MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: wds on September 11, 2015, 16:08
-
iStock and Shutterstock both have editorial content. Has Fotolia ever discussed the possiblity of having Editorial content?
-
Not that I've ever heard. I'm sure Matt will know more...
-
It will be great if Fotolia accepts editorial content. There is a good demand for editorial images as well.
-
I hope not and with Adobe and it's mostly creative/commercial users it would be a very bad idea too!
-
So increasing your chances to have more sales is a bad idea?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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) ?
-
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 ...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.