Author Topic: Will Fotolia Ever Have Editorial Content? (Read 7330 times)

wds · « **on:** September 11, 2015, 16:08 »

iStock and Shutterstock both have editorial content. Has Fotolia ever discussed the possiblity of having Editorial content?

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 12, 2015, 06:35 »

Not that I've ever heard. I'm sure Matt will know more...

60D · « **Reply #2 on:** September 12, 2015, 08:59 »

It will be great if Fotolia accepts editorial content. There is a good demand for editorial images as well.

50% · « **Reply #3 on:** September 12, 2015, 12:22 »

I hope not and with Adobe and it's mostly creative/commercial users it would be a very bad idea too!

Dumc · « **Reply #4 on:** September 12, 2015, 12:46 »

So increasing your chances to have more sales is a bad idea?

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** September 12, 2015, 12:49 »

Quote from: 50% on September 12, 2015, 12:22

I hope not and with Adobe and it's mostly creative/commercial users it would be a very bad idea too!

I'm sure a lot of editorial users use InDesign for layout.
That said, I hope not too, obviously.

50% · « **Reply #6 on:** September 12, 2015, 13:08 »

Quote from: Dumc on September 12, 2015, 12:46

So increasing your chances to have more sales is a bad idea?

From a buyers side we wan't hazzle free images and don't wanna worry about image rights, you can use editorial images only in very specific circumstances and this differs from country to country thats not hazzle free.
From a contributor side I don't think microstock is the right outlet for editorial images, there are excepctions like simple shots from Logos like Apple, Google, Facebook but in general no, demand is too low for microstock prices and it's also better suited as RM.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** September 12, 2015, 13:24 »

Quote from: Dumc on September 12, 2015, 12:46

So increasing your chances to have more sales is a bad idea?

It's not increasing your chances.
If the files aren't available at one site, buyers who need them must look elsewhere, where suppliers might actually make more per sale.

wds · « **Reply #8 on:** September 12, 2015, 13:28 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 12, 2015, 13:24

Quote from: Dumc on September 12, 2015, 12:46
So increasing your chances to have more sales is a bad idea?
It's not increasing your chances.
If the files aren't available at one site, buyers who need them must look elsewhere, where suppliers might actually make more per sale.

Like where (for editorial) ?

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** September 12, 2015, 13:36 »

Quote from: wds on September 12, 2015, 13:28

Quote from: ShadySue on September 12, 2015, 13:24
Quote from: Dumc on September 12, 2015, 12:46
So increasing your chances to have more sales is a bad idea?
It's not increasing your chances.
If the files aren't available at one site, buyers who need them must look elsewhere, where suppliers might actually make more per sale.

Like where (for editorial) ?

Alamy, Getty, iStock ...

wds · « **Reply #10 on:** September 12, 2015, 13:41 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 12, 2015, 13:36

Quote from: wds on September 12, 2015, 13:28
Quote from: ShadySue on September 12, 2015, 13:24
Quote from: Dumc on September 12, 2015, 12:46
So increasing your chances to have more sales is a bad idea?
It's not increasing your chances.
If the files aren't available at one site, buyers who need them must look elsewhere, where suppliers might actually make more per sale.

Like where (for editorial) ?
Alamy, Getty, iStock ...

Not sure I'm following the reasoning...how does this reasoning differ for non-editorial content?

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** September 12, 2015, 13:43 »

Quote from: 50% on September 12, 2015, 13:08

From a contributor side I don't think microstock is the right outlet for editorial images, there are excepctions like simple shots from Logos like Apple, Google, Facebook but in general no, demand is too low for microstock prices and it's also better suited as RM.

Simple logos aren't accepted (in theory) by Alamy or iStock, so there is presumably an issue with them.

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** September 12, 2015, 13:43 »

Quote from: wds on September 12, 2015, 13:41

Quote from: ShadySue on September 12, 2015, 13:36
Quote from: wds on September 12, 2015, 13:28
Quote from: ShadySue on September 12, 2015, 13:24
Quote from: Dumc on September 12, 2015, 12:46
So increasing your chances to have more sales is a bad idea?
It's not increasing your chances.
If the files aren't available at one site, buyers who need them must look elsewhere, where suppliers might actually make more per sale.

Like where (for editorial) ?
Alamy, Getty, iStock ...

Not sure I'm following the reasoning...how does this reasoning differ for non-editorial content?

I didn't say it differed.

Belish · « **Reply #13 on:** September 12, 2015, 16:29 »

I don't know about buyer's perspective, but from my point of view there are lots of great and usable images that can not be anything but editorial. I really hope one day Fotolia consider this option!

Newsfocus1 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 13, 2015, 14:12 »

Considering they are the only agency in the Big 4 and Middle Tier ranking not to offer editorial to their customers I would have expected them to have come to this eventually. Why leave money on the table? What makes it seem much more likely to me is Scott Braut joining Adobe. Coming from Shutterstock, Scott will know only too well the demand for editorial stock images. Regards, David.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Will Fotolia Ever Have Editorial Content? (Read 7330 times)

wds

sgoodwin4813

60D

50%

Dumc

ShadySue

50%

ShadySue

wds

ShadySue

wds

ShadySue

ShadySue

Belish

Newsfocus1

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors