MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Introducing Adobe Stock!  (Read 106478 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #275 on: June 19, 2015, 12:24 »
0
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.


« Reply #276 on: June 19, 2015, 12:33 »
+3
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.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #277 on: June 19, 2015, 12:48 »
+4
Interesting article from Reuters:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html

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.

photominer

« Reply #278 on: June 19, 2015, 13:00 »
+2
Interesting article from Reuters:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html

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.

photominer

« Reply #279 on: June 19, 2015, 13:05 »
+4
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.

« Reply #280 on: June 19, 2015, 13:12 »
+3
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.

« Reply #281 on: June 19, 2015, 13:35 »
+3
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.

« Reply #282 on: June 19, 2015, 13:40 »
+1

Semmick Photo

« Reply #283 on: June 19, 2015, 13:41 »
+2
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/

photominer

« Reply #284 on: June 19, 2015, 13:52 »
0

So you saw Adobe Stock coming? I don't think so.


or this one:
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.

« Reply #285 on: June 19, 2015, 13:55 »
0

So you saw Adobe Stock coming? I don't think so.


or this one:
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.

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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #286 on: June 19, 2015, 13:56 »
+1
...
or this one:
http://www.responsivebc.com/responsive-bc-blog/adobe-buys-fotolio

"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.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 14:00 by ShadySue »

photominer

« Reply #287 on: June 19, 2015, 14:00 »
+1

So you saw Adobe Stock coming? I don't think so.


or this one:
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.

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)
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 14:06 by photominer »

« Reply #288 on: June 19, 2015, 14:09 »
+1
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.

photominer

« Reply #289 on: June 19, 2015, 14:11 »
+1
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!

« Reply #290 on: June 19, 2015, 14:16 »
0
(obviously, I don't care for istock. In case that wasn't clear)
Obviously, but you shouldn't let that cloud your thinking.

« Reply #291 on: June 19, 2015, 14:21 »
+2
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.

photominer

« Reply #292 on: June 19, 2015, 14:26 »
+5
(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. :)

« Reply #293 on: June 19, 2015, 14:29 »
+3
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.

« Reply #294 on: June 19, 2015, 14:29 »
+4
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

« Reply #295 on: June 19, 2015, 14:39 »
+3
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.

« Reply #296 on: June 19, 2015, 14:41 »
+8
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 ... ?

« Reply #297 on: June 19, 2015, 14:49 »
+8
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.

marthamarks

« Reply #298 on: June 19, 2015, 14:54 »
+2
My imagesuploaded to FT on Tuesday, approved yesterdayare 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!

« Reply #299 on: June 19, 2015, 15:00 »
+4
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.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 15:03 by tickstock »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
5674 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 13:09
by Rage
3 Replies
4758 Views
Last post June 18, 2015, 13:29
by Sean Locke Photography
17 Replies
7518 Views
Last post November 27, 2015, 10:38
by logeeker
6 Replies
9183 Views
Last post August 18, 2017, 17:25
by SpaceStockFootage
402 Replies
81683 Views
Last post June 13, 2022, 14:36
by JaenStock

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors