getty Images, and our valued relationship with you.
We start with the point that competition is not necessarily a bad thing. Competition can drive us forward in better serving current and potential customers. It can also help grow our customer base as new marketing builds awareness of the need for and availability of licensed content. The negatives of competition come when you do not have a clearly differentiated product.
Thanks to your content and ongoing submissions, we enjoy and will continue to enjoy a clear point of differentiation – superior content. This is the very core of our customers’ needs. Without great content, customers cannot produce great projects. iStock by Getty Images is the only service in the value space that provides a meaningfully different and superior content offering. Adobe Stock is the same content offered historically via Fotolia and many other providers. Adding a statement that it is curated by Adobe, does not make it true.
We also enjoy the full reach and assets of Getty Images. Only Getty Images offers a comprehensive offering to service all customers, across all projects, in all geographies – creative and editorial, new and archival, global and local, premium and value. Only Getty Images has a 700-person dedicated sales force that are experts in content licensing. Only Getty Images has 20 years of building strong customer relationships.
Moving beyond what we believe Adobe’s entry means to Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images, we wanted to share some thoughts on broader implications for photographers as a whole.
With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10. We simply do not agree with this view. Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers. This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.
The launch of Adobe Stock also under-scores Adobe’s true focus. Adobe is under-pricing the work of photographers to increase the overall attractiveness of Creative Cloud. In fact, Creative Cloud customers receive an additional 40 percent discount with this discount subsidized by photographers via lowered royalties.
We struggle to understand how Adobe Stock helps to sustainably support the creation of imagery and photographers, many of which are paying Creative Cloud customers. Instead, in current form, we only see how Adobe Stock helps support Adobe’s broader software ambitions at the expense of the creation of imagery and photographers.
Getty Images remains focused on licensing content with an emphasis on superior material. We will continue to price this superior content to an appropriate premium and provide a higher royalty. We thank you for your contributions and loyalty. We are more committed than ever to maintain your loyalty and will intensify our efforts to compete on the basis of quality and a comprehensive offering. In the coming months, you will see marketing, site merchandising, partnerships and other improvements that only reinforce this strategy and our intensity.
Thank you for being our partners.
Here's a thought...maybe Getty could scrap its disastrous RC moneygrab and go back to paying their 'valuable' exclusives according to the cannister levels they earned. Talk is cheap and Gettys talk is cheaper than most.
-
Apart from the usual self-aggrandizing Getty Images nonsense which is open to debate endlessly on this forum, I think we should try and focus on the core message here...
"With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.
I personally don't support Adobe Stock for this reason and this reason alone. Valuing imagery at a maximum of $10 is a very dangerous precedent. This is corporate ugly right in your face.
-
Apart from the usual self-aggrandizing Getty Images nonsense which is open to debate endlessly on this forum, I think we should try and focus on the core message here...
"With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.
I personally don't support Adobe Stock for this reason and this reason alone. Valuing imagery at a maximum of $10 is a very dangerous precedent. This is corporate ugly right in your face.
I can buy 6 photos on Istock for $65AUD = $47.45 USD and for the commission I get 16% = $1.26USD/photo
Buy bigger packs etc and its cheap again.
Adobe 33% @ $10USD per photo I get $3.33USD/photo
Unless your exclusive on Istock it doesn't make sense to me, to support IS and not the Adobe deal.
-
Apart from the usual self-aggrandizing Getty Images nonsense which is open to debate endlessly on this forum, I think we should try and focus on the core message here...
"With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.
I personally don't support Adobe Stock for this reason and this reason alone. Valuing imagery at a maximum of $10 is a very dangerous precedent. This is corporate ugly right in your face.
I can buy 6 photos on Istock for $65AUD = $47.45 USD and for the commission I get 16% = $1.26USD/photo
Buy bigger packs etc and its cheap again.
Adobe 33% @ $10USD per photo I get $3.33USD/photo
Unless your exclusive on Istock it doesn't make sense to me, to support IS and not the Adobe deal.
I am exclusive for better or worse.
Your point is noted, however for that same $65AUD you can also buy only 2 photos making them more expensive. The most you will ever make is $3.33 per download if the file is bought individually and more likely .25 to .40 on subscription.
Adobe however is putting the maximum value of the photos at $10 and that is not good. If you are comfortable knowing that your photos are only worth $10 and that you will never make more than $3.33 then great. It won't be very sustainable for very long.
As I said earlier, we can bicker about this all day, but capping the value of photos by a respected company such as Adobe is sending out the wrong message to the entire creative community in terms of what an image is worth.
-
Apart from the usual self-aggrandizing Getty Images nonsense which is open to debate endlessly on this forum, I think we should try and focus on the core message here...
"With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.
I personally don't support Adobe Stock for this reason and this reason alone. Valuing imagery at a maximum of $10 is a very dangerous precedent. This is corporate ugly right in your face.
I can buy 6 photos on Istock for $65AUD = $47.45 USD and for the commission I get 16% = $1.26USD/photo
Buy bigger packs etc and its cheap again.
Adobe 33% @ $10USD per photo I get $3.33USD/photo
Unless your exclusive on Istock it doesn't make sense to me, to support IS and not the Adobe deal.
I am exclusive for better or worse.
Your point is noted, however for that same $65AUD you can also buy only 2 photos making them more expensive. The most you will ever make is $3.33 per download if the file is bought individually and more likely .25 to .40 on subscription.
Adobe however is putting the maximum value of the photos at $10 and that is not good. If you are comfortable knowing that your photos are only worth $10 and that you will never make more than $3.33 then great. It won't be very sustainable for very long.
As I said earlier, we can bicker about this all day, but capping the value of photos by a respected company such as Adobe is sending out the wrong message to the entire creative community in terms of what an image is worth.
As your exclusive I accept that the numbers are different and thus I can understand how Adobe is undercutting prices that your images are sold at on Istock and Getty.
As in Independent Adobe deal basically matches or betters any other microstock offering I submit to as far as RPD.
I suppose their correspondence appears to be sent to exclusive contributors (to encourage them to stay exclusive)
Their letter as read by an independent grates a nerve.
Edit: Also I don't think Adobe is setting a precedent, that was done long ago at prices much less than $10 by
many companies including Istock. Sure I'd like Adobe to price higher because of the link in with photoshop etc
they're offering convenience which should attract some premium to the pricing.
-
As in Independent Adobe deal basically matches or betters any other microstock offering I submit to as far as RPD.
Your royalty will be lower than SS by a fairly large margin depending on your level.
Single sales at SS (2 for $29 is smallest package) each $4.35 at Adobe $3.30
On Demand sales at SS $2.85 at Adobe $1.65 or .99.
Subs at SS 38 cents at Adobe 31 cents for same level.
So it's about a 20-70% RPD loss depending on the type of sale. They also don't have ELs on the site so those will much likely be a lot lower to nonexistent and there won't be any high value SODs. Bottom line is your RPD will go down and significantly. If they are successful at nonsubs sales it's likely SS will lower single and on demand pricing so you'll also lose at SS. If they are successful at subs sales SS may go to a Bigstock style royalty scheme.
-
As in Independent Adobe deal basically matches or betters any other microstock offering I submit to as far as RPD.
Your royalty will be lower than SS by a fairly large margin depending on your level.
Single sales at SS (2 for $29 is smallest package) each $4.35 at Adobe $3.30
On Demand sales at SS $2.85 at Adobe $1.65 or .99.
Subs at SS 38 cents at Adobe 31 cents for same level.
So it's about a 20-70% RPD loss depending on the type of sale. They also don't have ELs on the site so those will much likely be a lot lower to nonexistent and there won't be any high value SODs. Bottom line is your RPD will go down and significantly.
Okay my statement was too far reaching. Adobe deal isn't the best of all, but its certainly not the worst.
Yes it would probably reduce the RPD if all sales were taken from SS alone.
RPD last month at IS was $0.44 so I'd happily swap those for the Adobe sales.
only 11% of last months sales at Istock were Credit sales.
This is where you chime in and say how awesome exclusive at IS is and your RPD there are massive.
-
As in Independent Adobe deal basically matches or betters any other microstock offering I submit to as far as RPD.
Your royalty will be lower than SS by a fairly large margin depending on your level.
Single sales at SS (2 for $29 is smallest package) each $4.35 at Adobe $3.30
On Demand sales at SS $2.85 at Adobe $1.65 or .99.
Subs at SS 38 cents at Adobe 31 cents for same level.
So it's about a 20-70% RPD loss depending on the type of sale. They also don't have ELs on the site so those will much likely be a lot lower to nonexistent and there won't be any high value SODs. Bottom line is your RPD will go down and significantly.
Okay my statement was too far reaching. Adobe deal isn't the best of all, but its certainly not the worst.
Yes it would probably reduce the RPD if all sales were taken from SS alone.
RPD last month at IS was $0.44 so I'd happily swap those for the Adobe sales.
only 11% of last months sales at Istock were Credit sales.
This is where you chime in and say how awesome exclusive at IS is and your RPD there are massive.
No, I'm not going to say anything about my RPD you probably don't care much about that. I think you'll be swapping a very small amount of iStock sales and a larger amount of SS sales. On top of that if Adobe is successful then SS will lower your RPD by cutting prices and possibly changing how subs are paid.
-
As in Independent Adobe deal basically matches or betters any other microstock offering I submit to as far as RPD.
Your royalty will be lower than SS by a fairly large margin depending on your level.
Single sales at SS (2 for $29 is smallest package) each $4.35 at Adobe $3.30
On Demand sales at SS $2.85 at Adobe $1.65 or .99.
Subs at SS 38 cents at Adobe 31 cents for same level.
So it's about a 20-70% RPD loss depending on the type of sale. They also don't have ELs on the site so those will much likely be a lot lower to nonexistent and there won't be any high value SODs. Bottom line is your RPD will go down and significantly.
Okay my statement was too far reaching. Adobe deal isn't the best of all, but its certainly not the worst.
Yes it would probably reduce the RPD if all sales were taken from SS alone.
RPD last month at IS was $0.44 so I'd happily swap those for the Adobe sales.
only 11% of last months sales at Istock were Credit sales.
This is where you chime in and say how awesome exclusive at IS is and your RPD there are massive.
No, I'm not going to say anything about my RPD you probably don't care much about that. I think you'll be swapping a very small amount of iStock sales and a larger amount of SS sales. On top of that if Adobe is successful then SS will lower your RPD by cutting prices and possibly changing how subs are paid.
I'm interested why you think that Adobe will take more sales from SS than IS ?
-
As in Independent Adobe deal basically matches or betters any other microstock offering I submit to as far as RPD.
Your royalty will be lower than SS by a fairly large margin depending on your level.
Single sales at SS (2 for $29 is smallest package) each $4.35 at Adobe $3.30
On Demand sales at SS $2.85 at Adobe $1.65 or .99.
Subs at SS 38 cents at Adobe 31 cents for same level.
So it's about a 20-70% RPD loss depending on the type of sale. They also don't have ELs on the site so those will much likely be a lot lower to nonexistent and there won't be any high value SODs. Bottom line is your RPD will go down and significantly.
Okay my statement was too far reaching. Adobe deal isn't the best of all, but its certainly not the worst.
Yes it would probably reduce the RPD if all sales were taken from SS alone.
RPD last month at IS was $0.44 so I'd happily swap those for the Adobe sales.
only 11% of last months sales at Istock were Credit sales.
This is where you chime in and say how awesome exclusive at IS is and your RPD there are massive.
No, I'm not going to say anything about my RPD you probably don't care much about that. I think you'll be swapping a very small amount of iStock sales and a larger amount of SS sales. On top of that if Adobe is successful then SS will lower your RPD by cutting prices and possibly changing how subs are paid.
I'm interested why you think that Adobe will take more sales from SS than IS ?
I've posted my thoughts on this earlier but the short answer is that iStock has exclusive content and Adobe seems to be going after SS subscription buyers. The loss from buyers going to Adobe from SS is a lot more than any gain you would get from them leaving iStock. You will actually lose on some sales if buyers go from iStock to Adobe, hard to believe huh? 10 image a month annual plans at Adobe will pay 99 cents royalty per image at iStock you'll get paid $1.30-1.45 if you are at 15%.
-
Here is Getty's take on Adobe Stock.
With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10. We simply do not agree with this view. Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers. This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.
The level of hypocrisy is astounding ... actually it's not it's completely normal from Getty. I'm not saying the prices Adobe and Fotolia are okay, but Adobe and Fotolia is just taking the already established low watermark for prices set by companies like Getty and running with it. If every image on Getty was available for $10 or more they would have a leg to stand on. I get royalties from Getty for a few cents.
-
I'm interested why you think that Adobe will take more sales from SS than IS ?
My guess is cuz there's hardly any sales left on istock to take.
-
Fotolia has a lot of exclusive content, especially if you browse through local european content. Both istock and SS are weak in Europe and you can see that in their collections.
Istock is the weaker company compared to SS, they have a lot less money for marketing and getty just lost a major deal.
Usually the weak companies suffer first if there is a new gorilla company on the block.
SS has more money and very good tech, they will look at the adobe offer and find a way to distinguish themselves.
They also have the facebook integration, that is a huge marketplace.
Getty doesn't even have a ceo at the moment and any new person coming in, will need time to focus a strategy. In the meantime, SS and Adobe can refine their products.
-
Both istock and SS are weak in Europe and you can see that in their collections.
Where did you get that from ? There is a ton of European contributors submitting a ton of European content. SS even has their EU HQ in Berlin
-
If you look at the fotolia collection then you much better selection of localized content. Yes, major landmarks are available everywhere, but authentic local stuff is rare. For instance the really typical beer in cologne, served in their typical glasses, in a real cologne envirnoment, fotolia has many choices, SS just had two, when i looked for it.
Europe is much more than the eiffel tower and big ben. And the localized stuff is what many artists leave exclusively at fotolia, the generic content goes everywhere.
It was one of the issues istock tried to adress with opening up foreign language forums, they realized that many people who a are not comfortable in english need an Environment in their own language. Fotolia has always had local language forums, so you get a complete contributor experience in your own language and culture, it is easy to meet up and fotolia has many events in your area.
For localized north american content fotolia is weaker, because it is not the dominant agency there.
sS is doing road shows and is organizing shootings in Germany, again to attract more localized content, but without local language forums where people can connect and meet up to shoot, I don't think they will get very far.
Fotolia also has many people in Germany, france,spain etc that are fully artist exclusive. They have similar returns like istock exclusives, some even higher, because fotolia pays up to 63% to fully exclusive Artists.
In Japan 40% of the stock market is in the hands of a local japanese agency, they simply have the home advantage and a much bigger offer in authentic localized content.
How many of the artists here would sign up with a chinese stock agency if everything on the site is in chinese and there is no english Forum? And a local chinese artist with little knowlegde of english where will he sign up or go exclusive?
There is a huge world beyond the english language market.
-
my weekly rank dropped more then 2000 places but atleast that means somebody out there earning more because i'm selling less in last week
-
I dont understand, what is an English forum?
Ich kan uberall Deutsch reden, brauchen wir dafur spezial ein Deutsches forum?
-
I spent years trying to attract more localized German content to istock. Believe me, having a local forum with ACTIVE community builders that reach out to people, help organize meet ups, answer questions, call people up if there is a problem...it makes a makes a huge difference. We were really successful, we brought in a lot more content and had a group of very dedicated producers. Just having a forum without anyone looking after people, no, that makes no big difference.
But when talking to a wider group of artist I always encountered the problem that people asked me for exclusive images, like fotolia did. I looked at the royalty rates and thought, well the difference to indie royalties is not that big, why do they give up the option of selling on Shutterstock and istock and dreamstime for that? But people explained to me that exclusive content, which isn´t even specially marked at fotolia and there is no special search for the buyer to use, it raises the visisbility of the whole portfolio, especially in your local market, so even the non exclusive localised content seems to sell better. And of course you can keyword and describe everything in your own language. This creates a very strong incentive and feedback loop so putting local content exclusively on fotolia and sending generic content everywhere is a very useful strategy.
So between using your own language, the community actiity, fotolia is present at every major photo event, very active in the german "fotocommunity" etc...everyone knows fotolia. It is really very,very clever they way they work with local communities.
So here Fotolia has something they can use when they grow across the globe, I could imagine they would be very successful in China, or Asia or many other regions where English is not the first language. It takes a lot of experience and money and good IT to build up something with a distinctly local flavor. Now with adobe they have enough of everything.
The number of people who can take great pictures but are not comfortable with English is huge. And since all agencies have enough generic content, having an army of regional producers can make a big differences in the game of thrones between the agencies.
-
If you look at the fotolia collection then you much better selection of localized content. Yes, major landmarks are available everywhere, but authentic local stuff is rare. For instance the really typical beer in cologne, served in their typical glasses, in a real cologne envirnoment, fotolia has many choices, SS just had two, when i looked for it.
Isn't that precisely an example of what should be macro, not micro?
If you've set up a still life, then exclusive micro might work, provided there isn't much competition.
If you have major expenses for location, models, props, time, would the potential buyer mass be worth the effort even as exclusive-micro?
If the buyers want something that specific, they should be prepared to pay for it.
-
Yes macro has much more local, authentic content and they keep licensing it too each other so they can make better offers to their local customers.
But getting into macro is difficult for beginners and not all customers need super high quality. You see it with the success of mobile stock, which is often out of focus, underexposed, badly framed, but it is authentic for the location and so it sells.
And of course agencies want to distinguish themselves from each other. So having a much bigger selection of local micro content, not necessarily with expensive production value, just the local beer garden, a few friends eating truly local stuff, images from smaller towns and villages, typical local family things, often just your own snapshots, just placed with an agency where you can communicate in your own language, keyword and upload in your own language and make money...it makes a difference.
If people could easily place this on macro, they would probably all do it. But the macro world is a very closed world and usually not avialble in your local language, so micro is the only option for many people.
I think many people here cannot imagine how intimidating a stock site is if everything is in English.
You can´t follow the forums, you cannot understand the newsletters, you struggle with the upload process and don´t understand the rejections and you cannot write to support because you struggle how to phrase it. some use google translate and then if they get an answer they have to reverse translate that as well. But it is not comfortable. Fotolia makes it easy, everything will be in German, or French or Spanish. All events are in your language, all streamed video presentations are in your language.
That is why I ask people to try to imagine what it would be like to provide stock to an all chinese website, if you have no knowlegde of chinese. Even if you take fantastic pictures and keep hearing you can earn a lot of money there, if you just do a lot of stock on the side, even if you do photography full time, chances are you will never upload there and just stick to a company that is local.
So this "on the ground localeness" is a strength of fotolia that made them the dominant agency in non english speaking Europe. This is nothing new.
-
That is why I ask people to try to imagine what it would be like to provide stock to an all chinese website, if you have no knowlegde of chinese. Even if you take fantastic pictures and keep hearing you can earn a lot of money there, if you just do a lot of stock on the side, even if you do photography full time, chances are you will never upload there and just stick to a company that is local.
Actually iStock/Getty have sort of addressed the Chinese problem with fotomore.com
Can't tell you whether it's successful or not of course because their sales reporting outside of iStock is so poor.
-
That is why I ask people to try to imagine what it would be like to provide stock to an all chinese website, if you have no knowlegde of chinese. Even if you take fantastic pictures and keep hearing you can earn a lot of money there, if you just do a lot of stock on the side, even if you do photography full time, chances are you will never upload there and just stick to a company that is local.
Actually iStock/Getty have sort of addressed the Chinese problem with fotomore.com
Can't tell you whether it's successful or not of course because their sales reporting outside of iStock is so poor.
They haven't actually confirmed whether it is actually officially fully up and running yet, despite several enquiries, most recently (I think) http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364453&messageid=7104391 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364453&messageid=7104391)
Maybe no-one actually knows ::)
-
But fotomore doesn´t give local chinese artists a chance to contribute to istock, or does it? If it does, it would be great, but I haven´t heard that it was designed to be a chinese community site. You would probably also have a chinese forum section on istock if they were going local. But they don´t even have a spanish one and the foreign language forums no longer have dedicated staff.
SS also sells in china, all sites do. The question was how do you attract local producers who don´t speak english. Because the people who don´t speak foreign languages are obviously the most truly locally oriented. Their whole world revolves around their own culture.
Fotolia has experience in setting up something really local. And it takes time to build up a local community, once you have it, other agencies cannot easily come in and take them away. People are creatures of habit, it doesn´t mean it isn´t possible, but it is hard work attracting them.
istock still has the lypses which are great events and very focussed on producing high quality content, with art direction and to get people to meet each other. But you still need some basic fluency in English to take part and have fun.
Of course SS and istock can try to push into Europe or other places. Just like Fotolia will be pushing more towards the US.
Now they can also piggyback on the adobe world that has lots of presentations and events for media producers. We will see if it leads to more sales in North America, who knows. And I am curious how the other agencies will respond. Maybe they will consider exclusive images too,who knows.
-
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/ (http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2015/07/14/morgan-stanley-highlights-seven-e-commerce-and-media-stocks/)
-
How much easier can it be to import images? I would of thought the hard bit was finding them in the first place and Fotolia must be way behind on that.
-
It doesn't say easier than what, maybe they mean easier than from SS in which case it already is easier so you can expect a large number of buyers to move to Adobe.
-
Your royalty will be lower than SS by a fairly large margin depending on your level.
Single sales at SS (2 for $29 is smallest package) each $4.35 at Adobe $3.30
On Demand sales at SS $2.85 at Adobe $1.65 or .99.
Subs at SS 38 cents at Adobe 31 cents for same level.
So it's about a 20-70% RPD loss depending on the type of sale.
but this would be of no consequence if your upload to fotolia is different from your usual ss port.
i remember when i was with fotolia way before the dollar club issue, my sales there were different from the port i had with ss ,etc
-
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"
[url]http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2015/07/14/morgan-stanley-highlights-seven-e-commerce-and-media-stocks/[/url] ([url]http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2015/07/14/morgan-stanley-highlights-seven-e-commerce-and-media-stocks/[/url])
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.
-
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"
[url]http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2015/07/14/morgan-stanley-highlights-seven-e-commerce-and-media-stocks/[/url] ([url]http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2015/07/14/morgan-stanley-highlights-seven-e-commerce-and-media-stocks/[/url])
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 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).
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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"
[url]http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2015/07/14/morgan-stanley-highlights-seven-e-commerce-and-media-stocks/[/url] ([url]http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2015/07/14/morgan-stanley-highlights-seven-e-commerce-and-media-stocks/[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.