Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 12:45

Quote from: cthoman on June 18, 2015, 12:43

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 12:01

Yes we'll see but it's a fact that any buyer that converts from SS to Adobe is going to result in a substantial loss of revenue for you.

What can't cause a substantial loss in revenue these days? You can probably just add this to the long list. Yay! Positivity! 

There are some people that are positive about this but I think that's just because they don't understand it.

There are some people who are negative but I think its just because its got nothing to do with Istock

I think this is going to affect SS contributors more than iStock contributors.  You can go see the earnings schedule and compare the plans and royalties between SS and Adobe.  I think if you do take an honest look you'll see that for every customer that switches you are going to lose money overall as much as 70% for On Demand sales and 20% for sub sales if you are at gold on Fotolia and the top level at SS.  I have a hard time seeing what the positive news is for independent contributors by far the greatest growth in Adobe is going to come from other sites that license a large amount of subs, the leader in that realm right now is SS.

Can we keep the AS talk in the AS thread?

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 12:45

Quote from: cthoman on June 18, 2015, 12:43

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 12:01

Yes we'll see but it's a fact that any buyer that converts from SS to Adobe is going to result in a substantial loss of revenue for you.

What can't cause a substantial loss in revenue these days? You can probably just add this to the long list. Yay! Positivity! 

There are some people that are positive about this but I think that's just because they don't understand it.

I thought it was positive news. It's nice to see Fotolia move things in the other direction for a change. I have no reason to be negative about it because it has yet to impact me (if it ever does). When I see the needle moving, then I'll pivot to change with the market. Until then, there really isn't much use to worrying about it. I've got enough on my plate already.

Why do you think it's positive news?  Do you believe they'll bring in a lot of customers that would never have bought stock images without them entering the marketplace?  They would need to bring in a lot of new customers (not just new customers but new customers that wouldn't have gone with SS) to offset the losses that you'll have from buyers leaving SS.

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 13:34

Quote from: cthoman on June 18, 2015, 13:31

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 12:45

Quote from: cthoman on June 18, 2015, 12:43

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 12:01

Yes we'll see but it's a fact that any buyer that converts from SS to Adobe is going to result in a substantial loss of revenue for you.

What can't cause a substantial loss in revenue these days? You can probably just add this to the long list. Yay! Positivity! 

There are some people that are positive about this but I think that's just because they don't understand it.

I thought it was positive news. It's nice to see Fotolia move things in the other direction for a change. I have no reason to be negative about it because it has yet to impact me (if it ever does). When I see the needle moving, then I'll pivot to change with the market. Until then, there really isn't much use to worrying about it. I've got enough on my plate already.

Why do you think it's positive news?  Do you believe they'll bring in a lot of customers that would never have bought stock images without them entering the marketplace?  They would need to bring in a lot of new customers (not just new customers but new customers that wouldn't have gone with SS) to offset the losses that you'll have from buyers leaving SS.

paying more = positive news

Everything else is just speculation.

They aren't paying more though.  True there is a higher royalty rate for some things but it's on lower priced images.  Royalty rate and prices are much lower if you are exclusive with Fotolia.  Subs pay the same rate.  If they convert buyers from SS you'll get less money for every type of sale until you sell 1,000,000 images and even then you'll still get substantially less than you would for On Demand sales at SS.

In any event, it's a positive step from an agency that definitely needed to do something more to compete. That they haven't further punished artists while doing it is a plus.

I wouldn't say in any event, it seems the most likely event will be a substantial conversion of higher paying sales at SS to lower paying ones at Adobe.  Is that still a positive?

Quote from: photominer on June 18, 2015, 13:51

In any event, it's a positive step from an agency that definitely needed to do something more to compete. That they haven't further punished artists while doing it is a plus.

I wouldn't say in any event, it seems the most likely event will be a substantial conversion of higher paying sales at SS to lower paying ones at Adobe.  Is that still a positive?

I don't think that scenario is most likely. So yes.

edit: and still, even if you were right, its better than istock.

Quote from: photominer on June 18, 2015, 14:05

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 13:55

Quote from: photominer on June 18, 2015, 13:51

In any event, it's a positive step from an agency that definitely needed to do something more to compete. That they haven't further punished artists while doing it is a plus.

I wouldn't say in any event, it seems the most likely event will be a substantial conversion of higher paying sales at SS to lower paying ones at Adobe.  Is that still a positive?

I don't think that scenario is most likely. So yes.

edit: and still, even if you were right, its better than istock.

The losses on SS will by far outweigh any gains from iStock.  Check out the royalties paid and compare what happens when you lose one sale on SS to Adobe.  For many contributors it's a 20 to 70% loss.

So you keep saying for a theoretical lost sale. Its certainly possible. Likely though? Time will tell. Personally, I don't think it's likely. Different sites, different offerings, different customers. Every contributor is smart enough to make their own decisions about whether its a good idea to increase sales however they think that they can. I don't think it will affect SS sales for the vast majority, then again, its a guess on my part.

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 14:13

Quote from: photominer on June 18, 2015, 14:05

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 13:55

Quote from: photominer on June 18, 2015, 13:51

In any event, it's a positive step from an agency that definitely needed to do something more to compete. That they haven't further punished artists while doing it is a plus.

I wouldn't say in any event, it seems the most likely event will be a substantial conversion of higher paying sales at SS to lower paying ones at Adobe.  Is that still a positive?

I don't think that scenario is most likely. So yes.

edit: and still, even if you were right, its better than istock.

The losses on SS will by far outweigh any gains from iStock.  Check out the royalties paid and compare what happens when you lose one sale on SS to Adobe.  For many contributors it's a 20 to 70% loss.

So you keep saying for a theoretical lost sale. Its certainly possible. Likely though? Time will tell. Personally, I don't think it's likely. Different sites, different offerings, different customers. Every contributor is smart enough to make their own decisions about whether its a good idea to increase sales however they think that they can. I don't think it will affect SS sales for the vast majority, then again, its a guess on my part.

There's no doubt that there will be lost sales it's just how much and how many customers that would never have bought stock are now doing it that matters.  Probably a vast majority of buyers that get a yearly subscription use photoshop that's going to put a lot of pressure on SS to retain them.  Adobe made the pricing exactly the same as SS, coincidence?  They both offer roughly the same images and fotolia can claim some percentage of exclusive images. 

Quote from: photominer on June 18, 2015, 14:19

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 14:13

Quote from: photominer on June 18, 2015, 14:05

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 13:55

Quote from: photominer on June 18, 2015, 13:51

In any event, it's a positive step from an agency that definitely needed to do something more to compete. That they haven't further punished artists while doing it is a plus.

I wouldn't say in any event, it seems the most likely event will be a substantial conversion of higher paying sales at SS to lower paying ones at Adobe.  Is that still a positive?

I don't think that scenario is most likely. So yes.

edit: and still, even if you were right, its better than istock.

The losses on SS will by far outweigh any gains from iStock.  Check out the royalties paid and compare what happens when you lose one sale on SS to Adobe.  For many contributors it's a 20 to 70% loss.

So you keep saying for a theoretical lost sale. Its certainly possible. Likely though? Time will tell. Personally, I don't think it's likely. Different sites, different offerings, different customers. Every contributor is smart enough to make their own decisions about whether its a good idea to increase sales however they think that they can. I don't think it will affect SS sales for the vast majority, then again, its a guess on my part.

There's no doubt that there will be lost sales it's just how much and how many customers that would never have bought stock are now doing it that matters.  Probably a vast majority of buyers that get a yearly subscription use photoshop that's going to put a lot of pressure on SS to retain them.   Adobe made the pricing exactly the same as SS, coincidence?  They both offer roughly the same images and fotolia can claim some percentage of exclusive images.

There is doubt. Lots of it. And if they've never purchased stock before as you say, then there is nothing for SS to retain is there? Can't lose ehat they never had.

This is all conjecture. Some contributors will very likely lose sales if they have the same pictures on both sites. Others will not. Unless you have some sales data to support any of this (which should be impossible so early in the game) it's really just opinion, not fact.  Will some buyers switch from other agencies? Probably. I still think they'll come from other agencies that can't really compete as well as SS can. And I have no doubt if SS is worried about this they will have something rolled out soon. Everyone knew AS was coming sooner or later and could very well guess what the terms would be. Time will tell. It'll be interesting to watch the heavyweights battle it out.

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 14:31

There's no doubt

I envy you! Having no doubts! You must be a happy person!

Unfortunately, you only speculate based on unproven assumptions.
The critical aspect you neglect is the type of customers AS will discover or convert.
The ratio between the offered packages is the decisive factor for the future average AS RPD.

I am personally happy to see you staying loyal and defending the iStock exclusivity, instead of competing with me 

I'm surprised you can disagree with what I'm saying.  I'm saying there will be some buyers who choose to go to Adobe Stock, that doesn't seem very controversial, look at the stock price it didn't get hammered when this was first announced and when it was implemented because investors are worried Adobe Stock will get only brand new customers.  I'm saying those buyers that do move will earn you less money for like sales (subs, on demand, single sales), that's a fact, you can look it up and compare for yourself.  What I think we can disagree on is how many customers will be brought into Adobe Stock that would not have been customers at other sites, that is a much harder thing to predict.  I think it will be a low number, much much lower than the amount converted from other sites and specifically SS but again we can disagree about that point.  Time will tell.  About the ratio of packages I would expect buyers that move from SS to Adobe to buy those packages in the same ratio they would when they were at SS, why not?  And each of those packages will pay the vast majority of contributors less than they would have had. 

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 15:12

I'm surprised you can disagree with what I'm saying.  I'm saying there will be some buyers who choose to go to Adobe Stock, that doesn't seem very controversial, look at the stock price it didn't get hammered when this was first announced and when it was implemented because investors are worried Adobe Stock will get only brand new customers.  I'm saying those buyers that do move will earn you less money for like sales (subs, on demand, single sales), that's a fact, you can look it up and compare for yourself.  What I think we can disagree on is how many customers will be brought into Adobe Stock that would not have been customers at other sites, that is a much harder thing to predict.  I think it will be a low number, much much lower than the amount converted from other sites and specifically SS but again we can disagree about that point.  Time will tell.  About the ratio of packages I would expect buyers that move from SS to Adobe to buy those packages in the same ratio they would when they were at SS, why not?  And each of those packages will pay the vast majority of contributors less than they would have had.

I think this is correct in the main. I just disagree that the impact will be more at SS than istock. Why quit a stock leader when you can dump the site(s) that treat both customers and contributors the worst. I suspect that if AS takes off, it will be the finally nail in the coffin (or stake through the heart) of what was once a great company. But yes, time will tell.

iStock may lose Essentials subscription packages but SS could lose all their subs packages.  Adobe has the same content as SS, Adobe is more convenient than SS since a subs buyer most likely already has photoshop and uses it regularly, the price is exactly the same as SS.  I think having different content and cheaper pricing at iStock probably will result a smaller percentage loss of subscription packages, what does SS offer that Adobe doesn't have?  That's going to be a tough question for them to answer.  Inertia should keep them steady for a while but how will they keep customers when it's time to renew?

iStock may lose Essentials subscription packages but SS could lose all their subs packages.  Adobe has the same content as SS, Adobe is more convenient than SS since a subs buyer most likely already has photoshop and uses it regularly, the price is exactly the same as SS.  I think having different content and cheaper pricing at iStock probably will result a smaller percentage loss of subscription packages, what does SS offer that Adobe doesn't have?  That's going to be a tough question for them to answer.  Inertia should keep them steady for a while but how will they keep customers when it's time to renew?

It will definitely be interesting to watch. If Adobe can make it easy for buyers to buy, use and manage their stuff, they might have a shot at changing the game a little. In the meantime, anything that increases sales and puts more money in a contributor's pocket is a net good thing. There are as many types of buyers as there are subjects in the libraries, so it would be interesting to see how many are Adobe users already and whether that will have any affect at all on other agencies.

(My prediction is not much at all. Lets find out in a year who is closer to the mark.)

Quote from: photominer on June 18, 2015, 15:53

Quote from: tickstock on June 18, 2015, 15:29

iStock may lose Essentials subscription packages but SS could lose all their subs packages.  Adobe has the same content as SS, Adobe is more convenient than SS since a subs buyer most likely already has photoshop and uses it regularly, the price is exactly the same as SS.  I think having different content and cheaper pricing at iStock probably will result a smaller percentage loss of subscription packages, what does SS offer that Adobe doesn't have?  That's going to be a tough question for them to answer.  Inertia should keep them steady for a while but how will they keep customers when it's time to renew?

It will definitely be interesting to watch. If Adobe can make it easy for buyers to buy, use and manage their stuff, they might have a shot at changing the game a little. In the meantime, anything that increases sales and puts more money in a contributor's pocket is a net good thing. There are as many types of buyers as there are subjects in the libraries, so it would be interesting to see how many are Adobe users already and whether that will have any affect at all on other agencies.

(My prediction is not much at all. Lets find out in a year who is closer to the mark.)

I don't think it's a net plus though, that's my main argument.  I also don't think we'll have to wait a year.  SS will release earnings and talk about what's going on in a month and a half so there should be some insight by then.  The bigger thing is that the busy season is coming up in a couple months so we'll probably see SS announce something new before then or keep doing business as usual if it isn't affecting them.  Either way in 3 months I think we'll have a good idea of what the impact will be.

Fair enough, although SS stock going up or down has never impacted my earnings in either direction. So I'm not sure that's a relevant measure for contributors, although people seem to like hashing them over every time something gets reported.

And as far as net plus or minus goes, its relative. Some will see it and some won't. The contributors are as varied as the buyers. So blanket statements (guilty of them myself) aren't really practical or even realistic until some facts back them up.