|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 151
676
« on: June 18, 2015, 19:31 »
Only some buyers can see those images, it's called Getty Plus and you get paid through the partner program. All images on iStock are available to a select group of buyers.
677
« on: June 18, 2015, 16:11 »
Not necessarily. I know you want to obsess about SS, but most of us contribute to a number of sites, so it could be better, worse or a wash for us. Only time will tell.
If Shutterstock changed their pricing to match Adobe Stock would you feel the same? Look it over is that what you want at SS? If Adobe Stock is successful they won't have to match that, they'll have to beat it.
678
« on: June 18, 2015, 16:06 »
Hey, you're the one spending all day gleefully posting about how much everyone will be losing.
I'm most certainly not gleefully posting about this. I think contributors should not be happily supporting this, it's bad for them. I'd like contributors to stand up and try to get a better deal that won't undercut their other earnings.
679
« on: June 18, 2015, 16:03 »
Anyway, it is better to be part of the change instead of complaining from the sides.
I'll most strongly disagree. It's only better to be part of the change if the change is better. When you start earning 20-70% less per sale than you would have at SS I think you'll understand. Until then we'll have to agree to disagree on this. In the meantime you can compare like sales:
https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml
Please disagree!
If the change is inevitable, you better go with the winning side. And with such a breakthrough, for me at least, the choice is obvious.
Feel free to watch your exclusive IS revenues slowly sinking while AS converts your buyers.
The point is that it's actually bad for you as well.
You don't know that. Again, you speculate.
It is definitely excellent for the customers. Easier access and convenience drives behaviour. This is good for the industry!
What's excellent for customers is most likely not what's best for us. Remember DPC that was great for customers, not so great for contributors. Free high quality images are great for customers not so great for us.
680
« on: June 18, 2015, 15:58 »
Anyway, it is better to be part of the change instead of complaining from the sides.
I'll most strongly disagree. It's only better to be part of the change if the change is better. When you start earning 20-70% less per sale than you would have at SS I think you'll understand. Until then we'll have to agree to disagree on this. In the meantime you can compare like sales:
https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml
Please disagree!
If the change is inevitable, you better go with the winning side. And with such a breakthrough, for me at least, the choice is obvious.
Feel free to watch your exclusive IS revenues slowly sinking while AS converts your buyers.
I'm not sure what this has to do with exclusivity. Sure it will be bad for me if they take customers, I make almost as much for subs as they pay for single downloads. The point is that it's actually bad for you as well. If they do take market share from SS (from SS, yep SS) then most people will lose between 20 and 70% per sale. I'm certainly not woo yaying that and I'm a little surprised you are.
We might lose 20-70%, but you'll lose 100%. And we'll gain if they convert iStock buyers, while you lose both ways.
So you're ok with losing 20-70% as long as you can see other people losing more, what a wonderful person you are. Even though I dislike you I don't want to see you lose.
681
« on: June 18, 2015, 15:57 »
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.
682
« on: June 18, 2015, 15:49 »
Anyway, it is better to be part of the change instead of complaining from the sides.
I'll most strongly disagree. It's only better to be part of the change if the change is better. When you start earning 20-70% less per sale than you would have at SS I think you'll understand. Until then we'll have to agree to disagree on this. In the meantime you can compare like sales:
https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml
Please disagree!
If the change is inevitable, you better go with the winning side. And with such a breakthrough, for me at least, the choice is obvious.
Feel free to watch your exclusive IS revenues slowly sinking while AS converts your buyers.
I'm not sure what this has to do with exclusivity. Sure it will be bad for me if they take customers, I make almost as much for subs as they pay for single downloads. The point is that it's actually bad for you as well. If they do take market share from SS (from SS, yep SS) then most people will lose between 20 and 70% per sale. I'm certainly not woo yaying that and I'm a little surprised you are.
684
« on: June 18, 2015, 15:31 »
Fotolia has more to offer as subs! My rpd is 4-5 . All people write about subs. Whatever, most of the subs from Adobe Stock will bring us 1,65 euro or dollar.
Gesendet von meinem LG-E975 mit Tapatalk
Those aren't really subs packages, a one time payment for 10 images doesn't sound much like a subs plan to me.
685
« on: June 18, 2015, 15:29 »
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?
686
« on: June 18, 2015, 15:18 »
Maybe this is a bit too alarmist? http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock
"Adobes CC users are some of the biggest users of stock images, videos and so forth, so Shutterstock is likely to lose this business entirely (unless maybe it competes very aggressively on price)."
You forgot to quote this:
"Moreover, in order to encourage photographers and designers to contribute content to Adobe Stock, the company has assured that it will offer top-of-the-market rates, thus pulling in content providers"
Jo Ann addressed that a few comments above but it would be wise for you to look a bit closer rather than relying on Adobe's press releases. They are trying to get subscription customers, all the sites are, sub rates are lower at Fotolia than SS (until you get 1,000,000 sales, then it's marginally better, how long will it take you to get to one million sales). The pricing is lower on Fotolia than SS so you'll earn less for similar sales there and subs don't follow royalty rates, they are set by level.
687
« on: June 18, 2015, 15:12 »
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.
688
« on: June 18, 2015, 14:31 »
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.
689
« on: June 18, 2015, 14:13 »
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.
690
« on: June 18, 2015, 13:55 »
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?
691
« on: June 18, 2015, 13:45 »
Yep it will affect all sites but probably SS the most significantly from a contributor's point of view.
692
« on: June 18, 2015, 13:40 »
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.
693
« on: June 18, 2015, 13:34 »
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.
695
« on: June 18, 2015, 13:25 »
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.
696
« on: June 18, 2015, 12:45 »
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.
697
« on: June 18, 2015, 12:44 »
This is what I see and in the presentation they also had an offer for single images at 9.90 euros. (net, VAT has to be added)
https://stock.adobe.com/plans
There is nothing there about credits and it certainly doesn't look like the same thing as is on Fotolia.
698
« on: June 18, 2015, 12:40 »
Do you have something you can point to with credit packs? I haven't seen anything about that anywhere and a google search of it doesn't come up with anything as far as I can see. https://stock.adobe.com/plans
699
« on: June 18, 2015, 12:23 »
Where are you seeing credit packs at Adobe? All I see is 10 images per month (monthly or annual plan) and the 750 images per month plan. It is in no way the same system. For an exclusive full sized file if you want one it will get you something like $12 on Fotolia and $3.30 on Adobe Stock (assuming gold level). For exclusive contributors you'll get $3.30 on Adobe and $20 on Fotolia. For nonexclusive files it's $4 on Fotolia and $3.30 on Adobe. For single files on SS (top level) it's $3.75(or more) and Adobe $3.30.
700
« on: June 18, 2015, 12:08 »
I earn more on average downloads on fotolia than on SS, unless there is a superlarge download. So for me more sales via fotolia is better.
Ss is fantastic for video or if they have extended licenses, but otherwise it is mostly subs, which don't excite me.
On fotolia more than 50% are credit sales.
Here in germany fotolia is often stronger than SS.
This seems to be a big misconception here, Adobe is not converting customers to Fotolia they are converting customers to Adobe Stock. It's very different, there are no credit sales with no bonus for exclusive contributors or files. Again you will not get more credit sales from this you will lose credit sales on Fotolia as they try to move customers from Fotolia to Adobe Stock.
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
