Quote from: leaf on June 25, 2015, 15:01
We get paid the minimum guarantee rate based on our ranking but have we been told what the minimum guarantee rate is?
https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties

I've been doing some searching but don't see it listed anywhere.  I thought it was on that page the other day but don't see it now.

Perhaps I'm just blind or am forgetting what we've been told many times already   

That's the subs rate per level.
In the text hover your mouse over the green words "Minimum guarantee", it'll show the rate table per level.

Quote from: leaf on June 25, 2015, 15:01
We get paid the minimum guarantee rate based on our ranking but have we been told what the minimum guarantee rate is?
https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties

I've been doing some searching but don't see it listed anywhere.  I thought it was on that page the other day but don't see it now.

Perhaps I'm just blind or am forgetting what we've been told many times already   

The minimum guarantee is for subs sales, .25-.40 fotolia dollars

Quote from: dirkr on June 25, 2015, 15:07

Quote from: leaf on June 25, 2015, 15:01
We get paid the minimum guarantee rate based on our ranking but have we been told what the minimum guarantee rate is?
https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties

I've been doing some searching but don't see it listed anywhere.  I thought it was on that page the other day but don't see it now.

Perhaps I'm just blind or am forgetting what we've been told many times already   

That's the subs rate per level.
In the text hover your mouse over the green words "Minimum guarantee", it'll show the rate table per level.

Got it, thanks.  it took me a few seconds to find even after you explained where it was.  I kept looking for the mouse-over on the table to right right...

It seems strange to call it a minimum guarantee.  Correct me if I'm wrong but it's not possible for sub sales to be higher than that is it?

Quote from: tickstock on June 25, 2015, 15:33
It seems strange to call it a minimum guarantee.  Correct me if I'm wrong but it's not possible for sub sales to be higher than that is it?

As Fotolia calls sale per monthly packs "subs" as well, yes, you do get sub sales with higher values (out of my last 10 subs at Fotolia 4 paid the regular rate - 0.29 credits for silver rank -, the rest paid more: 0,40 up to 1,89).

Obviously you can argue if these should be called subs at all, but that's what it is at FT currently.

When they introduced those they really paid subs rate (there was some anger about that also here in the forum).
With the big noise about DPC they changed that and decided to pay 20% / 25% (for DPC opted out / in).
Now with the Adobe deal they raised that to 33% (independent of DPC opt out).
Always keeping the minimum payout per sale at the regular subs rate.

Quote from: dirkr on June 25, 2015, 15:47

Quote from: tickstock on June 25, 2015, 15:33
It seems strange to call it a minimum guarantee.  Correct me if I'm wrong but it's not possible for sub sales to be higher than that is it?

As Fotolia calls sale per monthly packs "subs" as well, yes, you do get sub sales with higher values (out of my last 10 subs at Fotolia 4 paid the regular rate - 0.29 credits for silver rank -, the rest paid more: 0,40 up to 1,89).

Obviously you can argue if these should be called subs at all, but that's what it is at FT currently.

When they introduced those they really paid subs rate (there was some anger about that also here in the forum).
With the big noise about DPC they changed that and decided to pay 20% / 25% (for DPC opted out / in).
Now with the Adobe deal they raised that to 33% (independent of DPC opt out).
Always keeping the minimum payout per sale at the regular subs rate.

You are talking about Fotolia not Adobe Stock.  Their 'subs' plan which isn't really subs pays 1.65 and their 10 per month subs plan pays .99.

Quote from: tickstock on June 25, 2015, 15:48

You are talking about Fotolia not Adobe Stock.

Yes.
I just tried to explain where that wording (probably) comes from.
I don't expect to ever receive more than this "minimum guarantee" for a subs sale on Adobe Stock (nor for a "real" subs sale on FT either).

Quote from: dirkr on June 25, 2015, 15:52

Quote from: tickstock on June 25, 2015, 15:48

You are talking about Fotolia not Adobe Stock.

Yes.
I just tried to explain where that wording (probably) comes from.
I don't expect to ever receive more than this "minimum guarantee" for a subs sale on Adobe Stock (nor for a "real" subs sale on FT either).

Ok, that's what I thought.

Just one thing to add:
"Minimum guarantee" makes sense on FT, because for their biggest monthly packs the price per image is €0,80, so the 33% royalty would fall below those minimum values.

Quote from: dirkr on June 25, 2015, 15:55
Just one thing to add:
"Minimum guarantee" makes sense on FT, because for their biggest monthly packs the price per image is €0,80, so the 33% royalty would fall below those minimum values.

It could say maximum guarantee just as well, that's all I'm saying.  It seems to imply you could get more even though that's not true.

Quote from: dirkr on June 25, 2015, 15:47
Now with the Adobe deal they raised that to 33% (independent of DPC opt out).

That's not exactly true either.  Adobe will pay Europeans 33%, even more for some sales but contributors on the dollar will get much less from European sales.  If you look back at the exchange rates over the last 10 years the royalty rate ranged from a high of 31% to a low of 20%. 

Quote from: tickstock on June 25, 2015, 15:56

Quote from: dirkr on June 25, 2015, 15:55
Just one thing to add:
"Minimum guarantee" makes sense on FT, because for their biggest monthly packs the price per image is €0,80, so the 33% royalty would fall below those minimum values.

It could say maximum guarantee just as well, that's all I'm saying.  It seems to imply you could get more even though that's not true.

Quote from: dirkr on June 25, 2015, 15:47
Now with the Adobe deal they raised that to 33% (independent of DPC opt out).

That's not exactly true either.  Adobe will pay Europeans 33%, even more for some sales but contributors on the dollar will get much less from European sales.  If you look back at the exchange rates over the last 10 years the royalty rate ranged from a high of 31% to a low of 20%.

But that didn't change, before Adobe they paid 20%/25% for those sales on FT, now they pay 33%.
The currency issues stays the same - it's been here before, it's still here.

Quote from: dirkr on June 25, 2015, 15:58

Quote from: tickstock on June 25, 2015, 15:56

Quote from: dirkr on June 25, 2015, 15:55
Just one thing to add:
"Minimum guarantee" makes sense on FT, because for their biggest monthly packs the price per image is €0,80, so the 33% royalty would fall below those minimum values.

It could say maximum guarantee just as well, that's all I'm saying.  It seems to imply you could get more even though that's not true.

Quote from: dirkr on June 25, 2015, 15:47
Now with the Adobe deal they raised that to 33% (independent of DPC opt out).

That's not exactly true either.  Adobe will pay Europeans 33%, even more for some sales but contributors on the dollar will get much less from European sales.  If you look back at the exchange rates over the last 10 years the royalty rate ranged from a high of 31% to a low of 20%.

But that didn't change, before Adobe they paid 20%/25% for those sales on FT, now they pay 33%.
The currency issues stays the same - it's been here before, it's still here.

Yep a 20% rate would really have been like 12% for most sales, now it's better but it's still lower than the advertised 33%. (up to 40% lower)

Quote from: leaf on June 25, 2015, 15:01
We get paid the minimum guarantee rate based on our ranking but have we been told what the minimum guarantee rate is?
https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties

I've been doing some searching but don't see it listed anywhere.  I thought it was on that page the other day but don't see it now.

Perhaps I'm just blind or am forgetting what we've been told many times already   

@Leaf, on the page you linked under the 33% Royalty header if you hover your mouse over "minimum guarantee" the rates will pop up. They are the same as before. Rates range from .25 for white rank to .40 for diamond.

-Mat

Quote from: MatHayward on June 25, 2015, 16:55

Quote from: leaf on June 25, 2015, 15:01
We get paid the minimum guarantee rate based on our ranking but have we been told what the minimum guarantee rate is?
https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties

I've been doing some searching but don't see it listed anywhere.  I thought it was on that page the other day but don't see it now.

Perhaps I'm just blind or am forgetting what we've been told many times already   

@Leaf, on the page you linked under the 33% Royalty header if you hover your mouse over "minimum guarantee" the rates will pop up. They are the same as before. Rates range from .25 for white rank to .40 for diamond.

-Mat

WOW .25 up to .40 royalty rate. I think I will go out and spend a few thousand dollars on camera gear, computers and programs and spend hours shooting and editing. I am inspired.

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on June 25, 2015, 17:56

Quote from: MatHayward on June 25, 2015, 16:55

Quote from: leaf on June 25, 2015, 15:01
We get paid the minimum guarantee rate based on our ranking but have we been told what the minimum guarantee rate is?
https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties

I've been doing some searching but don't see it listed anywhere.  I thought it was on that page the other day but don't see it now.

Perhaps I'm just blind or am forgetting what we've been told many times already   

@Leaf, on the page you linked under the 33% Royalty header if you hover your mouse over "minimum guarantee" the rates will pop up. They are the same as before. Rates range from .25 for white rank to .40 for diamond.

-Mat

WOW .25 up to .40 royalty rate. I think I will go out and spend a few thousand dollars on camera gear, computers and programs and spend hours shooting and editing. I am inspired.

Now there's yer rose glasses talking.

At least Mat is coming here and being helpful and answering all our questions.

Where is SS, IS, DT?

Here is Getty's take on Adobe Stock.
 
Following the launch of Adobe Stock, we felt it was a good time to reach out and communicate to you – our exclusive artists – with some thoughts on what this means for Getty Images, iStock by Getty Images, and our valued relationship with you.

We start with the point that competition is not necessarily a bad thing.  Competition can drive us forward in better serving current and potential customers.  It can also help grow our customer base as new marketing builds awareness of the need for and availability of licensed content.  The negatives of competition come when you do not have a clearly differentiated product.

Thanks to your content and ongoing submissions, we enjoy and will continue to enjoy a clear point of differentiation – superior content.  This is the very core of our customers' needs.  Without great content, customers cannot produce great projects.  iStock by Getty Images is the only service in the value space that provides a meaningfully different and superior content offering.  Adobe Stock is the same content offered historically via Fotolia and many other providers.  Adding a statement that it is curated by Adobe, does not make it true.

We also enjoy the full reach and assets of Getty Images.  Only Getty Images offers a comprehensive offering to service all customers, across all projects, in all geographies – creative and editorial, new and archival, global and local, premium and value.  Only Getty Images has a 700-person dedicated sales force that are experts in content licensing.  Only Getty Images has 20 years of building strong customer relationships.

Moving beyond what we believe Adobe's entry means to Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images, we wanted to share some thoughts on broader implications for photographers as a whole.

With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.  We simply do not agree with this view.  Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers.  This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.

The launch of Adobe Stock also under-scores Adobe's true focus.  Adobe is under-pricing the work of photographers to increase the overall attractiveness of Creative Cloud.  In fact, Creative Cloud customers receive an additional 40 percent discount with this discount subsidized by photographers via lowered royalties.

We struggle to understand how Adobe Stock helps to sustainably support the creation of imagery and photographers, many of which are paying Creative Cloud customers.  Instead, in current form, we only see how Adobe Stock helps support Adobe's broader software ambitions at the expense of the creation of imagery and photographers.

Getty Images remains focused on licensing content with an emphasis on superior material.  We will continue to price this superior content to an appropriate premium and provide a higher royalty.  We thank you for your contributions and loyalty.  We are more committed than ever to maintain your loyalty and will intensify our efforts to compete on the basis of quality and a comprehensive offering.  In the coming months, you will see marketing, site merchandising, partnerships and other improvements that only reinforce this strategy and our intensity.

Thank you for being our partners.

Its again just comments of a deer staring in a couple of headlights. There is absolute dross on Istock, probably more than on Fotolia. And Getty thinks images are worth nothing because they gave millions away for free. Their comments are just comical.

Quote from: cdwheatley on June 25, 2015, 23:24
Here is Getty's take on Adobe Stock.
 
Following the launch of Adobe Stock, we felt it was a good time to reach out and communicate to you – our exclusive artists – with some thoughts on what this means for Getty Images, iStock by Getty Images, and our valued relationship with you.

We start with the point that competition is not necessarily a bad thing.  Competition can drive us forward in better serving current and potential customers.  It can also help grow our customer base as new marketing builds awareness of the need for and availability of licensed content.  The negatives of competition come when you do not have a clearly differentiated product.

Thanks to your content and ongoing submissions, we enjoy and will continue to enjoy a clear point of differentiation – superior content.  This is the very core of our customers' needs.  Without great content, customers cannot produce great projects.  iStock by Getty Images is the only service in the value space that provides a meaningfully different and superior content offering.  Adobe Stock is the same content offered historically via Fotolia and many other providers.  Adding a statement that it is curated by Adobe, does not make it true.

We also enjoy the full reach and assets of Getty Images.  Only Getty Images offers a comprehensive offering to service all customers, across all projects, in all geographies – creative and editorial, new and archival, global and local, premium and value.  Only Getty Images has a 700-person dedicated sales force that are experts in content licensing.  Only Getty Images has 20 years of building strong customer relationships.

Moving beyond what we believe Adobe's entry means to Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images, we wanted to share some thoughts on broader implications for photographers as a whole.

With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.  We simply do not agree with this view.  Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers.  This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.

The launch of Adobe Stock also under-scores Adobe's true focus.  Adobe is under-pricing the work of photographers to increase the overall attractiveness of Creative Cloud.  In fact, Creative Cloud customers receive an additional 40 percent discount with this discount subsidized by photographers via lowered royalties.

We struggle to understand how Adobe Stock helps to sustainably support the creation of imagery and photographers, many of which are paying Creative Cloud customers.  Instead, in current form, we only see how Adobe Stock helps support Adobe's broader software ambitions at the expense of the creation of imagery and photographers.

Getty Images remains focused on licensing content with an emphasis on superior material.  We will continue to price this superior content to an appropriate premium and provide a higher royalty.  We thank you for your contributions and loyalty.  We are more committed than ever to maintain your loyalty and will intensify our efforts to compete on the basis of quality and a comprehensive offering.  In the coming months, you will see marketing, site merchandising, partnerships and other improvements that only reinforce this strategy and our intensity.

Thank you for being our partners.

Quote from: cdwheatley on June 25, 2015, 23:24
Here is Getty's take on Adobe Stock.
 
Following the launch of Adobe Stock, we felt it was a good time to reach out and communicate to you – our exclusive artists – with some thoughts on what this means for Getty Images, iStock by Getty Images, and our valued relationship with you.

We start with the point that competition is not necessarily a bad thing.  Competition can drive us forward in better serving current and potential customers.  It can also help grow our customer base as new marketing builds awareness of the need for and availability of licensed content.  The negatives of competition come when you do not have a clearly differentiated product.

Thanks to your content and ongoing submissions, we enjoy and will continue to enjoy a clear point of differentiation – superior content.  This is the very core of our customers' needs.  Without great content, customers cannot produce great projects.  iStock by Getty Images is the only service in the value space that provides a meaningfully different and superior content offering.  Adobe Stock is the same content offered historically via Fotolia and many other providers.  Adding a statement that it is curated by Adobe, does not make it true.

We also enjoy the full reach and assets of Getty Images.  Only Getty Images offers a comprehensive offering to service all customers, across all projects, in all geographies – creative and editorial, new and archival, global and local, premium and value.  Only Getty Images has a 700-person dedicated sales force that are experts in content licensing.  Only Getty Images has 20 years of building strong customer relationships.

Moving beyond what we believe Adobe's entry means to Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images, we wanted to share some thoughts on broader implications for photographers as a whole.

With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.  We simply do not agree with this view.  Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers.  This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.

The launch of Adobe Stock also under-scores Adobe's true focus.  Adobe is under-pricing the work of photographers to increase the overall attractiveness of Creative Cloud.  In fact, Creative Cloud customers receive an additional 40 percent discount with this discount subsidized by photographers via lowered royalties.

We struggle to understand how Adobe Stock helps to sustainably support the creation of imagery and photographers, many of which are paying Creative Cloud customers.  Instead, in current form, we only see how Adobe Stock helps support Adobe's broader software ambitions at the expense of the creation of imagery and photographers.

Getty Images remains focused on licensing content with an emphasis on superior material.  We will continue to price this superior content to an appropriate premium and provide a higher royalty.  We thank you for your contributions and loyalty.  We are more committed than ever to maintain your loyalty and will intensify our efforts to compete on the basis of quality and a comprehensive offering.  In the coming months, you will see marketing, site merchandising, partnerships and other improvements that only reinforce this strategy and our intensity.

Thank you for being our partners.

Well, either you got a job at Getty or this is copy/paste.

Either way, the same argument can be applied to Istock which as of the last price changes believes a photo is worth no more than $30-ish dollars which I absolutely disagree. And from my royalty statements Getty seems to also think that images that sell for $600 for one client also should be sold for $1 to another which I absolutely disagree. Getty also thinks that .001 cents through partner deals should appeal to contributors which it doesn't. Getty also thinks free image imbeds are a good idea for contributors and I disagree. 

Istock recently lost me as an exclusive partner. I suggest you start looking at providing more value to your exclusive partners rather than trying to show you're the better of two suboptimal business relationships.

Thanks for posting that. Some exclusives had mentioned that but I hadn't seen the whole text.

I just received e-mail about the Ambassador Program which sounds (me summarizing) like an effort to have contributors help market iStock. I assume that's because they're either not spending on marketing as much/any more or it isn't working well.

"With your social media participation, together we can spread the message, build our brands, and ultimately attract many more people to the amazing content you've created for iStock and Getty Images licensing."

Possibly I received the e-mail because I used to be exclusive? Not sure if this is open to indie contributors or not.

Regarding the message to exclusives, I think the issue is that they conflate superior content and exclusive content (and some exclusive content is spectacular; some is just the same as other content but from a different artist).

I believe Adobe Stock has issues in comparison to Shutterstock - because there is so much more choice at Shutterstock and the WebDAM approach to managing assets is broader (they'll manage any digital asset, not just the subset Adobe will put into the Creative Cloud Library). I'm not sure iStock/Getty even competes in the same arena (do they offer some sort of digital asset management solution?) and their library is smaller if the numbers in recent articles about Adobe Stock are correct (they were saying about 25 million images on iStock.

Getty has a lot of other images at much higher prices (the 100 million number includes editorial and lots of RM stuff) and so isn't really a useful comparison vis-a-vis Adobe Stock. Not to mention quite a number of people are no longer exclusive so it's hit or miss whether their content will draw them to iStock

The argument about Adobe not having photographer's interests at heart is true, but it's also true for iStock, Getty, SS and the rest of the agencies. (Stocksy's a cooperative so that's an exception). I won't rehash all the anti-contributor moves Getty has made, or Jonathan Klein's remarks that Getty wasn't photographer cuddly but was photographer friendly.

if iStock wants to push the superior content message, they have to actually walk the walk. That means dumping the underexposed fruit slices and all that other imported dreck at premium prices (or at least pricing them at the lowest level).

Quote from: cdwheatley on June 25, 2015, 23:24
Here is Getty's take on Adobe Stock.
 
Following the launch of Adobe Stock, we felt it was a good time to reach out and communicate to you – our exclusive artists – with some thoughts on what this means for Getty Images, iStock by Getty Images, and our valued relationship with you.

We start with the point that competition is not necessarily a bad thing.  Competition can drive us forward in better serving current and potential customers.  It can also help grow our customer base as new marketing builds awareness of the need for and availability of licensed content.  The negatives of competition come when you do not have a clearly differentiated product.

Thanks to your content and ongoing submissions, we enjoy and will continue to enjoy a clear point of differentiation – superior content.  This is the very core of our customers' needs.  Without great content, customers cannot produce great projects.  iStock by Getty Images is the only service in the value space that provides a meaningfully different and superior content offering.  Adobe Stock is the same content offered historically via Fotolia and many other providers.  Adding a statement that it is curated by Adobe, does not make it true.

We also enjoy the full reach and assets of Getty Images.  Only Getty Images offers a comprehensive offering to service all customers, across all projects, in all geographies – creative and editorial, new and archival, global and local, premium and value.  Only Getty Images has a 700-person dedicated sales force that are experts in content licensing.  Only Getty Images has 20 years of building strong customer relationships.

Moving beyond what we believe Adobe's entry means to Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images, we wanted to share some thoughts on broader implications for photographers as a whole.

With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.  We simply do not agree with this view.  Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers.  This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.

The launch of Adobe Stock also under-scores Adobe's true focus.  Adobe is under-pricing the work of photographers to increase the overall attractiveness of Creative Cloud.  In fact, Creative Cloud customers receive an additional 40 percent discount with this discount subsidized by photographers via lowered royalties.

We struggle to understand how Adobe Stock helps to sustainably support the creation of imagery and photographers, many of which are paying Creative Cloud customers.  Instead, in current form, we only see how Adobe Stock helps support Adobe's broader software ambitions at the expense of the creation of imagery and photographers.

Getty Images remains focused on licensing content with an emphasis on superior material.  We will continue to price this superior content to an appropriate premium and provide a higher royalty.  We thank you for your contributions and loyalty.  We are more committed than ever to maintain your loyalty and will intensify our efforts to compete on the basis of quality and a comprehensive offering.  In the coming months, you will see marketing, site merchandising, partnerships and other improvements that only reinforce this strategy and our intensity.

Thank you for being our partners.

Here's a thought...maybe Getty could scrap its disastrous RC moneygrab and go back to paying their 'valuable' exclusives according to the cannister levels they earned.  Talk is cheap and Gettys talk is cheaper than most.

Apart from the usual self-aggrandizing Getty Images nonsense which is open to debate endlessly on this forum, I think we should try and focus on the core message here...

"With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.

I personally don't support Adobe Stock for this reason and this reason alone. Valuing imagery at a maximum of $10 is a very dangerous precedent. This is corporate ugly right in your face.

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on June 26, 2015, 00:38
Apart from the usual self-aggrandizing Getty Images nonsense which is open to debate endlessly on this forum, I think we should try and focus on the core message here...

"With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.

I personally don't support Adobe Stock for this reason and this reason alone. Valuing imagery at a maximum of $10 is a very dangerous precedent. This is corporate ugly right in your face.

I can buy 6 photos on Istock for $65AUD = $47.45 USD and for the commission I get 16%  = $1.26USD/photo
Buy bigger packs etc and its cheap again.

Adobe 33% @ $10USD per photo I get $3.33USD/photo

Unless your exclusive on Istock it doesn't make sense to me, to support IS and not the Adobe deal.

Quote from: qwerty on June 26, 2015, 02:21

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on June 26, 2015, 00:38
Apart from the usual self-aggrandizing Getty Images nonsense which is open to debate endlessly on this forum, I think we should try and focus on the core message here...

"With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.

I personally don't support Adobe Stock for this reason and this reason alone. Valuing imagery at a maximum of $10 is a very dangerous precedent. This is corporate ugly right in your face.

I can buy 6 photos on Istock for $65AUD = $47.45 USD and for the commission I get 16%  = $1.26USD/photo
Buy bigger packs etc and its cheap again.

Adobe 33% @ $10USD per photo I get $3.33USD/photo

Unless your exclusive on Istock it doesn't make sense to me, to support IS and not the Adobe deal.

I am exclusive for better or worse.

Your point is noted, however for that same $65AUD you can also buy only 2 photos making them more expensive. The most you will ever make is $3.33 per download if the file is bought individually and more likely .25 to .40 on subscription.

Adobe however is putting the maximum value of the photos at $10 and that is not good. If you are comfortable knowing that your photos are only worth $10 and that you will never make more than $3.33 then great. It won't be very sustainable for very long.

As I said earlier, we can bicker about this all day, but capping the value of photos by a respected company such as Adobe is sending out the wrong message to the entire creative community in terms of what an image is worth. 

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on June 26, 2015, 02:57

Quote from: qwerty on June 26, 2015, 02:21

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on June 26, 2015, 00:38
Apart from the usual self-aggrandizing Getty Images nonsense which is open to debate endlessly on this forum, I think we should try and focus on the core message here...

"With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.

I personally don't support Adobe Stock for this reason and this reason alone. Valuing imagery at a maximum of $10 is a very dangerous precedent. This is corporate ugly right in your face.

I can buy 6 photos on Istock for $65AUD = $47.45 USD and for the commission I get 16%  = $1.26USD/photo
Buy bigger packs etc and its cheap again.

Adobe 33% @ $10USD per photo I get $3.33USD/photo

Unless your exclusive on Istock it doesn't make sense to me, to support IS and not the Adobe deal.

I am exclusive for better or worse.

Your point is noted, however for that same $65AUD you can also buy only 2 photos making them more expensive. The most you will ever make is $3.33 per download if the file is bought individually and more likely .25 to .40 on subscription.

Adobe however is putting the maximum value of the photos at $10 and that is not good. If you are comfortable knowing that your photos are only worth $10 and that you will never make more than $3.33 then great. It won't be very sustainable for very long.

As I said earlier, we can bicker about this all day, but capping the value of photos by a respected company such as Adobe is sending out the wrong message to the entire creative community in terms of what an image is worth.

As your exclusive I accept that the numbers are different and thus I can understand how Adobe is undercutting prices that your images are sold at on Istock and Getty.

As in Independent Adobe deal basically matches or betters any other microstock offering I submit to as far as RPD.

I suppose their correspondence appears to be sent to exclusive contributors (to encourage them to stay exclusive)
Their letter as read by an independent grates a nerve.

Edit:     Also I don't think Adobe is setting a precedent, that was done long ago at prices much less than $10 by
many companies including Istock.  Sure I'd like Adobe to price higher because of the link in with photoshop etc
they're offering convenience which should attract some premium to the pricing.