MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: dbvirago on May 26, 2020, 13:13
-
An agency that has gone from 66% of my sales to 30% just decided to screw its long time contributors.
Goodbye.
Hello, Adobe. Long live the king.
-
You are making the assumption that Adobe would not follow along at some point.
-
You are making the assumption that Adobe would not follow along at some point.
Adobe may not cut our royalty as the main income of Adobe is from its softwares subscription. So far, Adobe offered many good stuffs for us (increase royalty and free Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator next year).
But... who knows?
-
Adobe must launch any exclusive content program
-
I would not count on Adobe. We will see a video subscription very soon as all the other players have already jumped on the wagon. As to commissions cuts just watch Adobe Ticker on the Nasdaq. Once those growth graph reverse, investors will begin to seek "value" on their investments and their move will be no different that the one taken by Shutterstock.
It is the nature of the scorpion-he cannot avoid to sting. Welcome to Corporate World 3.0. Not anyone of them cares about suppliers. If you really want to be part of a sustainable business model where you are treated like a partner look for other options like coops or business run by a persona or group that does not want to sell for a quick profit. You will not find any merci at Adobe once the time comes.
An agency that has gone from 66% of my sales to 30% just decided to screw its long time contributors.
Goodbye.
Hello, Adobe. Long live the king.
-
I would not count on Adobe. We will see a video subscription very soon as all the other players have already jumped on the wagon. As to commissions cuts just watch Adobe Ticker on the Nasdaq. Once those growth graph reverse, investors will begin to seek "value" on their investments and their move will be no different that the one taken by Shutterstock.
It is the nature of the scorpion-he cannot avoid to sting. Welcome to Corporate World 3.0. Not anyone of them cares about suppliers. If you really want to be part of a sustainable business model where you are treated like a partner look for other options like coops or business run by a persona or group that does not want to sell for a quick profit. You will not find any merci at Adobe once the time comes.
But how many of these "suppliers" buy their software? A large part of Adobe's revenue is from digital media software (what do you see on the first page of their website after all?). So I think naturally they wouldn't want to economically hurt people who buy their software. Yeah, time will tell.
-
In real life never made friends with boss, supervisors or intermediates or clients.
I like Matt because he speak in a pollite and "human" way, not the agencies way.
Contributors that i talk pm even with nicknames are considered my friends.
Edit, perhaps agencies are or should be considered associates or even, just clients.
-
I wish they would start accepting editorials and go on a global expansion mode to give SS a run for their money.
-
In my opinion... if Adobe was really smart they would take in editorial selectively both in stills and video. Editorial with editing, not only inspection. Next step would be to simply keep things more or less the same as they are doing with one simple addition... give all contributors a royalty increase, enough of an increase that they stand out from those A**holes at Getty Images and Shutterstock, then go into a full on marketing mode stating that while "other" agencies don't respect artists and devalue them and their work by insisting on reducing royalties blah blah blah, but at Adobe we make the products that artists use and we value that and stand by the very people that Adobe also depends on blah blah blah. At the end of the day, if this is done properly Adobe could essentially charge the same amount they are for images and I would like to think there would be a shift of creatives (buyers) to purchase and also support their fellow creatives. A you scratch my back and I scratch your back scenario.
Message: Adobe supports the creatives that support Adobe.
-
In my opinion... if Adobe was really smart they would take in editorial selectively both in stills and video. Editorial with editing, not only inspection. Next step would be to simply keep things more or less the same as they are doing with one simple addition... give all contributors a royalty increase, enough of an increase that they stand out from those A**holes at Getty Images and Shutterstock, then go into a full on marketing mode stating that while "other" agencies don't respect artists and devalue them and their work by insisting on reducing royalties blah blah blah, but at Adobe we make the products that artists use and we value that and stand by the very people that Adobe also depends on blah blah blah. At the end of the day, if this is done properly Adobe could essentially charge the same amount they are for images and I would like to think there would be a shift of creatives (buyers) to purchase and also support their fellow creatives. A you scratch my back and I scratch your back scenario.
Message: Adobe supports the creatives that support Adobe.
IMHO, Clair Voyant, you've suggested an outstanding "roadmap" for Adobe to follow if they have any inclination to do so. Personally, I hope they do. I think they would be wise to do it.
We contributors already seem to be highly positive about our experiences with AS, especially since Mat and Dennis come on this forum to answer our questions and provide feedback, offer webinars to help us help ourselves, show they appreciate us via complimentary subscriptions to their products, treat us with respect, and so on. It is, by far, the most responsive and contributor-friendly agency we have to deal with.
I believe that Adobe Stock could smash Shutterstock with a message like the one you, Clair Voyant, have suggested. Even more so because <DRUM ROLL> it actually happens to be true!
We "creatives" already use Adobe products, and then as "contributors" we send our own products back to Adobe. An arrangement like that should allow all parties to do better for ourselves and for one another.
Mat, you're the point man here for Adobe. I hope you and others at Adobe are seriously considering what you're hearing from so many of us.
-
In my opinion... if Adobe was really smart they would take in editorial selectively both in stills and video. Editorial with editing, not only inspection. Next step would be to simply keep things more or less the same as they are doing with one simple addition... give all contributors a royalty increase, enough of an increase that they stand out from those A**holes at Getty Images and Shutterstock, then go into a full on marketing mode stating that while "other" agencies don't respect artists and devalue them and their work by insisting on reducing royalties blah blah blah, but at Adobe we make the products that artists use and we value that and stand by the very people that Adobe also depends on blah blah blah. At the end of the day, if this is done properly Adobe could essentially charge the same amount they are for images and I would like to think there would be a shift of creatives (buyers) to purchase and also support their fellow creatives. A you scratch my back and I scratch your back scenario.
Message: Adobe supports the creatives that support Adobe.
IMHO, Clair Voyant, you've suggested an outstanding "roadmap" for Adobe to follow if they have any inclination to do so. Personally, I hope they do. I think they would be wise to do it.
We contributors already seem to be highly positive about our experiences with AS, especially since Mat and Dennis come on this forum to answer our questions and provide feedback, offer webinars to help us help ourselves, show they appreciate us via complimentary subscriptions to their products, treat us with respect, and so on. It is, by far, the most responsive and contributor-friendly agency we have to deal with.
I believe that Adobe Stock could smash Shutterstock with a message like the one you, Clair Voyant, have suggested. Even more so because <DRUM ROLL> it actually happens to be true!
We "creatives" already use Adobe products, and then as "contributors" we send our own products back to Adobe. An arrangement like that should allow all parties to do better for ourselves and for one another.
Mat, you're the point man here for Adobe. I hope you and others at Adobe are seriously considering what you're hearing from so many of us.
Thanks Martha.
If done properly it is a major win win for corporation and contributor alike. They need us, we need them, so let's work together for mutual benefit.
-
In my opinion... if Adobe was really smart they would take in editorial selectively both in stills and video. Editorial with editing, not only inspection. Next step would be to simply keep things more or less the same as they are doing with one simple addition... give all contributors a royalty increase, enough of an increase that they stand out from those A**holes at Getty Images and Shutterstock, then go into a full on marketing mode stating that while "other" agencies don't respect artists and devalue them and their work by insisting on reducing royalties blah blah blah, but at Adobe we make the products that artists use and we value that and stand by the very people that Adobe also depends on blah blah blah. At the end of the day, if this is done properly Adobe could essentially charge the same amount they are for images and I would like to think there would be a shift of creatives (buyers) to purchase and also support their fellow creatives. A you scratch my back and I scratch your back scenario.
Message: Adobe supports the creatives that support Adobe.
I think the buyers would come just by the results of treating contributors better but not the messaging. I'm sure some buyers care but not enough to jump ship just because contributors are being treated better. If Adobe offered better royalties more contributors would add products and the collection would grow which would attract more buyers. Add more products like you mentioned and again, better selection equals more buyers. More sales attracts more contributors. I do think Adobe has an opportunity to take advantage of this fiasco to grow its business. We'll see.
-
In my opinion... if Adobe was really smart they would take in editorial selectively both in stills and video. Editorial with editing, not only inspection. Next step would be to simply keep things more or less the same as they are doing with one simple addition... give all contributors a royalty increase, enough of an increase that they stand out from those A**holes at Getty Images and Shutterstock, then go into a full on marketing mode stating that while "other" agencies don't respect artists and devalue them and their work by insisting on reducing royalties blah blah blah, but at Adobe we make the products that artists use and we value that and stand by the very people that Adobe also depends on blah blah blah. At the end of the day, if this is done properly Adobe could essentially charge the same amount they are for images and I would like to think there would be a shift of creatives (buyers) to purchase and also support their fellow creatives. A you scratch my back and I scratch your back scenario.
Message: Adobe supports the creatives that support Adobe.
I think the buyers would come just by the results of treating contributors better but not the messaging. I'm sure some buyers care but not enough to jump ship just because contributors are being treated better. If Adobe offered better royalties more contributors would add products and the collection would grow which would attract more buyers. Add more products like you mentioned and again, better selection equals more buyers. More sales attracts more contributors. I do think Adobe has an opportunity to take advantage of this fiasco to grow its business. We'll see.
Hi Paulie... the logic being is creatives are not just contributors they are also major buyers of both Adobe products and Adobe Stock. I have worked as both freelance and staff photographer at several magazines around the world, and most if not all art directors and photo editors end up using Adobe in one form or the other. That would be the target audience. Combine that with the warm and fuzzies the contributor would get and share, the message has the potential to spread. It would be easy for Adobe, they could simply stand by their products Adobe and Adobe Stock and most importantly the people who use the product or supply the product.
Look at what is going on in the other threads #boycottshutterstock... Adobe is literally being given an ace up their sleeve.
Strike while the iron is hot.
-
Look at what is going on in the other threads #boycottshutterstock... Adobe is literally being given an ace up their sleeve.
Strike while the iron is hot.
From your lips to Adobe's (if not God's) ears!! :D
-
Adobe it's your time now so pls don't screw it up by following in SS footsteps! :o
-
Hi Mat,
how about Adobe comes up with great new incentives and rewards to encourage contributors to clamour their clients and customers to switch to an Adobe subscription plan?
I think there are now 1.2 million pissed off creatives somewhere who will see their income crash brutally every January on another platform....I think they will be VERY active advocates for Adobe during the recession...
Just an idea.
-
No offense to Adobe or any of all you respectable persons in the thread and forum.
But SS incident shows just one thing i believe.
Many contributors are now "shocked", soon-broke and "homeless".
Why on earth should Adobe move even their little finger?
Do they need the crowds that flood and mis-tagged and submitted some hundrends of similars and drove SS libraries to today's mess? Curation is accurate but slow. Do they need some more hundreds of similar items to be reviewed and added?
I don't really enjoy AS submitting but i try to hear.
They mainly ask " diverse" iirc. Not quantity nor exclusivity.
As for clients, it is their job to promote and find them, not ours.
Just my thoughts
-
We are all Adobe customers.
They probably make significantly more money from us than many of us make from a little additional stock income.
And many creatives are media professionals in their day jobs, they build websites, design flyers, make videos for advertising etc...and customers and clients will often ask zs which agency we recommend.
You don‘t need ne essarily need referal links, nearly all my recommendations where done without.
But I will only recommend companies with transparent and rational business behaviour. Until May 26 2020, Shutterstock was a very drama free company.
So, why not recommend good agencies to clients.
And Adobe is the only company that has a symbiotic relationship with us. I am really glad they bought Fotolia.
-
One relief in this situation that i'm having a BME on Adobe.. And already started to suggest to my designer friends to use Adobe instead of SS.
I know that there are other sites that pay higher commissions than Adobe (which can be still be considered a painfully low percentage...), but for various reasons I just cannot see them to grow to be a true substitute for SS
-
I can't be the only one here who has noticed that Mat is not here right now. No "Mat sighting" for several days on this Forum.
Only two possible things could explain this.
1. Either something "good" is going on behind the scenes at Adobe and Mat will soon be back here to tell us about it.
2. Or nothing "good" is going on behind the scenes at Adobe. Maybe nothing whatsoever is going on and Mat just doesn't want to come back to disappoint us.
Time will tell, I guess.
Meanwhile, as much as it will hurt, I'm ready to deactivate my 3137 images from SS on June 1.
-
Just added this Video to spice up Adobe :-) https://youtu.be/E7t1VSX3YT4
-
We are all Adobe customers.
Not true. I know a few people that have shifted over to Affinity products as there is no choke hold with the monthly $$$ cloud. A good friend of mine who is a designer switched and has not looked back, he introduced my wife to it, she switched and has not looked back. Just sayin.
-
We are all Adobe customers.
They probably make significantly more money from us than many of us make from a little additional stock income.
And many creatives are media professionals in their day jobs, they build websites, design flyers, make videos for advertising etc...and customers and clients will often ask zs which agency we recommend.
You don‘t need ne essarily need referal links, nearly all my recommendations where done without.
But I will only recommend companies with transparent and rational business behaviour. Until May 26 2020, Shutterstock was a very drama free company.
So, why not recommend good agencies to clients.
And Adobe is the only company that has a symbiotic relationship with us. I am really glad they bought Fotolia.
For now just wishful thinking. Lots of people having are hard time navigating the Adobe MS part of the site. Lots of mistake licensing and other things. I see it all the time. 🙂As far as payment, its as good as its ever going to be for a MS site.......for now. 😶
-
I really miss the long term annual statistics.
I really liked the graph and table showing how much i've earned every year.
Why is it gone?
Will it be back?
-
The naivety in this thread is staggering. I don't consider myself an old-timer with lots of wisdom or anything, but there are many experienced contributors here whom I respect and who -in my opinion- should know better after all those years of experience with agencies.
Like I said in another thread: no agency is ever your 'friend'. They're a business with the intention of making profit in anyway they see fit. Even though I have no trouble with Adobe, just because SS has gone to hell, doesn't suddenly make Adobe the perfect agency.
Sooner or later, every agency (especially when they get more market share) will make business decisions that could hurt our revenue. Adobe is no exception.
Their sole purpose is to make money with your assets, and to (most) agencies, with the exception of the highest earners, you're just a number, an expendable artist.
Last but not least, Adobe has no reason to "incentivize" new contributors with special exclusivity deals. Why? Because new contributors will flock to Adobe anyway now that SS has scared them away.
So what's with all the bootlicking in this thread?