pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What does the Adobe Stock program mean for royalties?  (Read 11496 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 26, 2015, 09:51 »
+16
I thought it would be good to take a more comprehensive look at what it means for contributors if buyers switch from the major sites to Adobe Stock in terms of royalties paid (don't take any of this as fact, look it up yourselves I could have made mistakes). 

Adobe Stock offers 4 different plans:
1)  Single image sales $10 with a royalty of $3.30
2)  Ten images for one month $50 with a royalty of $1.65 each
3)  Ten images a month with an annual plan $30 per month with a royalty of .99 each.
4)  Subs 750 month with a royalty of .31 (this if for gold level 10,000-25,000 sales)

For SS that breaks down to
1)  going from $4.35 to $3.30 per sale
2)  $1.88-2.85 to $1.65
3)  $1.88-2.85 to .99
4)  .38 to .31

For iStock that breaks down to
1)  $1.80-2.40 going to $3.30
2)  $1.58-2.10 going to $1.65
3)  $1.30-1.73 going to .99
4)  .28 to .31

For Fotolia credit sales for nonexclusives at gold level (3 and 4 have near identical plans and royalties)
1)  $3.72 going to $3.30
2)  $3.72 going to $1.65
3)  stays the same
4)  stays the same

For Dreamstime nonexclusive sales (level 1-level 5)
1)  $3.40-9.97 going to $3.30
2)  $2.94-9.90 going to $1.65
3)  $2 going to .99
4)  .35 going to .31

For 123RF
1)  $2.16-4.32 going to $3.30
2)  $1.67-3.34 going to $1.65
3)  $1.52-3.04 going to .99
4)  .36 going to .31

The royalties listed above for each site are, in my opinion, the most equivalent plans but those can differ depending on how many credits or images are bought.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 12:20 by tickstock »


« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2015, 09:52 »
+2
I tried to find the best plan that was equivalent to the Adobe Stock offering, if there are any errors let me know so I can fix it.

« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2015, 10:01 »
+5
That makes for pretty horrific reading really. Thanks for taking the time to do the math.


« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2015, 10:07 »
+2
I tried to find the best plan that was equivalent to the Adobe Stock offering, if there are any errors let me know so I can fix it.

Maybe it makes sense to add the plans you chose to the list.

One comment:
On Adobe Stock there seems to be no differentiation of file size. Any sale is biggest size, I assume.
It looks to me that your comparison royalties at the other sites are numbers for the biggest file size as well.

But on FT, DT, 123RF my current sales are distributed across all sizes.
So your scenario is a worst case (only the buyers of the full size files switch). If a smaller size on any of these sites is replaced by an Adobe Stock sale, numbers will look different.
Including that all would make it very complex, I agree.

Thanks for doing the math anyway.

« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2015, 10:11 »
+1
Thank you for putting that together. However what we need to know is what kind of mix is actually selling and how many of those are extended licenses.

Maybe you could add the extended licenses to the list? I think they are really important.

On SS extended licenses for 77-120 dollars really exist I get them nearly every month and sometimes several. And some months none, but I still have less than 700 photos.

So when they happen, they just have a tremendous influence on your income. On Fotolia and istock I get very few extended licenses.

On Fotolia half my sales are credit sales, on SS, just by volume, it is mostly subs. On istock it is shifting drastically towards subs.

So the numbers you can see still dont really tell me the story of how much I will earn where.

On adobe at the moment you cannot get extended licenses, but they didnt say this will never come.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2015, 10:14 »
+4


On SS extended licenses for 77-120 dollars
Those are not extended licences. EL is $28 and no variations.

« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2015, 10:16 »
+10
This guy is just obsessed with Fotolia and SS and their prices. Probably just trying to convince himself to stay exclusive at Istock.

« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2015, 10:18 »
0


On SS extended licenses for 77-120 dollars
Those are not extended licences. EL is $28 and no variations.


You are right, they are called differently. Well whatever they are, they really do happen and influence your income very drastically. If I could see any pattern I would shoot only that, but I cant.

Single/Two Image On Demand
& Any Products Not Listed

20% of sale price received (up to $80)*
25% of sale price received (up to $100)*
28% of sale price received (up to $112)*
30% of sale price received (up to $120)*
* Or more, based on sale price received.

These are genuinly part of the SS download experience, not once in a thousand years events.

Maybe these and extended licenses from other agencies can be added on top.



http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 10:21 by cobalt »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2015, 10:19 »
+5
 Its obvious that in that list in the OP Istock is the worst, they pay even less than SS.

And there is something missing in the pricing for SS as SS also has the $1.24 ODD

« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2015, 10:24 »
+1
Some more comments to the numbers:

On FT, where did you get the $4,34 from?
Gold level pays 31%, all royalties are based on credits, biggest size (XXL) is 12 credits -> royalty is 3,72 credits (which is $3,72 for US contributors, 3,72 for Euro contributors, ...)

On DT I cannot remember ever getting $3,40 for a level one sale. It says $3,40 on their rate schedule (http://www.dreamstime.com/sell-stock-photos-images), but it also has a footnote: "*these are maximum values."
Reality looks quite different (I assume because most customers buy bigger credit packages with discounts).

But the upper limit is higher than you write, the rate schedule says up to $11.63 for a level 5 maximum size sale.

I'm not trying to take any position here.
I believe having such a comparison of different royalties for different buying models makes a lot of sense - independent of the recent Adobe Stock deal.
But we should strive to get the numbers right.

« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2015, 10:27 »
0
I tried to find the best plan that was equivalent to the Adobe Stock offering, if there are any errors let me know so I can fix it.

Maybe it makes sense to add the plans you chose to the list.

One comment:
On Adobe Stock there seems to be no differentiation of file size. Any sale is biggest size, I assume.
It looks to me that your comparison royalties at the other sites are numbers for the biggest file size as well.

But on FT, DT, 123RF my current sales are distributed across all sizes.
So your scenario is a worst case (only the buyers of the full size files switch). If a smaller size on any of these sites is replaced by an Adobe Stock sale, numbers will look different.
Including that all would make it very complex, I agree.

Thanks for doing the math anyway.
Correct, it is for the largest size because that is what Fotolia is offering.  It would be much more time consuming to compare Small sized 123RF sales to full sized Adobe Stock sales. 

« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2015, 10:31 »
+2
Thank you for putting that together. However what we need to know is what kind of mix is actually selling and how many of those are extended licenses.

Maybe you could add the extended licenses to the list? I think they are really important.

On SS extended licenses for 77-120 dollars really exist I get them nearly every month and sometimes several. And some months none, but I still have less than 700 photos.

So when they happen, they just have a tremendous influence on your income. On Fotolia and istock I get very few extended licenses.

On Fotolia half my sales are credit sales, on SS, just by volume, it is mostly subs. On istock it is shifting drastically towards subs.

So the numbers you can see still dont really tell me the story of how much I will earn where.

On adobe at the moment you cannot get extended licenses, but they didnt say this will never come.
Yeah it's not a complete list, that would be very difficult to do in a fair way I think there are just too many variables and options, it would take a lot of guesses and time.  About ELs, Adobe Stock doesn't offer them (you have to leave the site, do you know if you would need to buy credits separately and sign up for a new account to do that?) and in my opinion the barriers of going to Fotolia along with not making them visible may dramatically reduce those.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 11:45 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2015, 10:33 »
+3
I'm not sure where the numbers come from. Honestly. SS subs are 38. ODD $2.85. ED $28. SOD 38$100+. I don't know how or if AS will handle large enterprises, which give us the large SODs.

On iS subs pay 28. Credit sales are all over the place, but much lower than they were before April. For me EL's are virtually nonexistent. Special deals with different buyers means I have no idea what files actually sell for. But I do know I get only 20% royalties and help foot the bill every time they offer a discount.

On DT, it depends how many times the image has sold.

The other sites I'm not on so I have no idea.

If sales leave iS and go to AS it will probably be better (and more likely). If they come from SS (less likely) it will be worse. If the overall market continues to grow, it may just mean continuing sales everywhere else and more sales on AS. So I honestly have no idea if AS will be better, worse or a wash.

« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2015, 10:33 »
0
Its obvious that in that list in the OP Istock is the worst, they pay even less than SS.

And there is something missing in the pricing for SS as SS also has the $1.24 ODD
In my opinion, iStock for nonexclusives is worse on some counts but on others it's not.  For illustrators getting 20% the 10 image monthly and annual plans pay 30% less at Adobe.  The $1.24 ODs are for smaller sized sales which Adobe doesn't offer so I didn't compare that.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 11:45 by tickstock »

« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2015, 10:37 »
0
Some more comments to the numbers:

On FT, where did you get the $4,34 from?
Gold level pays 31%, all royalties are based on credits, biggest size (XXL) is 12 credits -> royalty is 3,72 credits (which is $3,72 for US contributors, 3,72 for Euro contributors, ...)

On DT I cannot remember ever getting $3,40 for a level one sale. It says $3,40 on their rate schedule (http://www.dreamstime.com/sell-stock-photos-images), but it also has a footnote: "*these are maximum values."
Reality looks quite different (I assume because most customers buy bigger credit packages with discounts).

But the upper limit is higher than you write, the rate schedule says up to $11.63 for a level 5 maximum size sale.

I'm not trying to take any position here.
I believe having such a comparison of different royalties for different buying models makes a lot of sense - independent of the recent Adobe Stock deal.
But we should strive to get the numbers right.

12 credits at fotolia costs $14 and 31% of that is $4.34.  https://us.fotolia.com/Info/BuyCreditsChooseAmount

For Dreamstime I used the smallest plan that would cover that purchase.

« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2015, 10:38 »
+1
That makes for pretty horrific reading really. Thanks for taking the time to do the math.
No problem I think it should be looked at honestly so if you see any problems with my opinions please point them out so they can be corrected.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 11:47 by tickstock »

« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2015, 10:44 »
0
Some more comments to the numbers:

On FT, where did you get the $4,34 from?
Gold level pays 31%, all royalties are based on credits, biggest size (XXL) is 12 credits -> royalty is 3,72 credits (which is $3,72 for US contributors, 3,72 for Euro contributors, ...)

On DT I cannot remember ever getting $3,40 for a level one sale. It says $3,40 on their rate schedule (http://www.dreamstime.com/sell-stock-photos-images), but it also has a footnote: "*these are maximum values."
Reality looks quite different (I assume because most customers buy bigger credit packages with discounts).

But the upper limit is higher than you write, the rate schedule says up to $11.63 for a level 5 maximum size sale.

I'm not trying to take any position here.
I believe having such a comparison of different royalties for different buying models makes a lot of sense - independent of the recent Adobe Stock deal.
But we should strive to get the numbers right.

12 credits at fotolia costs $14 and 31% of that is $4.34.  https://us.fotolia.com/Info/BuyCreditsChooseAmount

For Dreamstime I used the smallest plan that would cover that purchase.


On FT for credit sales you always get the same amount, independent what package the buyer chose.
A non-exclusive gold member receives always 3,72 credits for a maximum size sale.
Even if the buyer bought the credits via the biggest package, where the price per credit is about half the price for the smallest package.
This is why there is the currency issue - contributors get paid in credits independent of the real sales price (and credits have different values to the contributor depending on your account registration).

For DT reality shows (for me) that most of the credit sales come in at values a lot lower than the advertised maximum values, so I assume most buyers buy bigger packages.

« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2015, 10:50 »
+1
Overall the list as it is looks terrible of course, but this is the way it has always been. Royalties are now much higher than when I started, we only got 20 cents. So it has gone up a lot.

Very low individual prices and very high downloads, that is microstock. You really need to see if an agency can deliver the volume. If the volume is there, the low prices work for total return and in fact your income is very, very stable. Much better than getting a 600 dollar download once a year or every 5 years for a file.

It will be interesting to see what happens with adobe as a new marketplace.

« Reply #18 on: June 26, 2015, 10:50 »
0
On FT for credit sales you always get the same amount, independent what package the buyer chose.
A non-exclusive gold member receives always 3,72 credits for a maximum size sale.
Even if the buyer bought the credits via the biggest package, where the price per credit is about half the price for the smallest package.
This is why there is the currency issue - contributors get paid in credits independent of the real sales price (and credits have different values to the contributor depending on your account registration).

For DT reality shows (for me) that most of the credit sales come in at values a lot lower than the advertised maximum values, so I assume most buyers buy bigger packages.
Ok I'll change that. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: June 26, 2015, 11:02 »
+3
For DT reality shows (for me) that most of the credit sales come in at values a lot lower than the advertised maximum values, so I assume most buyers buy bigger packages.
I think a good proportion of iS buyers are on non-advertised deals.
Added: but then there are the discounts which mean reductions in OUR income when the site fails (that's really unfair), and various other discounts bandied about from time to time.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 11:27 by ShadySue »

Shelma1

« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2015, 11:20 »
+3
This guy is just obsessed with Fotolia and SS and their prices. Probably just trying to convince himself to stay exclusive at Istock.

Worried, I'd guess. Getty is in a precarious financial position and is losing large enterprise customers to SS. Adobe Stock will now make it more convenient for people to get stock images. It looks worse for exclusives every day. If forced to give up exclusivity they'll have an immediate drop in income for a while.

objowl

« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2015, 11:29 »
+3
Don't expect a great migration of buyers to adobe any time soon, the market adobe is aimed at is fairly mature, shutterstock know this and have moved on to increase market share by creating new direct markets and by increasing their service to enterprise clients.  Not that they won't be defending strongly the markets that they currently have a strong presence, you will have noticed changes to their subscription plans and terms in this regard.
I think adobe have more to worry about with shuttterstock selling images direct to the end users thereby cutting out the creative middle men who use abobe products. 

« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2015, 11:39 »
+5
Good study, but you should add the $0.19 sales from IS partners to it.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2015, 13:34 »
0
-----------------------
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 13:40 by everest »

« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2015, 13:53 »
+4
This guy is just obsessed with Fotolia and SS and their prices. Probably just trying to convince himself to stay exclusive at Istock.

Worried, I'd guess. Getty is in a precarious financial position and is losing large enterprise customers to SS. Adobe Stock will now make it more convenient for people to get stock images. It looks worse for exclusives every day. If forced to give up exclusivity they'll have an immediate drop in income for a while.
What I would really like is for Adobe to discuss the issue of raising prices and royalties with us.  If the numbers I posted are right then I think it should be discussed.  Adobe is a very large company that relies on photographers so Adobe Stock should benefit all of us.

« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2015, 14:37 »
+3
It seems to me like Adobe could do very well and still offer more to contributors.  For instance 500 dls per month subs plan at the same price and pay 50 cents to everyone, $20 single sales and $100 packs of 10.  That would beat most all of the other sites and it's not too much for buyers to pay.  As an Adobe user I would much rather see a plan like that in place.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 14:43 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2015, 14:53 »
+7
Sure, Adobe could offer us more. That would be great. But what would be better, for me at least, would be if iStock went back to higher prices and raised royalties to match Adobe's. I have many, many more images with iS than with Adobe, and iS has the lowest royalties around. If they matched Adobe even without raising prices my earnings there would instantly go up more than 50%, and would more than double for indie photographers who get an even lower royalty rate than I do.

« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2015, 15:04 »
+9
It seems to me like Adobe could do very well and still offer more to contributors.  For instance 500 dls per month subs plan at the same price and pay 50 cents to everyone, $20 single sales and $100 packs of 10.  That would beat most all of the other sites and it's not too much for buyers to pay.  As an Adobe user I would much rather see a plan like that in place.

Agree. That would be great.
And in addition I'd like Shutterstock to raise their royalty rate to 50%.
And I'd like Istock (Getty) to travel back in time and NOT sell out to financial investors and paying them huge dividends out of massive amounts of new debt piled on Getty - while telling us that paying us 20% of the sales price is not sustainable, so they have to cut it.
Or maybe travel back some more and starting microstock not with 20% royalty on 1$ prices but 80% royalty on 50$ prices.
Or maybe the macro agencies back then not ignoring amateur photographers, crowd sourcing and the internet completely until Pandora's box was open and prices and royalties in free fall, but rather opening their doors to more people and educate the masses about what value their images could really have.

All that is done.

Adobe is certainly not bringing around heavenly times where all we need to do is sit back and watch the money rolling in.

But what they did is what I still see as one of the rare examples in this industry:

They have taken an existing offering (Fotolia) and actually made changes that improve the contributor situation.
Like raising the royalty for some offerings from 20% to 33%. Or making achieving next levels easier by counting subs as full download (also for past downloads).

So for me Adobe is not the first target in the line when fighting against contributor-unfriendly conditions.

« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2015, 15:17 »
+3
So for me Adobe is not the first target in the line when fighting against contributor-unfriendly conditions.
They might be the first that's willing to listen?

« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2015, 15:21 »
+1
So for me Adobe is not the first target in the line when fighting against contributor-unfriendly conditions.
They might be the first that's willing to listen?

Good point. I must admit I didn't look at it that way...

« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2015, 16:33 »
+6
How about we just give them time to roll out the store, make sales, accumulate data, add video, learn even more and in 9 months all of us will know much more how their store is doing?

They came in and gave us more money. Lets give them a little time before the aggressive lobbying starts.

Maybe we should just say "Thank you".

I think it would be great if they offered an additional premium segment, sort of macro for the masses which was easier to get into than normally. If they added editorial, including editorial video. And premium video or premium vectors with higher prices than normal. etc...

Other people will have other ideas.

And who knows what they themselves will come up with. They are not stupid, they understand the media market very well. They have made it clear they want to work with us.

I dont think we need to panic, the stock market is not going to disappear. They are a new factor in the market and the other agencies have to respond. SS already mentioned a new premium segment, I am sure they will now have even more incentive to come up with something interesting.

Maybe even istock finally introduces exclusive images, because they realize this will attract good content and new people.

All the agencies know by now that we are ready to pull our files if necessary and that dramas are not good for their business. The internet has a long memories. Happy contributors are better for business and will license more adobe products.

« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2015, 02:13 »
+3
With all due respect you seem to be telling us all that you are working with both shutterstock and fotolia to recruit and train new contributors to fill areas of their collection that are lacking. You have a working relationship with both agencies that benefit the agencies bottom line not ours.

I think it is in our best interest to consider our own bottom lines, we need to protect our own assets.

« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2015, 12:53 »
+1
If all agencies become better in selling my local German files, I believe I will benefit.

It gives me more options to shoot instead of the same very generic images. It is a subject area in stock that I am personally interested in.

It would also mean less people working in that niche. "Christmas in Cologne" will have less files than "christmas tree" in general. "young people looking at tablet in front of cologne cathedral", much less than generic images.

There are a lot less artists taking pictures of Cologne, it is something that photographers in russia, US,asia etc... cant do (unless they come here for work or holiday).

So yes, localized content is a niche, but I also have a LOT less competition.

And to do that, agencies need more local content, so that customers will be interested in looking for these more niche images. The beer example is a simple one, although SS has thousands of beer images, from my city there is very little.

I could of course just look for these niches from my area, shoot what is missing, hope nobody else notices and be the only one who makes the local money.
But I cannot reasonably alone cover a whole region and if more people can make interesting local content, I think we will all together sell more.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I should hope the agencies dont encourage local content and just do it all by myself.

But I believe if more artists shoot local, more customers will know they can find it and I have more chances to get sales.

Overall I see every agency as a different marketplace. They might have some customer overlap, but I dont think customers will have contracts with all agencies. I also would prefer if several strong agencies exist, that somehow are all a little different to each other, instead of one super agency that dominates everything.

I could try to send my localized content maybe to a smaller agency here in Germany that is known for mostly local content. But how many customers will they reach across the globe? Or maybe I want to do both? Something very unusual and special for them, simple "friends in cologne beergarden" to anyone.

So I personally believe more local content will help my bottom line and allow me to work with less competition. Even if I then subdivide it by theme and say "food images from cologne go to fotolia", people stock exclusively elsewhere etc..I still need several agencies.

I would prefer it if several companies offer me good sales options for local content instead of one, i.e. I dont mind if adobe stock picks up german content, SS becomes stronger, istock too etc...the question should my files then be exclusive or go everywhere is a secondary one.

So these are my thoughts on "shooting local"

Sorry for the long post.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
41 Replies
13654 Views
Last post April 22, 2014, 19:41
by ShadySue
0 Replies
2389 Views
Last post October 03, 2018, 15:11
by Groucho
217 Replies
53605 Views
Last post August 21, 2020, 10:18
by mino216
72 Replies
23191 Views
Last post December 17, 2020, 10:43
by KuriousKat
42 Replies
7501 Views
Last post October 19, 2020, 04:36
by Shelma1

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle