MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: vectorsforall on May 20, 2022, 12:35
-
Adobe Stock has shutterstocked us. Same amount of videos as monthly usual, but big drop in revenue.
Thank you very much for this ! >:(
-
I'm afraid this is the new norm, ultimately where contributors will be getting 28 cents a video DL like they used to with images at SS. There is no way Adobe will not follow suit with SS on images and even videos, especially if stock assets have their own P&L. This is merely phase one with Adobe. It won't be too long before penny royalties are common.
-
It won't be too long before penny royalties are common.
When that day comes, I'm done with stock photography. There's simply no point chasing pennies with dollars.
-
I'm afraid this is the new norm, ultimately where contributors will be getting 28 cents a video DL like they used to with images at SS.
This new norm is the result of agencies insidious-for-creators subscription and bundled assets business models.
Individual creator IP assets are deeply discounted when sold via subscriptions and bundled packages of images/footage.
Great for cheap out asset buyers and increasing agency sales and maybe the holy grail of market share.
But makes image/footage creation pretty much a financially untenable proposition.
-
I'm not submitting motion graphics templates any longer. A drop from $8 a download to cents is ridiculous.
-
There is Always a higher level of greed with stock agencies
#adobestockisthenewshutterstock
-
I ended with video with the shutter, Istock and now adobe scam. I make more money by saving my time and taking down my online and physical storage sites for tedious video
-
I was never into photos (only 600 images online) but I was very serious with video, 23.800 clips online. I stopped the same day SS bought P5. So, I'm done with this business because it's totally useless. Cca 5.000 clips will stay on my HDD. High quality 4K clips will never see any of those sites and protentional buyers. Subscriptions are killing this business. For example, I have an annual subscription to Storyblocks and I have unlimited downloads. From videos, after effect templates, sound effects, images, anything. I can d/l the entire f*****g server. Maybe even some of your work. If everyone stopped uploading, there would be a light in the tunnel. But, there isn't any light anymore.
Adobestock is one of the biggest disappointments in this industry and P5 was the last oasis.
-
There is Always a higher level of greed with stock agencies
Stock agencies are "for profit" businesses. Nothing wrong with being in business for profit. Greed is part of increasing business stockholder value, and executive/staff and asset creator/supplier compensation. It's a major driver of their business models. Greed no doubt plays it's part - as it does in many aspects of business and life.
It's become glaringly obvious in recent years that stock agencies organic growth has stagnated.
That's why agencies consolidate and gobble up competitors, spread and share creator assets across competing platforms, and drive asset pricing down with subscription and bundled asset schemes to untenable levels for asset creators. All attempts to grab more market share.
It's apparently the only methods they have left to drive growth in the industry.
-
Cent-subscriptions are killing the business for those contributors who create quality. What will be left is some third world social media-like crap with no meaning at all. Aood images and videos catch attention, talentless sh!t does not. I think the quality stock libraries will soon die out. We can earn more by collecting paper or bottles and do not need expensive equipment for it like some agencies tend to demand.
-
There is Always a higher level of greed with stock agencies
Stock agencies are "for profit" businesses. Nothing wrong with being in business for profit. Greed is part of increasing business stockholder value, and executive/staff and asset creator/supplier compensation. It's a major driver of their business models. Greed no doubt plays it's part - as it does in many aspects of business and life.
It's become glaringly obvious in recent years that stock agencies organic growth has stagnated.
That's why agencies consolidate and gobble up competitors, spread and share creator assets across competing platforms, and drive asset pricing down with subscription and bundled asset schemes to untenable levels for asset creators. All attempts to grab more market share.
It's apparently the only methods they have left to drive growth in the industry.
So why don't they raise prices like many other industries do? If the main players do that....would solve a lot of problems.
-
[
So why don't they raise prices like many other industries do? If the main players do that....would solve a lot of problems.
Because they are deathly afraid if they raise prices their cheap out buyers will run to another agency with cheaper pricing and they would loose some market share. It's a death spiral.
If more than one agency raised prices they would be hauled into court or before Congress and accused of "price fixing". 8)
-
When Adobe remade their tiers three years ago and increased payments for most contributors, I was excited and thought it would push other stock companies to increase their payments or at least not decrease them. Then along came Shutterstock less than a year later with their cuts…
-
When Adobe remade their tiers three years ago and increased payments for most contributors, I was excited and thought it would push other stock companies to increase their payments or at least not decrease them. Then along came Shutterstock less than a year later with their cuts…
No one is going to to raise our percentage if we keep uploading regardless.
-
Subscriptions are killing this business. For example, I have an annual subscription to Storyblocks and I have unlimited downloads. From videos, after effect templates, sound effects, images, anything. I can d/l the entire f*****g server.
So, you hate subscriptions, but have a Storyblocks subscription account?
I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head. For the contributor, subscriptions aren't optimal. But for the customer, subscriptions can be a valuable resource.
And what group drives this and any other business? The customer.
BTW, I've talked to Storyblocks about the "download the entire server" concern and they assure me they have measures in place to curb download abuse.
-
There is Always a higher level of greed with stock agencies
Stock agencies are "for profit" businesses. Nothing wrong with being in business for profit. Greed is part of increasing business stockholder value, and executive/staff and asset creator/supplier compensation. It's a major driver of their business models. Greed no doubt plays it's part - as it does in many aspects of business and life.
It's become glaringly obvious in recent years that stock agencies organic growth has stagnated.
That's why agencies consolidate and gobble up competitors, spread and share creator assets across competing platforms, and drive asset pricing down with subscription and bundled asset schemes to untenable levels for asset creators. All attempts to grab more market share.
It's apparently the only methods they have left to drive growth in the industry.
So why don't they raise prices like many other industries do? If the main players do that....would solve a lot of problems.
Other industries only raise prices to offset higher costs. Price competition is always important. Microstock lowers pay for us to reduce costs then lowers prices and makes more profit. How would stock sites make more money by paying us more? If you can answer that question, tell them so we get paid more fairly.
-
When Adobe remade their tiers three years ago and increased payments for most contributors, I was excited and thought it would push other stock companies to increase their payments or at least not decrease them. Then along came Shutterstock less than a year later with their cuts…
Getty was trying to raise iStock's prices, but SS held theirs down, years before that.
-
How would stock sites make more money by paying us more?
That is not the real question. The real question is “Why would stock sites pay us more?".
-
The big players (Adobe, Shutterstock, Gettys) have enough photos of each and every subject by now. For that, it is understandable to lower commissions for contributors. Why pay for something you already have?
But the problem is that they have a lot of junk. This junk will keep growing because good artists with decent gear will stop (or have already stopped) contributing for these pennies that will not pay for their gear, let alone giving them an income big enough to be sustainable.
For the clients, of the stock company, this growing junk will eventually cause a inevitable problem. If you are looking for a photo (or video) for your project you can't see the tree in the forrest anymore. And then the photos available will not be that different anymore from what you can get for free anyway.
I'll bet my dollar on the stock company that curates their stock the best and serves, in that way, their clients best above the ones that keep accumulating junk.
So either, a stock company sells top of the edge with decent commissions or the whole industry will sink into oblivion.
Adobe premium is a good try (but I do see a lot of junk there as well, so that will not fly).
-
...
I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head. For the contributor, subscriptions aren't optimal. But for the customer, subscriptions can be a valuable resource....
it's not subscriptions per se,but the company's policy - Canva distributes sub fees based on downloads and my income from Canva is 10 times what it was before, usually more than twice that of AS
-
Subscriptions are killing this business. For example, I have an annual subscription to Storyblocks and I have unlimited downloads. From videos, after effect templates, sound effects, images, anything. I can d/l the entire f*****g server.
So, you hate subscriptions, but have a Storyblocks subscription account?
I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head. For the contributor, subscriptions aren't optimal. But for the customer, subscriptions can be a valuable resource.
And what group drives this and any other business? The customer.
BTW, I've talked to Storyblocks about the "download the entire server" concern and they assure me they have measures in place to curb download abuse.
Of course. I have clients and clients need video and photo material. Storyblocks offered me a subscription and I took it. I am also a contributor, I have 23,800 videos online. For me this business is dead for us contributors. I'm no longer uploading and I'm considering deleting all files. So, how did I hit the nail on the head (intentionally)? Who's fault is it for the price drop? It's you. The employer can offer you a 10 cent hourly rate but it's up to you if you accept it. It's us. Contributors never learn. I personally would rather not sell anything than sell below the "normal" price. I value myself, I value my work, I value my knowledge. I will never sell video for a dollar.
"Download the entire server" was figuratively speaking but still not far from the truth. Maybe some people doing it, I don't know.
-
Contributors never learn. I personally would rather not sell anything than sell below the "normal" price. I value myself, I value my work, I value my knowledge. I will never sell video for a dollar.
You're right... contributors never learn. They mistakenly think that selling video for a dollar or less equates to not valuing themselves, their work or their knowledge. An extreme example, but Coca Cola sell drinks for a dollar or less and they seem to be doing quite well for themselves.
The important thing to remember is that the agencies are all out to make as much money as possible, so if they alter the way they, sell or the amount they charge, or the options they make available to customers... but the money is still split in the same way between us and them... then it's possible that (all things being equal) you're going to make as much money as possible as well. If the changes result in the money being split in a different way where we get a lower percentage than them... well yeah, that's a different barrel of otters altogether.
With a playing field that is changing from month to month as a result of new agencies, closing agencies, changes to royalties and changes to prices etc... how much money you have in the bank at the end of the month is the only true constant that I feel we should be focussing on. Sure, a drop in percentages or prices is bad, but it's hardly on Amnesty International's radar. It still amazes me how many people seem to be itching for any possible reason to earn less money than they are currently. You can barely go a day in here without somebody saying something like I used to earn $100 at this agency which I was happy with, and now I'm earning $75 which I'm not happy with, so I've decided to pull my portfolio as I'd be much happier earning $0. It's the textbook definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If I'd ditch my portfolio with every agency that did something I didn't like, then I'd be earning virtually zero dollars a month by now. Instead, I'm earning more than I ever have, even from subscription sites, two of which are my highest earners.
Sure... pride in your work, pride in your skills and knowledge and experience, not taking it lying down etc etc. That's wonderful, but this isn't government oppression. It's not human rights abuses. It's not anything that will ever get even a footnote in a history book. It's a business, an industry, one that's relatively new comparatively (especially if we just consider online stock), and as such is changing regularly. Taking photos and making videos may be an artform, but selling stock is a business and we should all be doing whatever we can to earn as much as possible for as long as possible.
-
How would stock sites make more money by paying us more?
That is not the real question. The real question is “Why would stock sites pay us more?".
Yeah, good point.
When Adobe remade their tiers three years ago and increased payments for most contributors, I was excited and thought it would push other stock companies to increase their payments or at least not decrease them. Then along came Shutterstock less than a year later with their cuts…
Getty was trying to raise iStock's prices, but SS held theirs down, years before that.
When did Getty try to raise prices? Was that when they killed everything and went to no levels, no tiers, just 15% forever? Or are you talking about something for exclusives? Surely not for the common folks.
Or did Getty release some sad story about how they wanted to raise prices, but Shutterstock stopped them. Oh poor little Getty, no mind of their own, no way they could just do something instead of saying, "I was going to but, someone else..."
Hey wait? Adobe raised our earnings. I guess SS didn't stop them? :)
-
Getty was trying to raise iStock's prices, but SS held theirs down, years before that.
When did Getty try to raise prices? Was that when they killed everything and went to no levels, no tiers, just 15% forever? Or are you talking about something for exclusives? Surely not for the common folks.
I can't remember the timing vis a vis the tiers revision, but there was a time I was averaging just under $7 rpd (as a low-tier exclusive) and others were averaging well over $8 a licence.
Looked back at my records, and these figures were from 2014-2016. Everything started to go far south for me in Jan 2017.
(My highest earning year was 2012, when my rpd average was c$4.75, but many more licences sold.)
-
Getty was trying to raise iStock's prices, but SS held theirs down, years before that.
When did Getty try to raise prices? Was that when they killed everything and went to no levels, no tiers, just 15% forever? Or are you talking about something for exclusives? Surely not for the common folks.
I can't remember the timing vis a vis the tiers revision, but there was a time I was averaging just under $7 rpd (as a low-tier exclusive) and others were averaging well over $8 a licence.
Looked back at my records, and these figures were from 2014-2016. Everything started to go far south for me in Jan 2017.
(My highest earning year was 2012, when my rpd average was c$4.75, but many more licences sold.)
Yes but two things, you're good and you're Exclusive. ;D 8)
Yes, the 15%, for the rest of us, started sometime 2015/2016 I didn't go digging for the specific date.
-
More and more 2,80 and 5,60 video commissions :-( A bunch of old licenses (28 and 56, sometimes 70) still sold but probably the last. Video income actually divided by 10.
Dear Adobe Stock, welcome to the Istock/Shutterstock greedy family. (yes complaining, that's all we have left)
-
Even Pond 5 I am now getting $2 royalties. Rather than offer subscriptions they just "negotiate" a package price and regardless of what you have the clip priced at, forget it. You get what they give, subscription level peanuts through a back door way of screwing contributors once more. This is the new norm now, until it isn't.
-
you guys complain but thats useless.
Pull out. There's still Videohive that lets you choose your prices.
There's Creative Market, Shopify, Gumroad.
They're only doing this because you're allowing them to.
Please, don't give me the "family to feed" nonsense,
2.60$ will hardly get you a Kilogram of rice in western nations.
-
LOOK, IT'S VERY SIMPLE!
Video for a few cents? Don't upload video. Delete already uploaded videos.
Photo for a few cents? Don't upload photo. Delete already uploaded photos.
Actually I closed accounts with Dreamstime, Big Stock, Deposit photos and soon it will be Pond5(SS)
I'm not some looser who depends on ridiculous income from greedy stock agencies. My own shots are valuable to me and I respect my own work.