Author Topic: Scott Braut Moves To Adobe (Read 19943 times)

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #50 on:** July 24, 2015, 22:49 »

Quote from: 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?

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #51 on:** July 25, 2015, 06:10 »

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."

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.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #52 on:** July 25, 2015, 08:51 »

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.

FlowerPower · « **Reply #53 on:** July 25, 2015, 11:43 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 23, 2015, 17:26

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.

marthamarks · « **Reply #54 on:** July 25, 2015, 11:54 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on July 25, 2015, 08:51

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

Zero Talent · « **Reply #55 on:** July 25, 2015, 11:56 »

Quote from: Mantis 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.

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

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #56 on:** July 25, 2015, 16:29 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 25, 2015, 11:56

Quote from: Mantis 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.
[/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?

Mantis · « **Reply #57 on:** July 25, 2015, 17:09 »

Quote from: Zeus on July 25, 2015, 16:29

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 25, 2015, 11:56
Quote from: Mantis 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.
[/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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #58 on:** July 25, 2015, 22:12 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 25, 2015, 11:56

Quote from: Mantis on July 24, 2015, 20:24
...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.

Tror · « **Reply #59 on:** July 26, 2015, 05:34 »

It will/would be great to see him contributing here on the forum on behalf of Fotolia / Adobe :-)

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #60 on:** July 26, 2015, 09:20 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 25, 2015, 22:12

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 25, 2015, 11:56
Quote from: Mantis on July 24, 2015, 20:24
...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.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #61 on:** July 26, 2015, 09:40 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 26, 2015, 09:20

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 25, 2015, 22:12
Quote from: Zero Talent on July 25, 2015, 11:56
Quote from: Mantis on July 24, 2015, 20:24
...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.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #62 on:** July 26, 2015, 09:43 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 26, 2015, 09:20

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 25, 2015, 22:12
Quote from: Zero Talent on July 25, 2015, 11:56
Quote from: Mantis on July 24, 2015, 20:24
...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

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #63 on:** July 26, 2015, 10:46 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 26, 2015, 09:43

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 26, 2015, 09:20
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 25, 2015, 22:12
Quote from: Zero Talent on July 25, 2015, 11:56
Quote from: Mantis on July 24, 2015, 20:24
...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.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #64 on:** July 26, 2015, 11:12 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 26, 2015, 10:46

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 26, 2015, 09:43
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 26, 2015, 09:20
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 25, 2015, 22:12
Quote from: Zero Talent on July 25, 2015, 11:56
Quote from: Mantis on July 24, 2015, 20:24
...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

chuckcars · « **Reply #65 on:** July 26, 2015, 18:45 »

Sounds like a very very smart move on Adobe's part. Badmouthing change gets us nowhere. I have the faith in Adobe management.

Mantis · « **Reply #66 on:** July 26, 2015, 22:07 »

Quote from: chuckcars on July 26, 2015, 18:45

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.

Dodie · « **Reply #67 on:** July 27, 2015, 03:44 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #68 on:** July 27, 2015, 06:16 »

Newbies have probably read articles like this:
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.

Difydave · « **Reply #69 on:** July 27, 2015, 07:37 »

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.

Mantis · « **Reply #70 on:** July 27, 2015, 08:25 »

Quote from: Dodie on July 27, 2015, 03:44

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?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #71 on:** July 27, 2015, 08:48 »

Quote from: Dodie on July 27, 2015, 03:44

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.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #72 on:** July 27, 2015, 20:35 »

Quote from: Difydave on July 27, 2015, 07:37

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

).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Scott Braut Moves To Adobe (Read 19943 times)

PeterChigmaroff

ShadySue

Shelma1

FlowerPower

marthamarks

Zero Talent

PeterChigmaroff

Mantis

Jo Ann Snover

Tror

Rose Tinted Glasses

PaulieWalnuts

Zero Talent

Rose Tinted Glasses

Zero Talent

chuckcars

Mantis

Dodie

ShadySue

Difydave

Mantis

PaulieWalnuts

etudiante_rapide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors