MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Pickerell on July 23, 2015, 13:47
-
Adobe has hired Scott Braut, formerly VP of Content at Shutterstock. He has been named Head of Content and will drive the company’s overall content strategy and operations for Creative Cloud. Adobe says content is a strategic area of growth and focus as it builds a growing, strategic creative marketplace. Scott has over 20 years of experience in content licensing, product development, eCommerce, and digital media.
What kind of impact is this likely have on Adobe's ability to take market share from Shutterstock?
-
A big one I would imagine. SS have some serious competition at last
-
Good news
-
Great man for the job! Congratulations Scott!
-
Adobe has hired Scott Braut, formerly VP of Content at Shutterstock. He has been named Head of Content and will drive the company’s overall content strategy and operations for Creative Cloud. Adobe says content is a strategic area of growth and focus as it builds a growing, strategic creative marketplace. Scott has over 20 years of experience in content licensing, product development, eCommerce, and digital media.
What kind of impact is this likely have on Adobe's ability to take market share from Shutterstock?
What do you think?
-
Feel free to send me my sweetheart deal, Scott. Otherwise, I'll probably be sitting on the sideline until I see the needle move a little bit at FT/Adobe.
-
Wow, what a feather in Adobe's cap. Make some popcorn, the show is about to begin.
-
ShadySue:
I think he provides Adobe Stock with a lot of credibility among creators and I suspect that many image suppliers who have been taking a wait and see attitude with Adobe/Fotolia will be much more inclined to start contributing again.
My guess is that unit sales through Adobe Stock will increase and Shutterstock unit sales will decrease (actually continue to decrease if comment in other threads are any indication).
I think Morgan Stanley's underweight rating of Shutterstock stock at a price target of $40 makes a lot of sense. However, I would love to know the size of the Morgan Stanley's survey sample where they concluded that "55% of Shutterstock user indicated they would shift usage from Shutterstock to Adobe Stock if features were offered in the Adobe Creative Cloud that made importing images easier."
The big question is the number of Shutterstock subscription customers who start getting the images they need from Adobe. Shutterstock subscription downloads could fall dramatically. For many subscriptions customers Adobe will be a much better deal. If $0.38 subscription sales begin to decline significantly, how many Adobe sales with a royalty of about $1.00 will it take to make up the difference. Remember that Shutterstock subscription customers who have been downloading images that never make it into final deliverable projects won't need to do that with Adobe.
-
Thanks for your views.
-
It always sounds like a zero sum game when one site declines and another picks up, but somehow I always lose money. When Istock lost most of their customers to SS, my earnings went down. Now it looks like SS will lose a lot of customers to Adobe and I am wondering if I will lose more income. Already my income at FT and SS is dropping. I know it's July. I guess I'll see what happens in Sept.
-
I don't have anything negative to say about Scott, but I doubt this will make much of a difference. My experience with Fotolia was almost exclusively negative, and I don't think one hire will make a supplier-hostile organization any less so.
Acquisitions have a funny way of providing less synergy than we expect; it may be that Adobe's position on creatives' desktops will give Fotolia a chance to grow their business, or it won't. Adobe's own acquisitions have sometimes done well, and sometimes they've suffered neglect at the hands of their new owners.
I hope the move is a good one for Scott, but unless the people behind some incredibly poor decisions are pushed out of the way, I doubt the new Adobe-owned Fotolia will make me want to submit any new work.
-
...I think he provides Adobe Stock with a lot of credibility among creators and I suspect that many image suppliers who have been taking a wait and see attitude with Adobe/Fotolia will be much more inclined to start contributing again...
He's certainly a very nice start.
However I asked recently if I could contribute again (Fotolia wouldn't have me back after I left iStock exclusivity - I think I'm seen as trouble) and was told no. I was ready to give Adobe a shot, but they are clearly still Fotolia under the hood.
Perhaps in a few months he'll have fully taken the reins and things will be different?
-
Congratulations Scott.
Your first move should be to pay a decent royalty to contributors.
The pricing and royalty rate on offer at Adobe is not sustainable.
If we can't afford to produce content then you might also be losing your VP job in the long run, that is unless you have accepted a similar package that is not sustainable, but I doubt that very much. ;)
Selling up to 40 photos at the insanely low royalty rate of 0.25c just to afford the monthly cloud service to edit the photos is plain and simple usury.
Or to put it another way, I can't afford to submit my photos to Fotolia/Adobe.
Just sayin.
-
Wow, what a feather in Adobe's cap. Make some popcorn, the show is about to begin.
They could add two more feathers by dumping "the Chad" and Oleg (as their advisor, or whatever his role is).
-
What a delicious twist.... One of the most respected agency reps (Scott) coming in, when two of the least respected agency reps (The Chad and Oleg) will most likely be gone next year at this time, they are surely only sticking around for a predetermined length of time to fulfill obligations of the deal.
Joanne, send Scott a message directly about joining up while he still has time to speak with content providers.
-
A big one I would imagine. SS have some serious competition at last
not sure i get it what you say pauws. how is scott going to give ss competition when fotolia is paying you even far less than ss? the end game is still less money for everyone.
you move your work to fotoilia, you have to sell twice as much to earn the same leaving it in ss.
as bad as it is already, there is no evidence adobe is going to make a difference
anymore than going to getty or like some say to alamy , just because you get paid more
IF YOU SELL at getty or alamy.
IF... is a big word to bring out the popcorn.
-
A big one I would imagine. SS have some serious competition at last
not sure i get it what you say pauws. how is scott going to give ss competition when fotolia is paying you even far less than ss? the end game is still less money for everyone.
you move your work to fotoilia, you have to sell twice as much to earn the same leaving it in ss.
as bad as it is already, there is no evidence adobe is going to make a difference
anymore than going to getty or like some say to alamy , just because you get paid more
IF YOU SELL at getty or alamy.
IF... is a big word to bring out the popcorn.
Have you not noticed most people on this forum love less and cheer it on?
What gives?
-
Right now is a very Pivotal time in our future......ME THINKs.
-
Like others have said, I hope a fresh start means the contributors fotolia kicked out over dpc are allowed back on the fotolia marketplace.
Scott can handle critique in a professional way, he certainly doesn't get scared when people disagree with ihm.
And something like taking artists content behind their back and moving it to a new agency would probably not happen with him.
-
...Joanne, send Scott a message directly about joining up while he still has time to speak with content providers.
I had thought about it, but that really isn't fair to him. My guess is his hair will be on fire for a few months while he creates his new role with Adobe and if there are to be good things for contributors that come out of his hiring, better that he focuses on those. That would benefit lots of people over lots of years.
I'm by no means the only one Fotolia targeted; I hope there will be some general policy to correct the errors of the previous regime.
-
A general amnesty in the Kingdom of Fotolia 😀
-
ShadySue:
I think he provides Adobe Stock with a lot of credibility among creators and I suspect that many image suppliers who have been taking a wait and see attitude with Adobe/Fotolia will be much more inclined to start contributing again.
My guess is that unit sales through Adobe Stock will increase and Shutterstock unit sales will decrease (actually continue to decrease if comment in other threads are any indication).
I think Morgan Stanley's underweight rating of Shutterstock stock at a price target of $40 makes a lot of sense. However, I would love to know the size of the Morgan Stanley's survey sample where they concluded that "55% of Shutterstock user indicated they would shift usage from Shutterstock to Adobe Stock if features were offered in the Adobe Creative Cloud that made importing images easier."
The big question is the number of Shutterstock subscription customers who start getting the images they need from Adobe. Shutterstock subscription downloads could fall dramatically. For many subscriptions customers Adobe will be a much better deal. If $0.38 subscription sales begin to decline significantly, how many Adobe sales with a royalty of about $1.00 will it take to make up the difference. Remember that Shutterstock subscription customers who have been downloading images that never make it into final deliverable projects won't need to do that with Adobe.
I can tell you that at my company (revenue : $2B annually) marketing buys images from SS then gives them to graphics who does all the PS work. They have absolutely no incentive to move over to Adobe because our buyers are not using PS. I bet it's like that at a lot of places. Different for graphic artists doing both jobs I know but the point is that the large "graphic heavy company" I work for isn't changing anything and because of how they do their work they will probably not even know about the Adobe gig.
-
Another article on Scott Braut/Adobe, where they surmise he was waiting out a non-compete agreement before starting his new job (sounds likely to me; the six-month timing seems right):
http://resourcemagonline.com/2015/07/adobe-is-getting-really-serious-about-stock-just-hired-shutterstocks-former-vp-of-content/56158/ (http://resourcemagonline.com/2015/07/adobe-is-getting-really-serious-about-stock-just-hired-shutterstocks-former-vp-of-content/56158/)
Now if they would just make uploading easier for vector artists...
-
Congrats to Scott. Just curious. When he was at SS what did he do for contributors that this move to Adobe means good things for us? And I ask this because as a fresh IS non-exclusive I didnt keep track so I really have no idea.
-
When Adobe bought Macromedia a few years back, I had high hopes that they would incorporate some of the vastly superior features of applications like Freehand, Fontographer, and Dreamweaver.
Instead, they simply shut them down, thereby eliminating their only real competition and missing a huge opportunity to improve the clumsy, inelegant interface of their programs, especially Illustrator.
After that short sighted billion dollar fiasco, I have little faith in their handling of this new venture.
-
if FT stop paying subscription prices for POD resales then I'll think about resuming uploading
-
A big one I would imagine. SS have some serious competition at last
not sure i get it what you say pauws. how is scott going to give ss competition when fotolia is paying you even far less than ss? the end game is still less money for everyone.
you move your work to fotoilia, you have to sell twice as much to earn the same leaving it in ss.
as bad as it is already, there is no evidence adobe is going to make a difference
anymore than going to getty or like some say to alamy , just because you get paid more
IF YOU SELL at getty or alamy.
IF... is a big word to bring out the popcorn.
My point is its competition for SS ... generally speaking a monopoly is a bad thing for suppliers and customers and things were heading that way - the evidence so far although I accept its early days is that adobe are upping payment rates and they haven't exactly got a reputation for selling photoshop and other products off cheap! Like most people I suspect I already have my work at both sites.
-
Congrats to Scott. Just curious. When he was at SS what did he do for contributors that this move to Adobe means good things for us? And I ask this because as a fresh IS non-exclusive I didnt keep track so I really have no idea.
exactamento, Paulie. as always, the forum here is always either dragging new agencies down
when they come in here to introduce themselves,
or they add stars in their eyes on ppl like Scott,etc without any specific evidence that Scott
did anything for the contributors. not offending Scott, as i don't know who he is.
but the only thing correct about bringing out the popcorns is that this is just another movie 8)
all in the head of vapour people ;D
-
Congrats to Scott. Just curious. When he was at SS what did he do for contributors that this move to Adobe means good things for us? And I ask this because as a fresh IS non-exclusive I didnt keep track so I really have no idea.
While at Shutterstock (2013-2014), Scott used to respond quite often here on MSG, answering questions concerning his team/department. Responsiveness at MSG has always been appreciated if it's coming from an agency, especially the big ones.
-
Congrats to Scott. Just curious. When he was at SS what did he do for contributors that this move to Adobe means good things for us? And I ask this because as a fresh IS non-exclusive I didnt keep track so I really have no idea.
It may sound like damning with faint praise, but given how agency attitudes towards contributors are these days, the fact that Scott came here and interacted with contributors is likely the reason he's treated as good news. He did try to sell the corporate line (he worked for the agency) but he also tried to address issues. His posts:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=3744 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=3744)
-
Congrats to Scott. Just curious. When he was at SS what did he do for contributors that this move to Adobe means good things for us? And I ask this because as a fresh IS non-exclusive I didnt keep track so I really have no idea.
While at Shutterstock (2013-2014), Scott used to respond quite often here on MSG, answering questions concerning his team/department. Responsiveness at MSG has always been appreciated if it's coming from an agency, especially the big ones.
which may be so. but this is the usual corporate damage-control taken from the book of politics. mere doublespeak to please the demonstrators so they don't make too much headline news.
much like those politicians who come on to say i know how you feel...but deliver nothing other than words.
if there is any sense of sincerity to change, we would have seen it already after pages and pages of forum complaints here on msg and ss 8)
sorry, there is no 2nd coming in microstock .
-
Congrats to Scott. Just curious. When he was at SS what did he do for contributors that this move to Adobe means good things for us? And I ask this because as a fresh IS non-exclusive I didnt keep track so I really have no idea.
A negative would be his involvement with Bigstock with its price undercutting. How involved was he in those decisions?
A plus would be his experience at shutterstock and his willingness to communicate with contributors. Thou his job responsibilities have included "Contributor Marketing" and "Artist Relationship Building".
Shutterstock needs some competition. I wonder how many employees Adobe snagged from Shutterstock? It could explain the recent uptick in shutterstock employee losses reported at Glassdoor.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottbraut (https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottbraut)
Experience
Vice President, Content
Shutterstock (SSTK) and Offset
October 2011 – January 2015 (3 years 4 months)New York, NY
Shutterstock is a leading provider of photos, illustrations, and video for licensing, operating in more than 150 countries and 20 languages. Shutterstock’s mission is to connect contributors to over one million creative business professionals directly through its two-sided marketplace and also through collaborations with companies like Facebook, where Shutterstock is integrated into their ad platform. Shutterstock supports an international contributor community of over 70,000 talented photographers, videographers, illustrators, and content partners.
As VP of Content, I have led content strategy, content growth, operations, contributor marketing, service and IP compliance (marketplace trust and integrity) efforts. I have been responsible for business development with content contributors and partners, informing business strategy and developing international market insights in Europe, South America and Asia.
General Manager, Video / Footage
Shutterstock
January 2011 – October 2011 (10 months)
Responsible for P&L, general management, eCommerce and product development for video products at Shutterstock. Developed artist relationships with 4K and HD videographers and cinematographers. Oversaw 10x growth of the video collection to 2.4M clips.
General Manager, Bigstock
Shutterstock
September 2009 – February 2011 (1 year 6 months)
Broad general management, eCommerce and product development responsibilities for Bigstock, a leading credit-based stock image agency and a subsidiary of Shutterstock.
Responsible for P&L (Profit and Loss Statement), revenue growth, product development, product roadmap, strategic planning, product marketing, budgeting, internationalization, customer acquisition, content, operations and customer relations.
-
Congratulations Scott.
Your first move should be to pay a decent royalty to contributors.
The pricing and royalty rate on offer at Adobe is not sustainable.
If we can't afford to produce content then you might also be losing your VP job in the long run, that is unless you have accepted a similar package that is not sustainable, but I doubt that very much. ;)
Selling up to 40 photos at the insanely low royalty rate of 0.25c just to afford the monthly cloud service to edit the photos is plain and simple usury.
Or to put it another way, I can't afford to submit my photos to Fotolia/Adobe.
Just sayin.
Maybe Fotolia/Adobe should provide all their suppliers with a free basic subscription to Creative Cloud? 8)
-
They could optimise their software for Fotolia uploads e.g if they still insist on categories putting something to help in Lightroom.
-
Congrats to Scott. Just curious. When he was at SS what did he do for contributors that this move to Adobe means good things for us? And I ask this because as a fresh IS non-exclusive I didnt keep track so I really have no idea.
I wasn't really thinking in terms of what he could do for contributors. Basically, nobody does anything good for contributors, in a direct sense.
I was thinking that it was a feather in Adobe's cap because he surely has insight on the inner workings of Shutterstock, and could provide "inside information" to Adobe so they would be able to compete better/steal shutterstock's customer base/etc. In turn, those things might help Adobe gain a stronger foothold in the market, which in turn, brings more customers to Adobe, which in turn may or may not (usually it is may not) bring more buyers to the site and more $$ for contributors.
-
Maybe Fotolia/Adobe should provide all their suppliers with a free basic subscription to Creative Cloud? 8)
Wouldn't that be wonderful? I am not holding my breath. ::)
-
Congrats to Scott. Just curious. When he was at SS what did he do for contributors that this move to Adobe means good things for us? And I ask this because as a fresh IS non-exclusive I didnt keep track so I really have no idea.
I wasn't really thinking in terms of what he could do for contributors. Basically, nobody does anything good for contributors, in a direct sense.
I was thinking that it was a feather in Adobe's cap because he surely has insight on the inner workings of Shutterstock, and could provide "inside information" to Adobe so they would be able to compete better/steal shutterstock's customer base/etc. In turn, those things might help Adobe gain a stronger foothold in the market, which in turn, brings more customers to Adobe, which in turn may or may not (usually it is may not) bring more buyers to the site and more $$ for contributors.
I'm sure as a highly placed employee he signed non-compete and non-disclosure agreements which would preclude him from sharing any insider information.
-
I'm sure as a highly placed employee he signed non-compete and non-disclosure agreements which would preclude him from sharing any insider information.
I thought i just read somewhere that he was laying low for about six months until the non- competes ran out. Thought that was in this thread, but i cant find it now. Typically non-competes have a time limit, so he may not have been able to share initially, but at some point he will be. Non-competes are not forever. :)
Edit: actually it was you who said it in post #22. :)
Clearly he was hired for his expertise in the business. Dont take "insider information" so literally.
-
I'm sure as a highly placed employee he signed non-compete and non-disclosure agreements which would preclude him from sharing any insider information.
I thought i just read somewhere that he was laying low for about six months until the non- competes ran out. Thought that was in this thread, but i cant find it now. Typically non-competes have a time limit, so he may not have been able to share initially, but at some point he will be. Non-competes are not forever. :)
Edit: actually it was you who said it in post #22. :)
Clearly he was hired for his expertise in the business. Dont take "insider information" so literally.
Two different agreements. There's non-compete, which keeps you from taking a job with a competitor (or starting your own competing company), and non-disclosure, which keeps you from disclosing inside information. I don't believe there's a time limit on non-disclosure, though I could be wrong. Someone who works in HR and has to attend court cases involving fired employees told me the courts have found non-compete is ok for about six months, because otherwise your last job is keeping you from earning a living. But surely they want to keep you from disclosing information for as long as possible.
-
A conversation with Scott Braut - in Adobe News:
My responsibility as the head of content is to grow Adobe’s collection of photos, illustrations, videos and other creative assets, while supporting the artists who create that content.
http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2015/07/scott-braut.html?PID=6158360 (http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2015/07/scott-braut.html?PID=6158360)
What more could anyone wish for?
-
A conversation with Scott Braut - in Adobe News:
My responsibility as the head of content is to grow Adobe’s collection of photos, illustrations, videos and other creative assets, while supporting the artists who create that content.
[url]http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2015/07/scott-braut.html?PID=6158360[/url] ([url]http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2015/07/scott-braut.html?PID=6158360[/url])
What more could anyone wish for?
supporting the artists who create that content could be interpreted in any number of ways, some advantageous, some neutral at best.
-
supporting the artists who create that content could be interpreted in any number of ways, some advantageous, some neutral at best.
I like my glass half full, even though I know it is not well-taken on this forum.
Neutral support? You mean impartial? Well, it is not his company, just a good job, so it would be understandable.
-
supporting the artists who create that content could be interpreted in any number of ways, some advantageous, some neutral at best.
I like my glass half full, even though I know it is not well-taken on this forum.
Neutral support? You mean impartial? Well, it is not his company, just a good job, so it would be understandable.
No, I meant 'supporting the artists' could be advantageous to artists (e.g. he could work to negotiate a better deal), but it could mean any number of things which might or might not benefit content providers (e.g. he could organise courses to encourage and train newbies to stock, which would just keep making the pie slices smaller).
I'm not for a moment saying either of these is what he meant, just that although it sounds good, 'supporting the artists' doesn't necessarily mean the artists' renumeration or other benefits would be improved.
Have your glass half full. It's your life. ;)
-
supporting the artists who create that content could be interpreted in any number of ways, some advantageous, some neutral at best.
I like my glass half full, even though I know it is not well-taken on this forum.
Neutral support? You mean impartial? Well, it is not his company, just a good job, so it would be understandable.
No, I meant 'supporting the artists' could be advantageous to artists (e.g. he could work to negotiate a better deal), but it could mean any number of things which might or might not benefit content providers (e.g. he could organise courses to encourage and train newbies to stock, which would just keep making the pie slices smaller).
I'm not for a moment saying either of these is what he meant, just that although it sounds good, 'supporting the artists' doesn't necessarily mean the artists renumeration or other benefits would be improved.
Have your glass half full. It's your life. ;)
Advantage to the artists who create their original work ooops sorry assets and get paid the amount that Adobe Stock offers in 4 different plans is not helping the artists at all:
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)
So it must be his way of saying he collects illustrated children's books (where the artists received $6.10 - $66.00 for the 20 illustrations) and hopes we all swallow the bed time story. Glass half full or not, this is definitely a monster under our beds.
-
supporting the artists who create that content could be interpreted in any number of ways, some advantageous, some neutral at best.
I like my glass half full, even though I know it is not well-taken on this forum.
Neutral support? You mean impartial? Well, it is not his company, just a good job, so it would be understandable.
No, I meant 'supporting the artists' could be advantageous to artists (e.g. he could work to negotiate a better deal), but it could mean any number of things which might or might not benefit content providers (e.g. he could organise courses to encourage and train newbies to stock, which would just keep making the pie slices smaller).
I'm not for a moment saying either of these is what he meant, just that although it sounds good, 'supporting the artists' doesn't necessarily mean the artists renumeration or other benefits would be improved.
Have your glass half full. It's your life. ;)
Advantage to the artists who create their original work ooops sorry assets and get paid the amount that Adobe Stock offers in 4 different plans is not helping the artists at all:
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)
So it must be his way of saying he collects illustrated children's books (where the artists received $6.10 - $66.00 for the 20 illustrations) and hopes we all swallow the bed time story. Glass half full or not, this is definitely a monster under our beds.
Nothing compares to the IS monster...
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
Im Betting On scott to turn this business around. It's the only thing we currently have that sounds Positive. He was always responsive to me for a Phone call. Wish Him the best for change. No one else i know is standing up. Fingers and Toes crossed, When I heard about Adobe I said Big Changes are coming. God , I hope so. we are stagnate.
-
Have your glass half full. It's your life. ;)
Right.
A wonderful artist, that you quote, told us that "There is a crack in everything" but he also said that "That's how the light gets in."
Let the lite in once in a while, don't just find the crack in everything. Nothing personal, I love Leonard Cohen too very much and I'm in a rose tinted mood today.
Back to serious things, you are probably right. I just posted the link in case someone is interested in.
It never crossed my mind that he will be turned into a "monster under our beds".
Advantage to the artists who create their original work ooops sorry assets and get paid the amount that Adobe Stock offers in 4 different plans is not helping the artists at all:
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)
So it must be his way of saying he collects illustrated children's books (where the artists received $6.10 - $66.00 for the 20 illustrations) and hopes we all swallow the bed time story. Glass half full or not, this is definitely a monster under our beds.
-
Heaven Knows we need something Positive. Bring it on.
-
Im Betting On scott to turn this business around. It's the only thing we currently have that sounds Positive. He was always responsive to me for a Phone call. Wish Him the best for change. No one else i know is standing up. Fingers and Toes crossed, When I heard about Adobe I said Big Changes are coming. God , I hope so. we are stagnate.
Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
-
Have your glass half full. It's your life. ;)
Right.
A wonderful artist, that you quote, told us that "There is a crack in everything" but he also said that "That's how the light gets in."
Let the lite in once in a while, don't just find the crack in everything. Nothing personal, I love Leonard Cohen too very much and I'm in a rose tinted mood today.
Back to serious things, you are probably right. I just posted the link in case someone is interested in.
It never crossed my mind that he will be turned into a "monster under our beds".
Advantage to the artists who create their original work ooops sorry assets and get paid the amount that Adobe Stock offers in 4 different plans is not helping the artists at all:
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)
So it must be his way of saying he collects illustrated children's books (where the artists received $6.10 - $66.00 for the 20 illustrations) and hopes we all swallow the bed time story. Glass half full or not, this is definitely a monster under our beds.
To clarify here... "he" is not the monster under our beds, it is the spin of the article that appears to want to help artists which is just what it is, a spin. The children's book was a nice touch though, and the warm and fuzzy family thing, it puts a human touch on an otherwise corporate marketing strategy.
Mantis summed it up perfectly "Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both."
Scott is just doing a job, and trust me, his job is not to make your life better, it is to maximize profits for a publicly traded company and reward shareholders.
This is the monster under the bed.
-
Adobe has hired Scott Braut, formerly VP of Content at Shutterstock. He has been named Head of Content and will drive the company’s overall content strategy and operations for Creative Cloud. Adobe says content is a strategic area of growth and focus as it builds a growing, strategic creative marketplace. Scott has over 20 years of experience in content licensing, product development, eCommerce, and digital media.
What kind of impact is this likely have on Adobe's ability to take market share from Shutterstock?
Jim, This certainly isn't the first time a big gun has been hired by what's ostensibly a start up. Some have succeeded and some haven't.
-
Have your glass half full. It's your life. ;)
Right.
A wonderful artist, that you quote, told us that "There is a crack in everything" but he also said that "That's how the light gets in."
Indeed that was my sig here for a couple of years. However, the system doesn't show that, when you change your sig, the new sig goes on to all your old posts.
You said, "I like my glass half full, even though I know it is not well-taken on this forum." I was just saying 'you have to be yourself'. Of course I'm cynical. I'm old enough to have learned it's the best way for me to survive, ESPECIALLY in the stock business.
Of course, SB moving to Ft/Adobe might be the best thing which has happened in micro for years. We shall see.
-
Really, guys, we have a thread about whether we've chased agency reps away, and here some of us are equating a guy who does a very good, calm job communicating with contributors with a monster under the bed. Jeebus.
-
It always sounds like a zero sum game when one site declines and another picks up, but somehow I always lose money. When Istock lost most of their customers to SS, my earnings went down. Now it looks like SS will lose a lot of customers to Adobe and I am wondering if I will lose more income. Already my income at FT and SS is dropping. I know it's July. I guess I'll see what happens in Sept.
I think your zero sum conclusion is right on. One picks up, another loses. Adobe getting Scott will make me watch and see about more uploads to FT some day. Right now I won't send up anything new.
-
Really, guys, we have a thread about whether we've chased agency reps away, and here some of us are equating a guy who does a very good, calm job communicating with contributors with a monster under the bed. Jeebus.
+100
-
Im Betting On scott to turn this business around. It's the only thing we currently have that sounds Positive. He was always responsive to me for a Phone call. Wish Him the best for change. No one else i know is standing up. Fingers and Toes crossed, When I heard about Adobe I said Big Changes are coming. God , I hope so. we are stagnate.
Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
Why do people belive that everything must be a zero sum game?
Why do people belive that every transaction must have a winner and a loser?
What a fallacy!
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
Im Betting On scott to turn this business around. It's the only thing we currently have that sounds Positive. He was always responsive to me for a Phone call. Wish Him the best for change. No one else i know is standing up. Fingers and Toes crossed, When I heard about Adobe I said Big Changes are coming. God , I hope so. we are stagnate.
Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
[/quote}
Why do people belive that everything must be a zero sum game?
Why do people belive that every transaction must have a winner and a loser?
What a fallacy!
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
If I open up a hamburger stand and I draw in 100 customers an hour, are those same customers going back to their old haunts and buying burgers there too?
-
Im Betting On scott to turn this business around. It's the only thing we currently have that sounds Positive. He was always responsive to me for a Phone call. Wish Him the best for change. No one else i know is standing up. Fingers and Toes crossed, When I heard about Adobe I said Big Changes are coming. God , I hope so. we are stagnate.
Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
[/quote}
Why do people belive that everything must be a zero sum game?
Why do people belive that every transaction must have a winner and a loser?
What a fallacy!
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
If I open up a hamburger stand and I draw in 100 customers an hour, are those same customers going back to their old haunts and buying burgers there too?
Well, I was going to respond but this pretty much says what I was going to say.
-
...Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
Why do people belive that everything must be a zero sum game?
Why do people belive that every transaction must have a winner and a loser?
...
When microstock started, large numbers of customers were people and organizations who had not previously paid for stock images & illustrations. It was too expensive and difficult to buy from Getty, Corbis, Jupiter Images, et al.
When you can expand the size of the pie, it allows for all sorts of good things, but more recently, all we've seen from agencies has been more like a zero sum game - the least appealing example being the Dollar Photo Club. It's not that I believe that this is the way it must be, but when agencies just set about to steal market share from one another, like it or not, that's what it is.
When the agency who grabs more market share pays contributors less, then it seems pretty clear it's a win for the agency and its shareholders and a loss for contributors. Getty and its Private Equity owners put together a whole pile of schemes which, in spite of the spin they tried to peddle to contributors, attempted to enrich the PE firm and who cares about anyone else. Hard to see that as anything but win/lose.
Finding a new pool of customers - versus just stealing customers from another agency - is something we haven't seen in a while. Getty had a stab at it with the various schemes to license metadata to search engines and allow free embeds in non-commercial blogs but as far as I can tell those have gone nowhere.
In spite of my frustrations with how Canva treats contributors, they appear to be an exception in that they're trying to bring design tools to people who previously weren't using them and give them web based software and micro-rights-managed licenses that are affordable. They may well expand the pool of buyers.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock.
-
It will/would be great to see him contributing here on the forum on behalf of Fotolia / Adobe :-)
-
...Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
Why do people belive that everything must be a zero sum game?
Why do people belive that every transaction must have a winner and a loser?
...
When microstock started, large numbers of customers were people and organizations who had not previously paid for stock images & illustrations. It was too expensive and difficult to buy from Getty, Corbis, Jupiter Images, et al.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock.
This is so true, before microstock came along it did bring in large numbers of customers who had not prieviously paid for stock images. Difficult to buy? No. Expensive? to a point, mostly if you were a small business trying to get caught up in the web and blog craze of that era.
The one thing you did forget to mention however is that it also brought along large numbers of photographers who had little to no experience whatsoever and starting selling photos for way way way below market value.
The professionalism in the stock industry was still valid up to this point with those very agencies you mention and so many more.
The cut throat race to the bottom sell hundreds of images for 0.25c royalties did not even exist prior to this.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock. And observations of watching an industry in free fall.
-
...Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
Why do people belive that everything must be a zero sum game?
Why do people belive that every transaction must have a winner and a loser?
...
When microstock started, large numbers of customers were people and organizations who had not previously paid for stock images & illustrations. It was too expensive and difficult to buy from Getty, Corbis, Jupiter Images, et al.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock.
This is so true, before microstock came along it did bring in large numbers of customers who had not prieviously paid for stock images. Difficult to buy? No. Expensive? to a point, mostly if you were a small business trying to get caught up in the web and blog craze of that era.
The one thing you did forget to mention however is that it also brought along large numbers of photographers who had little to no experience whatsoever and starting selling photos for way way way below market value.
The professionalism in the stock industry was still valid up to this point with those very agencies you mention and so many more.
The cut throat race to the bottom sell hundreds of images for 0.25c royalties did not even exist prior to this.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock. And observations of watching an industry in free fall.
While it brought in new buyers who previously couldn't afford images, it also immediately dropped the prices for large corporations who were now paying a few dollars instead of a few hundred or a few thousand. So in the end did contributors come out ahead with this change?
Regarding difficult to buy, maybe, but that only seems to have become an issue when RF came along with the easy-pay-and-use-for-everything-indefinately model. I'm using a simplified RM model on my website and haven't had any complaints from buyers.
-
...Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
Why do people belive that everything must be a zero sum game?
Why do people belive that every transaction must have a winner and a loser?
...
When microstock started, large numbers of customers were people and organizations who had not previously paid for stock images & illustrations. It was too expensive and difficult to buy from Getty, Corbis, Jupiter Images, et al.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock.
This is so true, before microstock came along it did bring in large numbers of customers who had not prieviously paid for stock images. Difficult to buy? No. Expensive? to a point, mostly if you were a small business trying to get caught up in the web and blog craze of that era.
The one thing you did forget to mention however is that it also brought along large numbers of photographers who had little to no experience whatsoever and starting selling photos for way way way below market value.
The professionalism in the stock industry was still valid up to this point with those very agencies you mention and so many more.
The cut throat race to the bottom sell hundreds of images for 0.25c royalties did not even exist prior to this.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock. And observations of watching an industry in free fall.
What you fail to consider is how much the technology has evolved, in the past 10 years. Cameras, computers, processing software, etc are much better and afordable. YouTube has a trove of free tutorials, enabling amateurs to acquire sufficient knowledge to successfully compete with the veterans.
The quality, previously restricted only to pros, is now available to the masses.
With such an abundance of good photos, the price can only go down.
The same goes in other industries evolved through technological advancement: music, telecommunications, digital media, all are cheaper or much better than 10 years ago. Even transportation, see Uber's success. Remember that Wikipedia is virtually free and encyclopedia selling business is virtually dead. And so on.
Nevertheless, I'm sure there is still a need for pro skills, but microstock seems to be less an less the right way to sell these skills.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
...Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
Why do people belive that everything must be a zero sum game?
Why do people belive that every transaction must have a winner and a loser?
...
When microstock started, large numbers of customers were people and organizations who had not previously paid for stock images & illustrations. It was too expensive and difficult to buy from Getty, Corbis, Jupiter Images, et al.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock.
This is so true, before microstock came along it did bring in large numbers of customers who had not prieviously paid for stock images. Difficult to buy? No. Expensive? to a point, mostly if you were a small business trying to get caught up in the web and blog craze of that era.
The one thing you did forget to mention however is that it also brought along large numbers of photographers who had little to no experience whatsoever and starting selling photos for way way way below market value.
The professionalism in the stock industry was still valid up to this point with those very agencies you mention and so many more.
The cut throat race to the bottom sell hundreds of images for 0.25c royalties did not even exist prior to this.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock. And observations of watching an industry in free fall.
What you fail to consider is how much the technology has evolved, in the past 10 years. Cameras, computers, processing software, etc are much better and afordable. YouTube has a trove of free tutorials, enabling amateurs to acquire sufficient knowledge to successfully compete with the veterans.
The quality, previously restricted only to pros, is now available to the masses.
With such an abundance of good photos, the price can only go down.
The same goes in other industries evolved through technological advancement: music, telecommunications, digital media, all are cheaper or much better than 10 years ago. Even transportation, see Uber's success. Remember that Wikipedia is virtually free and encyclopedia selling business is virtually dead. And so on.
Nevertheless, I'm sure there is still a need for pro skills, but microstock seems to be less an less the right way to sell these skills.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
I have always been truly entertained by the technology/closed shop theory. But you are right, the quality used to be restricted to pros or anyone who used to know what they were doing and not simply relying on auto this and auto that with technology covering their arse, but those were the old days of when there were editors and not inspectors.
Can you name one microstock site that actually employs editors? of course you can't.
Microstock is not unlike the modern day schooling theory of not passing/failing children, we are being set up for failure and certainly mediocrity.
-
...Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
Why do people belive that everything must be a zero sum game?
Why do people belive that every transaction must have a winner and a loser?
...
When microstock started, large numbers of customers were people and organizations who had not previously paid for stock images & illustrations. It was too expensive and difficult to buy from Getty, Corbis, Jupiter Images, et al.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock.
This is so true, before microstock came along it did bring in large numbers of customers who had not prieviously paid for stock images. Difficult to buy? No. Expensive? to a point, mostly if you were a small business trying to get caught up in the web and blog craze of that era.
The one thing you did forget to mention however is that it also brought along large numbers of photographers who had little to no experience whatsoever and starting selling photos for way way way below market value.
The professionalism in the stock industry was still valid up to this point with those very agencies you mention and so many more.
The cut throat race to the bottom sell hundreds of images for 0.25c royalties did not even exist prior to this.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock. And observations of watching an industry in free fall.
What you fail to consider is how much the technology has evolved, in the past 10 years. Cameras, computers, processing software, etc are much better and afordable. YouTube has a trove of free tutorials, enabling amateurs to acquire sufficient knowledge to successfully compete with the veterans.
The quality, previously restricted only to pros, is now available to the masses.
With such an abundance of good photos, the price can only go down.
The same goes in other industries evolved through technological advancement: music, telecommunications, digital media, all are cheaper or much better than 10 years ago. Even transportation, see Uber's success. Remember that Wikipedia is virtually free and encyclopedia selling business is virtually dead. And so on.
Nevertheless, I'm sure there is still a need for pro skills, but microstock seems to be less an less the right way to sell these skills.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
I have always been truly entertained by the technology/closed shop theory. But you are right, the quality used to be restricted to pros or anyone who used to know what they were doing and not simply relying on auto this and auto that with technology covering their arse, but those were the old days of when there were editors and not inspectors.
Can you name one microstock site that actually employs editors? of course you can't.
Microstock is not unlike the modern day schooling theory of not passing/failing children, we are being set up for failure and certainly mediocrity.
100 years ago, the photographer had almost the same status as a doctor in the community. Would you want to go back 100 years to experience that feeling, instead of adapting to the present?
Am not talking about those "all auto". You shouldn't be so much afraid of their competition. Have a look at those hobbyists who know what they are doing: they understand light and master photoshop, while being OK with a little fame among friends, when a site or magazine publishes their work for free.
In general, while expert opinion is always welcome, why not trusting the real customers and let them decide what is popular and what not?
You do rely a lot on real customers reviews when you buy from Amazon or choose a hotel, don't you? Or if you use Uber, the future "microstock" of the taxi industry. Taxi drivers would love to keep their privileges through governmental regulations and what not. It is understandable that they fight to protect what they belive they are entitled to, denying the right to amateur drivers to make an extra buck. But they will only be able to do it for so long.
Don't you see a parallel with the doom and gloom in this forum?
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
Sounds like a very very smart move on Adobe's part. Badmouthing change gets us nowhere. I have the faith in Adobe management.
-
Sounds like a very very smart move on Adobe's part. Badmouthing change gets us nowhere. I have the faith in Adobe management.
Being new i can understand your optimism. But this industry has done nothing but sh!t on contributors. Sprinkling a little fairy dust and wishing on a star wont help. At this point its a pure game of volume, variety and commercial value. Commissions will continue to be trampled from where they are now. I am working on other avenues for my work but newbies have a lot to learn about the history of microstock, how it will affect them and the law of diminishing returns.
-
chuckcars,
A handful of embittered contributors are determined to push everyone different out of this forum, just ignore them.
Don't you people ever get tired of patronizing newbies? Everybody started somewhere. If I could find other avenues for my work I would follow them and never look back to micro. Than again, micro doesn't bring the bread on my table. Apparently those other avenues make some people so very bitter that they have to take it out on someone, why not on newbies. They should climb down from their illusory pedestal and face the reality of present days not history.
Newbies will learn only by practicing and observing, not from the useless advices and trolling most (and I said most, not all) of the auto-entitled pros are offering in here.
The history of microstock is the same as the history of the entire economy worldwide, there is nothing new to learn about it.
-
Newbies have probably read articles like this:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/adobe-launches-stock-photo-service-53902 (http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/adobe-launches-stock-photo-service-53902)
and don't know that adobe sold stock images before, but that enterprise failed.
For what my opinion is worth, I think they'll do much better with this iteration, but it won't be good for suppliers.
-
I don't know what all this doom and gloom about is either. Everything is wonderful here in microstock world. We haven't seen our work devalued by the various agencies, or our payments and / or percentages lowered by any and every means possible.
As Peebert used to say on the old iStock forums "Have a nice day heart heart unicorn rainbow"
In the real world, I don't know who Mr Braut is, but I really don't see the appointment of anyone as part of the management for any of the agencies to be good news for contributors. Whoever it is, and whatever the position, they will be looking after the agencies interests first and foremost.
-
chuckcars,
A handful of embittered contributors are determined to push everyone different out of this forum, just ignore them.
Don't you people ever get tired of patronizing newbies? Everybody started somewhere. If I could find other avenues for my work I would follow them and never look back to micro. Than again, micro doesn't bring the bread on my table. Apparently those other avenues make some people so very bitter that they have to take it out on someone, why not on newbies. They should climb down from their illusory pedestal and face the reality of present days not history.
Newbies will learn only by practicing and observing, not from the useless advices and trolling most (and I said most, not all) of the auto-entitled pros are offering in here.
The history of microstock is the same as the history of the entire economy worldwide, there is nothing new to learn about it.
Wrong. There is a lot to learn. Most newbies have expectations of 10 years ago but are in for a real eye opener in todays environment. It's always good to learn about what you are getting in to. Your statement is tantamount to "just ignore it." Nowhere in my post did I say stop doing it. I said that you need to create volume, variety and commercial work. Years ago you didn't need these three elements. Today you do. History, remember?
-
chuckcars,
A handful of embittered contributors are determined to push everyone different out of this forum, just ignore them.
Don't you people ever get tired of patronizing newbies? Everybody started somewhere. If I could find other avenues for my work I would follow them and never look back to micro. Than again, micro doesn't bring the bread on my table. Apparently those other avenues make some people so very bitter that they have to take it out on someone, why not on newbies. They should climb down from their illusory pedestal and face the reality of present days not history.
Newbies will learn only by practicing and observing, not from the useless advices and trolling most (and I said most, not all) of the auto-entitled pros are offering in here.
The history of microstock is the same as the history of the entire economy worldwide, there is nothing new to learn about it.
I'm not bitter. Just enthusiastically challenged.
-
As Peebert used to say on the old iStock forums "Have a nice day heart heart unicorn rainbow"
i too came into microstock with my fairydust and disney or lewis caroll if you believe it mad hatter mentality. but my five years rained on my parade when she said, "but microstock was not around during lewis carroll nor walt disney days was it???" (aside- stage comes crashing) (old guy runs to his fridge for another six pak >:().