Author Topic: Scott Braut Moves To Adobe (Read 23308 times)

U11 · « **Reply #25 on:** July 24, 2015, 09:04 »

if FT stop paying subscription prices for POD resales then I'll think about resuming uploading

Pauws99 · « **Reply #26 on:** July 24, 2015, 09:17 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on July 23, 2015, 21:32

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 23, 2015, 14:40
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.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #27 on:** July 24, 2015, 09:18 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 24, 2015, 07:52

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

all in the head of vapour people

Anyka · « **Reply #28 on:** July 24, 2015, 09:56 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 24, 2015, 07:52

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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #29 on:** July 24, 2015, 09:57 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 24, 2015, 07:52

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

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #30 on:** July 24, 2015, 10:24 »

Quote from: Anyka on July 24, 2015, 09:56

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 24, 2015, 07:52
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

sorry, there is no 2nd coming in microstock .

gbalex · « **Reply #31 on:** July 24, 2015, 10:35 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 24, 2015, 07:52

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

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.

wordplanet · « **Reply #32 on:** July 24, 2015, 12:24 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 23, 2015, 19:21

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?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #33 on:** July 24, 2015, 13:45 »

They could optimise their software for Fotolia uploads e.g if they still insist on categories putting something to help in Lightroom.

cathyslife · « **Reply #34 on:** July 24, 2015, 13:56 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 24, 2015, 07:52

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #35 on:** July 24, 2015, 13:57 »

Quote from: wordplanet on July 24, 2015, 12:24

Maybe Fotolia/Adobe should provide all their suppliers with a free basic subscription to Creative Cloud?

Wouldn't that be wonderful? I am not holding my breath.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #36 on:** July 24, 2015, 14:31 »

Quote from: cathyslife on July 24, 2015, 13:56

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 24, 2015, 07:52
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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #37 on:** July 24, 2015, 15:25 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on July 24, 2015, 14:31

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.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #38 on:** July 24, 2015, 15:53 »

Quote from: cathyslife on July 24, 2015, 15:25

Quote from: Shelma1 on July 24, 2015, 14:31

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.

Dodie · « **Reply #39 on:** July 24, 2015, 16:30 »

A conversation with Scott Braut - in Adobe News:

Quote

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

What more could anyone wish for?

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** July 24, 2015, 16:33 »

Quote from: Dodie on July 24, 2015, 16:30

A conversation with Scott Braut - in Adobe News:

Quote
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

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.

Dodie · « **Reply #41 on:** July 24, 2015, 17:20 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 24, 2015, 16:33

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #42 on:** July 24, 2015, 17:55 »

Quote from: Dodie on July 24, 2015, 17:20

Quote from: ShadySue on July 24, 2015, 16:33
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.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #43 on:** July 24, 2015, 18:12 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 24, 2015, 17:55

Quote from: Dodie on July 24, 2015, 17:20
Quote from: ShadySue on July 24, 2015, 16:33
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.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #44 on:** July 24, 2015, 18:20 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 24, 2015, 18:12

Quote from: ShadySue on July 24, 2015, 17:55
Quote from: Dodie on July 24, 2015, 17:20
Quote from: ShadySue on July 24, 2015, 16:33
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

Rinderart · « **Reply #45 on:** July 24, 2015, 18:32 »

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.

Dodie · « **Reply #46 on:** July 24, 2015, 19:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 24, 2015, 17:55

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".

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 24, 2015, 18:12

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.

Rinderart · « **Reply #47 on:** July 24, 2015, 19:24 »

Heaven Knows we need something Positive. Bring it on.

Mantis · « **Reply #48 on:** July 24, 2015, 20:24 »

Quote from: Rinderart on July 24, 2015, 18:32

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.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #49 on:** July 24, 2015, 20:28 »

Quote from: Dodie on July 24, 2015, 19:03

Quote from: ShadySue on July 24, 2015, 17:55
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".
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 24, 2015, 18:12
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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Scott Braut Moves To Adobe (Read 23308 times)

U11

Pauws99

etudiante_rapide

Anyka

Jo Ann Snover

etudiante_rapide

gbalex

wordplanet

Pauws99

cathyslife

cathyslife

Shelma1

cathyslife

Shelma1

Dodie

ShadySue

Dodie

ShadySue

Rose Tinted Glasses

Zero Talent

Rinderart

Dodie

Rinderart

Mantis

Rose Tinted Glasses

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors