MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Introducing the free collection from Adobe Stock  (Read 5882 times)

5 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.



Shelma1

« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2020, 10:37 »
+21
 >:(

« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2020, 10:38 »
+10
Matt. Do you think it is a good sign that people only viewed and still didn't comment? Not good feeling really. The pattern is already known

« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2020, 10:55 »
+1
Matt. Do you think it is a good sign that people only viewed and still didn't comment? Not good feeling really. The pattern is already known

I expect there to be questions and concerns from the contributors which is exactly why I started this conversation before the email went out. I know many people read the posts in this forum without commenting so to answer your specific question, I don't "view" that as a sign in any way.

I can assure you that I've been asking hard questions of the team and I genuinely believe this program has the potential to benefit contributors in several ways. I'll share a couple of key takeaways from my original questions here.

First, the contributors with content in the free collection were compensated in advance for their participation. While it's limited to select contributors now, we'll allow others to participate as time goes on. The content in the free collection will be rotating to keep it fresh and relevant. As content leaves the free collection, it returns to the paid collection.

Second, and I believe most importantly, if you browse the Adobe Stock free collection, you'll see that there are a lot of assets that cover a wide range of subjects, but no one particular subject has a deep selection to choose from. That is by design. When someone who typically only uses free sites visits Adobe Stock, they now have the opportunuity to see more search results beyond free. This is a potential customer base that was not visiting paid sites historically. The result should be an expanded market for paying customers.

I welcome your feedback and look forward to the conversation.

-Mat 




« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2020, 10:59 »
+38
I was busy searching the free collection to see what the competition is for those of us who hope to continue licensing our work.

A couple of observations:

-Every agency which has started a free collection has said it would drive traffic to the agency and thus boost sales. I've never seen any evidence that it worked out like that.

-The Adobe Stock free collection - conveniently there's a drop-down so. you can search only that image type - is less helpful than the free agencies which Adobe Stock, Shutterstock & others have affiliate links with. At least there, there's a line of images top and bottom for the paid content with the free stuff in the middle. There is nothing directing users to paid content while searching the free content

- Connected to the above, the free section has content from Wavebreak media (~14,200 images in WavebreakMediaMicro and wavebreak3), Rawpixel.com (over 10,000), Wirestock (~5,300), Gstudio (~4,000), Jeremy Bishop (~4,000), Good Studio (~3,000), Artinspiring (~4,000), Caia Image (~4,000), Jacob Lund (~7,000), Visual Generation (~4,000) Hero Images (~7,000). This is all high quality content, largely indistinguishable from the paid content.

- When a search in the free section turns up one or two results, there's a blank page underneath. Wouldn't offering content from the paid section to fill up the page make sense? Isn't offering your paid license content a reasonable option when there is not much in the free section?

- When there's nothing in the free section for a search, content from paid sections is shown, as is a line of totally unrelated images from the free section! Why continue to promote the free section with random images?

About the only good news from a purely personal point of view is that most of the type of content I offer isn't covered in the free section, but I can't see how contributors (other than those who got paid to create this collection) will benefit, short term or long.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2020, 17:56 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2020, 11:05 »
+14
I understand the concept but it rarely works well.

Shelma1

« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2020, 11:14 »
+19
Matt. Do you think it is a good sign that people only viewed and still didn't comment? Not good feeling really. The pattern is already known

I expect there to be questions and concerns from the contributors which is exactly why I started this conversation before the email went out. I know many people read the posts in this forum without commenting so to answer your specific question, I don't "view" that as a sign in any way.

I can assure you that I've been asking hard questions of the team and I genuinely believe this program has the potential to benefit contributors in several ways. I'll share a couple of key takeaways from my original questions here.

First, the contributors with content in the free collection were compensated in advance for their participation. While it's limited to select contributors now, we'll allow others to participate as time goes on. The content in the free collection will be rotating to keep it fresh and relevant. As content leaves the free collection, it returns to the paid collection.

Second, and I believe most importantly, if you browse the Adobe Stock free collection, you'll see that there are a lot of assets that cover a wide range of subjects, but no one particular subject has a deep selection to choose from. That is by design. When someone who typically only uses free sites visits Adobe Stock, they now have the opportunuity to see more search results beyond free. This is a potential customer base that was not visiting paid sites historically. The result should be an expanded market for paying customers.

I welcome your feedback and look forward to the conversation.

-Mat

What I see in the free vectors, searching within my niches, is simpler ripoffs of some of my illustrations. I'm sure if other illustrators look they'll find the same thing. So now I'm competing against someone who's copying my work and getting paid in advance to offer it for free and take sales from me.

Yay.

Who knows of a good, free alternative to Adobe Illustrator? I'd like to switch to that, and maybe it'll attract me to Adobe's product and I'll feel the sudden urge to pay for it instead of the free software.

« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2020, 11:27 »
+1
I was busy searching the free collection to see what the competition is for those of us who hope to continue licensing our work.

A couple of observations:

-Every agency which has started a free collection has said it would drive traffic to the agency and thus boost sales. I've never seen any evidence that it worked out like that.

-The Adobe Stock free collection - conveniently there's a drop-down so. you can search only that image type - is less helpful than the free agencies which Adobe Stock, Shutterstock & others have affiliate links with. At least there, there's a line of images top and bottom for the paid content with the free stuff in the middle. There is nothing directing users to paid content while searching the free content

- Connected to the above, the free section has content from Wavebreak media (~14,200 images in WavebreakMediaMicro and wavebreak3), Rawpixel.com (over 10,000), Wirestock (~5,300), Gstudio (~4,000), Jeremy Bishop (~4,000), Good Studio (~3,000), Artinspiring (~4,000), Caia Image (~4,000). This is all high quality content, largely indistinguishable from the paid content.

- When a search in the free section turns up one or two results, there's a blank page underneath. Wouldn't offering content from the paid section to fill up the page make sense? Isn't offering your paid license content a reasonable option when there is not much in the free section?

About the only good news from a purely personal point of view is that most of the type of content I offer isn't covered in the free section, but I can't see how contributors (other than those who got paid to create this collection) will benefit, short term or long.

These are all good observations Jo Ann, and I appreciate your insight and feedback (not to mention your lighting fast deep dive into the collection). I hope those of you reading this know that I will only say what I mean and that maintaining my integrity is extremely important. I won't share personal opinions pretending something will benefit contributors if I don't actually believe it. In this particular case, as mentioned, I asked hard questions  of those responsible for the decision and I was personally given answers that satisfied me. The contributor community at large was a part of this conversation from the beginning within the entire team and that's very important to me.

To your specific points....

"When a search in the free section turns up one or two results, there's a blank page underneath. Wouldn't offering content from the paid section to fill up the page make sense? Isn't offering your paid license content a reasonable option when there is not much in the free section?" 

Yes, I think there is opportunity to show more from the paid collection in an in-your-face manner and I'll share this feedback with the team. What comes to mind immediately is how the Premium content is displayed in searches for core collection content.

"This is all high quality content, largely indistinguishable from the paid content."
Yes, the content in the free collection is good, sellable content. That is intentional so that visitors are introduced to the quality of the overall Adobe Stock collection. It would not be doing anyone any good to showcase work with quality that doesn't meet our standards or the standards of the potential customers. If you look to sites that only offer free content, you'll see that the quality is typically quite high. It's reasonable to assume the expectations of the people that use those sites exclusively is equally as high.

"About the only good news from a purely personal point of view is that most of the type of content I offer isn't covered in the free section, but I can't see how contributors (other than those who got paid to create this collection) will benefit, short term or long."

With this point, I'm afraid we'll need to agree to disagree. Jo Ann, you've been submitting stock as long as I have and you are a talented photographer. My personal opinion is that you should be shooting as wide a variety of subjects as you possibly can as your knowledge of stock and your photography skill set is above-average. Having content in the paid collection of a similar nature to what is in the free collection can only benefit you as opposed to not having it online at all. I do expect to see expanded searches from people driven to the site by the free collection so if your content is displayed in those searches, you have the potential for sales you would have never seen otherwise.

Thanks again for the feedback.

-Mat

« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2020, 11:34 »
+17
Very depressing turn of events.

« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2020, 11:47 »
+4
Matt. Do you think it is a good sign that people only viewed and still didn't comment? Not good feeling really. The pattern is already known

I expect there to be questions and concerns from the contributors which is exactly why I started this conversation before the email went out. I know many people read the posts in this forum without commenting so to answer your specific question, I don't "view" that as a sign in any way.

I can assure you that I've been asking hard questions of the team and I genuinely believe this program has the potential to benefit contributors in several ways. I'll share a couple of key takeaways from my original questions here.

First, the contributors with content in the free collection were compensated in advance for their participation. While it's limited to select contributors now, we'll allow others to participate as time goes on. The content in the free collection will be rotating to keep it fresh and relevant. As content leaves the free collection, it returns to the paid collection.

Second, and I believe most importantly, if you browse the Adobe Stock free collection, you'll see that there are a lot of assets that cover a wide range of subjects, but no one particular subject has a deep selection to choose from. That is by design. When someone who typically only uses free sites visits Adobe Stock, they now have the opportunuity to see more search results beyond free. This is a potential customer base that was not visiting paid sites historically. The result should be an expanded market for paying customers.

I welcome your feedback and look forward to the conversation.

-Mat

What I see in the free vectors, searching within my niches, is simpler ripoffs of some of my illustrations. I'm sure if other illustrators look they'll find the same thing. So now I'm competing against someone who's copying my work and getting paid in advance to offer it for free and take sales from me.

Yay.

Who knows of a good, free alternative to Adobe Illustrator? I'd like to switch to that, and maybe it'll attract me to Adobe's product and I'll feel the sudden urge to pay for it instead of the free software.

@Shelma, respectully, the contributors participating in the initial launch of the free collection are top level, highly respected, very successful artists with a long standing reputation. The accusation they have stolen or copied your content or your niche without any specific information to back up your claim lacks credibility and substance in my opinion and is frankly beneath you. I'm open to any and all feedback and criticism but I won't accept baseless accusations of respected contributors. I would provide you with the same courtesy should the accusation be reversed.

I have always respected your feedback. Specifically, your abundant criticism of the contributor bonus program was heard loud and clear and as you likely know, this year we've made a change in which you can choose a single app including Illustrator for your complimentary subscription.

If you have a specific claim that your content was copied by one of these top artists included in the free collection, I would ask that you send me a personal email to [email protected] with specific details.

-Mat

« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2020, 12:41 »
+26
Ouch.  I mean, just call it rain.

The FAQ says: "Customers who want more options are offered additional paid content results."  So either that is incorrect, or somebody dropped the ball or something.

The FAQ also says: "Content for the free collection is sourced in collaboration with a small group of Adobe Stock contributors who have all been compensated for these assets."  That's not a selling point to me.  I don't really care that someone else got money to hurt my chances of sales (although hopefully it's more than the $16 per image in the Google deal).

eta: from Pickerell: "Contracts were negotiated with each artist individually and the amount paid per asset varied. However, Adobe management specified that the price for each asset should be at least above the annual RPI of that asset. The price paid is for one-year use in the Free collection. Assets will be returned to the Paid collection within the coming year and replaced with new content. In this way free assets will vary over time to help the collection stay relevant and attract new customers while minimizing negative impacts to the companys paid collection."
https://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=8cf3a8f9-8795-4bc4-8ef8-d699da5f165e

It seems like there's enough content to satisfy anyone.  10K business images is a pretty good pot to pull from and cycling stuff in and out will just increase the depth of what's available.

The point of a "free" collection is to put the dross there and entice with the good stuff.  But here, the good stuff is being given away.  Diverse model shoots in authentic locations produced by factories?  I mean we can't compete with that.  Unsplash can't compete with that.

It's disappointing.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2020, 12:43 by Sean Locke Photography »

« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2020, 12:46 »
+14
Pictures perhaps help show how completely invisible the paid content is when searching in the free section. I did some two and three word searches in the free section, and when nothing shows up, other searches in the free section, including "All" are shown rather than showing the content in the paid section that matches the search.

This really undercuts the message that the goal is to drive more business our way...

Click on the thumbnail to view a larger image:


« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2020, 12:47 »
+1
Hi, 
The way I read it, AS buys from contributors, put it for a while in the free collection, the contributor got paid regardless of how many times the file was downloaded and when a while passes the file returns to the paid collection. So, I guess that can be a nice thing if its done fairly and call me naive but I trust AS.  I guess it comes down to how much the contributors get paid and how long is that while and are they going for best sellers of undiscovered gems.

Am I missing something here?
Ive been around since Fotolia days, this doesnt seem bad.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2020, 13:04 »
0
Pictures perhaps help show how completely invisible the paid content is when searching in the free section. I did some two and three word searches in the free section, and when nothing shows up, other searches in the free section, including "All" are shown rather than showing the content in the paid section that matches the search.

This really undercuts the message that the goal is to drive more business our way...

Click on the thumbnail to view a larger image:




I reached out to the team with your original comment/suggestion Jo Ann, better visibility of the paid collection in free searches is on the roadmap and I expect changes will be made in the future.

thanks again,

Mat

« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2020, 13:07 »
0
Hi, 
The way I read it, AS buys from contributors, put it for a while in the free collection, the contributor got paid regardless of how many times the file was downloaded and when a while passes the file returns to the paid collection. So, I guess that can be a nice thing if its done fairly and call me naive but I trust AS.  I guess it comes down to how much the contributors get paid and how long is that while and are they going for best sellers of undiscovered gems.

Am I missing something here?
Ive been around since Fotolia days, this doesnt seem bad.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the feedback Liorpt, that's my take too. To answer your questions, the free collection consists of the undiscovered gems as you've put it and not best sellers.

-Mat

« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2020, 13:10 »
+15
Anyone can give our work away for free if you let them.

I see no benefit to contributors at all.

Where's the good news?

« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2020, 13:10 »
0
Ouch.  I mean, just call it rain.

The FAQ says: "Customers who want more options are offered additional paid content results."  So either that is incorrect, or somebody dropped the ball or something.

The FAQ also says: "Content for the free collection is sourced in collaboration with a small group of Adobe Stock contributors who have all been compensated for these assets."  That's not a selling point to me.  I don't really care that someone else got money to hurt my chances of sales (although hopefully it's more than the $16 per image in the Google deal).

eta: from Pickerell: "Contracts were negotiated with each artist individually and the amount paid per asset varied. However, Adobe management specified that the price for each asset should be at least above the annual RPI of that asset. The price paid is for one-year use in the Free collection. Assets will be returned to the Paid collection within the coming year and replaced with new content. In this way free assets will vary over time to help the collection stay relevant and attract new customers while minimizing negative impacts to the companys paid collection."
https://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=8cf3a8f9-8795-4bc4-8ef8-d699da5f165e

It seems like there's enough content to satisfy anyone.  10K business images is a pretty good pot to pull from and cycling stuff in and out will just increase the depth of what's available.

The point of a "free" collection is to put the dross there and entice with the good stuff.  But here, the good stuff is being given away.  Diverse model shoots in authentic locations produced by factories?  I mean we can't compete with that.  Unsplash can't compete with that.

It's disappointing.

Thanks for the feedback Sean. As always, I value your opinion very much. To your initial point which mirrors the sentiment Jo Ann shared, yes...visibility to the paid collection needs to improve and I've been told that it will. I have no reason to doubt this. It's an important factor for all parties involved. It's mutually beneficial between agency and contributor to drive the users of free content sites to the paid collection of Adobe Stock.

thanks again,

Mat

« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2020, 13:13 »
0
Anyone can give our work away for free if you let them.

I see no benefit to contributors at all.

Where's the good news?

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you under the impression that your content specifically has been added to the free collection without your consent? I can assure you that is not the case. As noted in both the FAQ and my previous posts, the contributors with content in the collection at launch are highly trusted contributors that have been paid in advance for their participation.

Let me know if I misunderstood the question.

-Mat

« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2020, 13:21 »
+32
This is particularly disheartening from a company that makes most of its money from the creative community. Since the advent of the internet there has been a continuous push to devalue the work of creative people graphic designers, artists, musicians, photographers but I did not expect Adobe to be a part of it. When everything is free online, who is going to pay all those monthly fees for Photoshop, Illustrator and Indesign?

This is the same short-sighted thinking that made a lot of money for wealthy shareholders in the short term, but destroyed the North American manufacturing industry in the long term.

Creative people need to get paid for their work. It's as simple as that.
Try telling a plumber that he needs to fix your toilet for free because it will be great exposure and maybe someone will pay him next time.

« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2020, 13:23 »
+21
Not very happy about this.  AS was becoming my main agency after fiasco at SS (where i have stopped uploading).  This announcement just makes that less certain.  Giving away for free says something to contributors that is quite unsavory for the future.  Thanks for the heads up. 


« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2020, 13:36 »
+26
How about a royalty increase?
That would be: 'good news'.

The rest is just smoke n mirrors.

« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2020, 13:42 »
+15
I remember there was an old thread titled "exciting news" from agencies. Now we got another portion of that. Starts always with the same promises and the result is predictable.

« Reply #22 on: October 14, 2020, 13:50 »
+2
I would give a part of my images (200 of my 20k) for free to AdobeStock.
I would love to support AS. One of the last hopes i have for Microstock.
A nice to have would be, resize these free-images to 2500px. Big enough for customers but not big enough to re-sell or re-upload by thiefs. Full-size by payment only.
What i realy hate, some (not all) people complain about this concept or middle-tier sites but at the same time offer their images on "unlimited downloads" sites too. That is realy killing the business.

« Reply #23 on: October 14, 2020, 13:53 »
+7
I guess it comes down to how much the contributors get paid and how long is that while and are they going for best sellers of undiscovered gems.


Will it always be the same chosen few who get paid? If so, it probably is a good deal for them.

Not so much for the unchosen rest of us.

« Reply #24 on: October 14, 2020, 14:03 »
+3
I guess it comes down to how much the contributors get paid and how long is that while and are they going for best sellers of undiscovered gems.


Will it always be the same chosen few who get paid? If so, it probably is a good deal for them.

Not so much for the unchosen rest of us.

@Martha, no it won't always be the same artists. We will be continuously auditing and adjusting the collection as we move forward. Additional contributors will be invited to participate.

I can assure you, it's not just me reading your feedback. The team is actively listening and working on making this beneficial for all contributors.

-Mat


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
5680 Views
Last post February 23, 2010, 17:35
by MicrostockExp
13 Replies
7863 Views
Last post November 24, 2014, 13:13
by J_Stock
474 Replies
64246 Views
Last post July 18, 2015, 11:50
by cobalt
8 Replies
2300 Views
Last post September 12, 2016, 13:46
by PixelBytes
3 Replies
2016 Views
Last post January 06, 2017, 04:28
by MarcvsTvllivs

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle