If a company opens a roadside bar. You know the business you are opening. If you play live music, you know what type of client will approach, depending on the type of music, it is not the same, live classical music than a heavy group.

If the fourth and fifth drinks are free, you will have to couple muscle and brain with the right of admission at the door so that the business does not close.

If you want an elite place, specialists in unique cocktails, entry by invitation and reservation, on the terrace of a business center. You know the type of business you have.

You can cancel the promotion in 60 days. Last 30 days free, enjoy it.

To veteran clients, give them the same subscription fee, for one year, free images. For the new ones, free subscription for six months, a commitment to stay for one year. Pay only the commission to each collaborator for each image downloaded from your clients.

And launch an advertising campaign, that AS is the company that every month, has the highest number and quality of files on offer of all agencies.

And to celebrate, free photos for new ones. Free for loyal customers. And payment of commissions to collaborators.

Understanding that in this historic moment that the planet is living, AS has a commitment to humanity.


Merry Christmas to all.

And I bring my talent to the AS Agency, free. But don't get used to it.

Everyone knows the business they intend to have. Logically, elite customers will not consume burned images. Whether 70k or 1 million free images, there are clients who cannot afford to publish burned images. Free images are burned images, with a zero value.

I imagine a bakery in my town, which is offering two kinds of bread, one is free of charge and the other one you have to pay for. An now I compare this to Matts argument:

"The end goal is to attract them to the larger, paid collection to entice them to purchase licenses for content outside the free collection."

What a wonderful business idea!!!!

While I don't like the idea of eat free and maybe you'll pay some other day, as in free images, I want to explain why your bakery comparison is wrong.

Imagine a bakery that offers a free dinner roll as a sample of their baking, to get people in the door to buy their other breads. 

Imagine a grocery store that has free samples of pizza, or sausages, or cookies, introducing people to the product.

Imagine a photo agency that offers some selected free images to potential buyers, to get the buyers to see the rest of the collection?

Now, here's something. 100 is far too many. Some places offer a free photo of the day, to get repeat visits. But maybe that's bad too because the suckers will just come, get the one, each day, and leave. 10 a day and people will search, more likely to be selective to find the best choices, for their limited allotment. They will be more likely to keep coming back, which is the idea, isn't it? Not one visit, download the limit and they have 100 images to file away. Why come back? Lower the number, make them look and become familiar with the products that are available.

Some people hedged around another promotional idea, buy four images, get one from the free collection, FREE. Drive purchases and paid downloads, not open the door and get the people who just want free lunch. Not only that, I'll contend that people who take free images are more often, people who will never buy any image, never have before, they are just free image people. They started that way and they aren't going to suddenly pay, even if Adobe has the best curated and quality images. The free image people are basically "free image people".

Adobe shouldn't be looking at how to get people to come to download free images, but instead, how to get people to come and then change into image buyers. Of course they are a billion dollar company and have much smarter people than I on their staff. They also have corporate power intimidation, with meetings, committees and top people who have the highest positions saying things like "I have a new idea, what do you think of this?" asking people who fear they will lose their job for disagreeing or standing up and saying, that's not a good idea. 

Anyway, here we are, I'm positive that Adobe will be closely monitoring visitors, new customers, downloads, income, and all the other related data. I trust them to be flexible and adjust if this is not playing out the way they predicted.

In other words, while I don't really like the idea nor embrace the future of free as a plan that will build and attract new paying customers... I don't run the company, so I'll just watch and wait and see how this turns out. I'm certainly not going delete my files, shut down my account, and crawl into a cave, which only hurts my earnings, not the company?  Boycott or closing my account isn't an effective method at all, for making change.

A gnat going through the turbine blades on a jet engine, isn't going to slow anything down or make a difference.

Roll with the punches, adapt and adjust.

Adobe shouldn't be looking at how to get people to come to download free images, but instead, how to get people to come and then change into image buyers. ... They also have corporate power intimidation, with meetings, committees and top people who have the highest positions saying things like "I have a new idea, what do you think of this?" asking people who fear they will lose their job for disagreeing or standing up and saying, that's not a good idea. 

It's called "groupthink," Pete, and it's been the death of many good things.

The more I ponder this situation, the more disappointed I am in Adobe.

Just a few months ago, AS seemed like the closest thing to a knight in shining armor that we content creators were likely to find� precisely because they didn't *have* to wring every penny out of their stock contributors (who also happen to be some of the most reliable customers of their software).

No longer, alas.

There is no knight in shining armour. The one which might, or might not, be is like a Secret Society, complete with fancy handshakes.

Sounds like you might be talking about Stocksy???

The question is, do we need agencies to sell?

So, the free collection has been out for a week today.
Anyone notices a rise in sales, like Adobe expected? Because so far I certainly haven't. Not that I expected it, but who knows, maybe the increasement in sales will come once people have used up all their 70.000 free images? Oh, wait, but in a year they will be replaced by new images. So that will probably never happen....

The question is, do we need agencies to sell?

Unless someone comes up with something truly innovative and scaled up the answer for 95% is yes.

The question is, do we need agencies to sell?

I find this a valid point. If giving free is the point then anyone can launch their website and give their content for free. To monetize they can apply for adsense or offer subscription if they grow.

This scheme is worse than free.  There is a problem using free sites commercially as there is no indemnity and no way of knowing if the product is stolen or not. With the Adobe images you get a free image plus the indemnity thrown in, that in effect makes these images the best deal in stock.

So, the free collection has been out for a week today.
Anyone notices a rise in sales, like Adobe expected? Because so far I certainly haven't.

I haven't either.

After a lovely run of sales right before the free collection emerged, my sales abruptly dropped to zero. Coincidence?

Is there any editorial in the free collection?

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 21, 2020, 03:02

Quote from: Tenebroso on October 20, 2020, 19:31

The question is, do we need agencies to sell?

Unless someone comes up with something truly innovative and scaled up the answer for 95% is yes.

We are going very very very very advanced. I don't know if the work team will be rewarded for the effort, but we are having fun creating the platform. It is not a microstock agency, it is a group of artists who sell their products. There are quite a few small details, as it is not an agency, nor does it think how agencies think. The biggest problem is still space, especially in videos.

Who is "we"?