Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56

So what?  $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.

Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)

You don't have to be that successful to make $150 on an image.  15-20 regular sales,  or about 2 ELs, or 60 subs will get you there or 1 El 5 regular sales and 15 subs.  That doesn't seem too difficult to reach.

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56

So what?  $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.

I am just answering to the question what I would ask. If you think that is too low then that is your opinion. No need to get upset.

I'm not upset just saying they should pay what it's worth or it's no loss.

Very poor photo sales on Pond5. We sell mostly video there but I add our photos because their uploading process is pretty easy (no categories, etc). We've sold 4 photos this year with a port of over 600 images. Not even enough for a payout (which is actually $25) but since the photos are extra on top of our video sales, it works. I would not submit there with only photos (or I would not have high expectations).

Raise your prices.

the biggest importance is the mix in subs versus higher downloads. That is why I really need to see how this plays out.

One of your Stocksy guys isn't too happy about it.  http://www.diyphotography.net/adobe-slaps-creative-professionals-face-launches-re-branded-microstock-content-leach/

Quote from: tickstock on June 19, 2015, 14:29

Quote from: Mantis on June 19, 2015, 14:21

Mat comes in here and remains calm, speaks factually as possible and is probably the voice in the new Adobe structure that seems favorable for contributors (for now anyway).

Is this favorable to contributors in your opinion?  Even after 200,000 sales you'll get 10% less than SS at around 10-15,000 sales. 
Sales                     Royalty Rate
0-99                      .25
100-999                .27
1,000-9,999          .29
10,000-24,999      .31   
25,000-99,999      .33 
100,000-249,999  .35

You keep focusing on only one aspect of that recent change - which is the theoretical loss of buyer conversion from Shutterstock to Fotolia.

While you are right about the subscription plans (US$ royalty is lower), there are many more things to consider:

- for those of us who get paid in Euros the difference is smaller.

- the assumptions you make for single purchases are questionable; If there is any conversion from shutterstock (which does not have single image prices advertised), it is not necessarily only from SODs (that pay according to your posts $3,75 for two images) but also from On Demand purchases (which are packs of five images that pay $2,85). Surprisingly the $3,30 that Adobe will pay for single images is exactly the average of those.

- If buyer conversion happens, than it will also happen from lower paying sites like Istock, 123RF, Bigstock, Canstock,... that all have lower subs rates (and from DT that pays $0,35 per sub); and most of them pay less the $3,30 for single image purchases. The result for the single contributor depends on the mix of whatever buyer conversion will happen, but may well be positive.

- In addition the recent changes by FT / Adobe introduced some other improvements on FT alone: counting subs fully against the levels (retroactively, what bumped several contributors up a level); increasing subs rates for monthly packages from 20% / 25% (DPC opted out / in) to 33% (that is for those sales a royalty increase of 65% !!!)

- last but not least the (very likely, though not easy to quantify) possibility to reach new customers (that never did buy stock before).

If you look at all this together, I believe that this is by far the most positive move I have seen from any of the established agencies for a very long time.

Thanks for posting probably the first serious argument against what I am saying, I mean that.  I just posted the rates above for Euro contributors and you can see SS still has better payouts (SS actually pays $4.35 using their smallest plan 2 images for $29) and all the other plans are lower except subs which are lower until you get to 100,000 sales.
You are right about conversions from other sites, that probably needs to be looked into a little more comprehensively.  SS is for many contributors 50-65% of their total income so the effect from buyers moving from them could have the greatest impact, that's the main reason I focus on SS.
I'm a little skeptical that Fotolia will continue as it has, I think customers there will be pushed to Adobe Stock or move on their own for convenience and cheaper pricing.  I'm sure that will happen to some extent but it's too early to tell with that one.  Why spend 36 credits on Fotolia when you can get it for $10 or less at Adobe? My feeling is that those royalty raises may mean a lot less in a years time.
The last point I agree is hard to know.  Barriers are pretty low already and many people that have a subscription to Adobe already know about stock so my guess is that totally new customers that wouldn't have signed up somewhere else won't be as many as you expect.

Well, it is certainly higher than istock and their measly 18%...

and if you are paid in euros, it will be more than SS depending on the exchange rate, at least for me.  I also don�t lose in the back conversion of dollars to euros. Single image downloads will be 3.30 euros, not 2.70 dollars, also higher.

overall 33% is a good deal, I really hope they add video soon. Fotolia has been really weak with video.

You're partly right, euros make up some of the difference but not all of it (I don't know how much conversion costs are).  Right now SS pays $4.35 (30% of $14.50) and Fotolia will pay euro contributors 3.30 euros or $3.74 according to XE.com so still less.  If you compare subs you'll have to reach 100,000 sales to equal SS at top level.  And ODs will pay $1.85 at Adobe for Euro contributors while they pay $2.85 at SS for top level contributors, even the lowest level at SS pays more than that.  So euro contributors will not lose as much but they will still lose on Single sales, ODs and subs (which happens to be all the plans).  Also about iStock for nonexclusives I've never told anyone they should accept that either.

ETA:  Just changed SS's payout for single sales, I thought it was 2 for $25 but it's actually 2 for $29 so they pay more than I had stated earlier.

Quote from: tickstock on June 19, 2015, 14:29

Quote from: Mantis on June 19, 2015, 14:21

Mat comes in here and remains calm, speaks factually as possible and is probably the voice in the new Adobe structure that seems favorable for contributors (for now anyway).

Is this favorable to contributors in your opinion?  Even after 200,000 sales you'll get 10% less than SS at around 10-15,000 sales. 
Sales                     Royalty Rate
0-99                      .25
100-999                .27
1,000-9,999          .29
10,000-24,999      .31   
25,000-99,999      .33 
100,000-249,999  .35

Commission for sub sales are not only .25 or .27 or.... They range from .25 to 3�. For example, I had today and yesterday sub sales:0.90$, 1.50$, 0.99$, 0.33$, 0.57$, 0.80$. And your constant comparison with SS is starting to get really annoying.

I sell less files on FT than SS, but I earn more money.

I'm talking about Adobe Stock, not Fotolia here.  The growth is going to come from Adobe not Fotolia.  You will not get 3 euro subs from Adobe Stock, look at the earnings schedule https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
The highest priced "subs" if you want to call 10 dls per month a subs plan will earn you .99.

(obviously, I don't care for istock. In case that wasn't clear)

Obviously, but you shouldn't let that cloud your thinking.

So you saw Adobe Stock coming? I don't think so.

You should have seen it too.  http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/157453/shutterstock-tumbles-as-competitor-inks-deal-with-adobe

Quote from: tickstock on June 19, 2015, 11:21

Quote from: packerguy on June 19, 2015, 11:00

Interesting article from Reuters:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volume-variety-key-adobes-stock-151022958.html

Yep, Getty unsettled, Shutterstock lowers prices, and Adobe takes a big share of the market.  Wouldn't be so bad if subs royalties weren't way lower than even SS or if their pricing for on demand images wasn't also much lower.  When they take market share and SS lowers prices (bigstock royalties coming too?) to match or beat Adobe how will overall income  be affected?

I think this move by Adobe is one of the most brilliant moves I have seen in any business. Outstanding. However once this agency gets some traction of which I believe it will, you can kiss the future of supplying stock photos anywhere goodbye. This offering I feel is a complete game changer for the whole industry and is establishing the new valuation of the future of stock photos direct to the desktops of designers.

It only makes sense neither SS or Getty were available to comment. Getty has now been sideswiped twice, the first time by SS and now Adobe. SS has been sideswiped for the first time as they know this will cut into their business big time, and my bet says they did not see this one coming.

Everyone saw this coming, I think most people thought it would be even worse for contributors than this deal is which might explain why people are so excited even though they are going to lose money in the long run (or maybe very quickly depending how fast Adobe can convert subscribers).  My guess is you'll see something from SS within 2 months, before the busy season when a lot of renewals are up.

Or just click on My uploads, then Last DL and you can see what was most recent.  Click on the Royalties amount and it lists them all from the most recent.  With that kind of jump it was probably an EL - congratulations.

Probably a Getty Plus sale, shows up green probably in the May graph. 

35-40 is much better but if you are selling on SS they price them at $79 and iStock at $50-60 ($150 or more if you are exclusive).  I'd say $40-50 for something like what you have or higher if you are only on Pond5.

Quote from: noodle on June 18, 2015, 19:40

Good to remember too that selling stock is 100% of SS business

For Adobe selling stock is just the gravy on top

I expect that Adobe is also well aware that most of the hundreds of thousands of microstock contributors are Adobe customers as well.  Another reason to try to keep us happy.

Then they should raise prices, sub royalties, and give exclusive files and contributors more.  Gold level (about the same as top level in SS by sales) gives 31 cents compared to 38 at SS, that doesn't sound too good to me.