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

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

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

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.

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) ?

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?

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.

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.