|
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 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 151
701
« 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.
702
« on: June 18, 2015, 11:58 »
The only way it is any way possible to be positive is to think that they'll bring in a large amount of customers that would never have been customers without Adobe, I think that is very unlikely to happen. Their growth is going to come predominantly from converting Fotolia buyers to Adobe and from other sites.
703
« on: June 18, 2015, 11:50 »
With adobe entering the stock market and launching worldwide in 36 countries, we will get much better balance. i really like ss, but I appreciate diversity in the market, I don't want to ever again be dependent on mostly just one agency.
You do realize that every sale converted from SS to Adobe will result in a loss of revenue for you (something like 20-70%)? That's not the kind of diversity I support.
704
« on: June 17, 2015, 16:50 »
I wouldn't count Pond5 or Alamy. Pond5 is for video and probably a good chunk of Alamy is RM which you can do as an exclusive. If you get past them the returns start to become very low. Veer makes the average contributor on here $11/month for instance.
705
« on: June 17, 2015, 16:30 »
The average RPI for SS (overall per month) is 17 cents and most people make about 50% of their income their so best guess is that the average file on 12-20 sites makes 35 cents per month.
706
« on: June 17, 2015, 16:08 »
The only way to know for sure is to do it. You can look at the poll here and see that exclusivity is roughly equal to all the other sites combined. Dropping exclusivity means accepting some very low royalties from some of those sites as well but maybe that's not a concern of yours. You can also leave and come back in a few months if you change your mind as long as you don't upload to Dreamstime or any other site that keeps you locked in for a prolonged period.
707
« on: June 17, 2015, 15:54 »
Shutterstock is the leader in subs sales, I'd expect a bigger impact on them than iStock. It's probably not a coincidence that the Adobe sub plan costs $199 for 750 images just like the SS plan.
Even so, as explained in another post, the average SS RPD is slightly lower than the average FT RPD (exactly because SS sells more subs than FT).
Therefore, if FT manages to steal sales from SS while paying a higher commission, then this is, obviously, a good thing!
It won't be Fotolia taking sales from SS it will be Adobe taking sales from SS, that's what you need to compare. Here are the plans compared (Fotolia at Gold level and SS at the top level), hopefully this is a fair comparison.
750 image subs plan Adobe pays 31 cents SS pays 38 cents
Single sales Adobe pays $3.30 SS pays 30% (2 images for $25) $3.75 (or more up to $120)
On Demand Adobe pays 99 cents or $1.65 (10 image "sub" deal is about the same thing) SS pays $2.85
All you say is right.
The difference comes from the ratio subs/on demand.
This is what made FT RPD slightly higher. Moreover, SS has increased this ratio, lately.
It remains to be seen if the Adobe RPD will continue the FT trend or will fall down to SS levels, or, God forbid, IS levels.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
The problem is, as you can see, every option at Adobe pays less than the similar option at SS. FT has a different pricing model than Adobe and Adobe isn't going to get new customers to convert to Fotolia, if anything they are going to get Fotolia customers to convert to Adobe.
So let's hope they don't take too many sales from Shutterstock but rather from Istock. 
What are the comparisons there btw?
There are probably at least 4x as many SS subscribers as iStock essentials subscribers (maybe a lot more, I'm not counting Signature subscriptions) so if Adobe takes an equal share from both sites you'll come out down if you are at the top level in Shutterstock. You'll have 4x more sales that result in a 7 cent per sale loss than you will have of sales that gain 3 cents. So if you lose 100 sales from SS and 25 sales at iStock you'll be down 5 cents per sale overall. This is just a rough guess obviously but I think it's probably true that there are at least 4x as many SS subscriptions as iS essentials subscriptions and both sites will probably lose about the same percentage of buyers.
708
« on: June 17, 2015, 13:51 »
Shutterstock is the leader in subs sales, I'd expect a bigger impact on them than iStock. It's probably not a coincidence that the Adobe sub plan costs $199 for 750 images just like the SS plan.
Even so, as explained in another post, the average SS RPD is slightly lower than the average FT RPD (exactly because SS sells more subs than FT).
Therefore, if FT manages to steal sales from SS while paying a higher commission, then this is, obviously, a good thing!
It won't be Fotolia taking sales from SS it will be Adobe taking sales from SS, that's what you need to compare. Here are the plans compared (Fotolia at Gold level and SS at the top level), hopefully this is a fair comparison.
750 image subs plan Adobe pays 31 cents SS pays 38 cents
Single sales Adobe pays $3.30 SS pays 30% (2 images for $25) $3.75 (or more up to $120)
On Demand Adobe pays 99 cents or $1.65 (10 image "sub" deal is about the same thing) SS pays $2.85
All you say is right.
The difference comes from the ratio subs/on demand.
This is what made FT RPD slightly higher. Moreover, SS has increased this ratio, lately.
It remains to be seen if the Adobe RPD will continue the FT trend or will fall down to SS levels, or, God forbid, IS levels.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
The problem is, as you can see, every option at Adobe pays less than the similar option at SS. FT has a different pricing model than Adobe and Adobe isn't going to get new customers to convert to Fotolia, if anything they are going to get Fotolia customers to convert to Adobe.
709
« on: June 17, 2015, 12:04 »
Not sure I get what you are saying. Is it that with Adobe you can download comp images and not pay until they are fully downloaded?
710
« on: June 17, 2015, 11:22 »
Shutterstock is the leader in subs sales, I'd expect a bigger impact on them than iStock. It's probably not a coincidence that the Adobe sub plan costs $199 for 750 images just like the SS plan.
Even so, as explained in another post, the average SS RPD is slightly lower than the average FT RPD (exactly because SS sells more subs than FT).
Therefore, if FT manages to steal sales from SS while paying a higher commission, then this is, obviously, a good thing!
It won't be Fotolia taking sales from SS it will be Adobe taking sales from SS, that's what you need to compare. Here are the plans compared (Fotolia at Gold level and SS at the top level), hopefully this is a fair comparison. 750 image subs plan Adobe pays 31 cents SS pays 38 cents Single sales Adobe pays $3.30 SS pays 30% (2 images for $25) $3.75 (or more up to $120) On Demand Adobe pays 99 cents or $1.65 (10 image "sub" deal is about the same thing) SS pays $2.85
711
« on: June 17, 2015, 10:59 »
Thanks for the great news Matt. I'm excited to see how this new move by Adobe affects sales!
If Fotolio is your only agency, then you should be excited, but otherwise I can't see how it could matter a squit. AS makes more sales; someone else makes less.
It's not always a zero sum game, but even if it is, when the one making less sales is the one that pays you less, (eg if FT gets sales from IS) then changes like this matter.
Shutterstock is the leader in subs sales, I'd expect a bigger impact on them than iStock. It's probably not a coincidence that the Adobe sub plan costs $199 for 750 images just like the SS plan.
712
« on: June 17, 2015, 10:41 »
If you are at the top level on SS you'll make less on the sub sales until you reach 1,000,000 sales (the payout is less than 38 cents until you reach one million sales).
 I've been making 38 cents per sub on SS for years, and I have nowhere near a million sales.
On FT you need to get 1,000,000 sales to get more than 38 cents per sub dl otherwise you'll be making less than a top level SS contributor makes off a sub sale. If FT takes business from SS you'll be making less for those sales until you get 1,000,000 sales at FT.
713
« on: June 17, 2015, 10:22 »
I find the contributor levels at FT a tad unrealistic, I'm sure most agree.
I think Cobalt said it elsewhere "now I have a chance of reaching gold in this lifetime!" since the subs count as downloads. That's something. Glad to see that Leaf and a few others have sprinted ahead overnight.
Gold means you'll make almost 20% less per sub sale than a top level contributor at SS will make. Gold level is roughly the same as the top level at SS, I think.
714
« on: June 17, 2015, 10:14 »
Thanks for the great news Matt. I'm excited to see how this new move by Adobe affects sales!
If Fotolio is your only agency, then you should be excited, but otherwise I can't see how it could matter a squit. AS makes more sales; someone else makes less.
Not necessarily. Here's a built in market of application users that might not have been interested in licensing before.
Shutterstock investors don't seem to see it that way, there was about a 13% decline in stock value the day Adobe announced their intention to buy fotolia and now there is a 7% decline since this was implemented yesterday. You can't go too much off stock value but December 10 (the day before it was announced) the stock was at $72 and now it's at $59. I would bet a large part of that drop is due to the Adobe-Fotolia deal. If you are at the top level on SS you'll make less on the sub sales until you reach 1,000,000 sales (the payout is less than 38 cents until you reach one million sales). On demand sales also pay $2.85 at SS for top level contributors ($1.88 for bottom level) while they pay 99 cents or $1.65 at Fotolia. It's more than a little disappointing that they didn't give a better rate to exclusive contributors and files.
715
« on: June 16, 2015, 15:51 »
SS will have to pull something out of the bag to counter Adobe, exclusivity, curation or gateway to Offset.
Adobe have moved impressively fast since their acquisition, Fotolia website looks better, Adobe Stock site looks clean, Royalties increased, stock images baked into CC software all in the space of 6 months.
I was just thinking the same thing. Exclusivity is probably looking like much more of an option now. I'm sure Shutterstock has something planned, everyone knew this was going to happen sometime soon. We'll probably see what that is in the next month or two.
716
« on: June 16, 2015, 14:44 »
However, in terms of average $/DL, FT was already paying slightly better than SS.
This upgrade will only increase the gap.
Really? Is that, like, a general thing?
My RPD on SS is 50% higher than on FT...
Really! Only IS pays less/DL than SS.
These are my stats:
1. DT - $1.45/DL
2. 123- $1.02/DL
3. FT - $0.88/DL
4. SS - $0.85/DL
5. IS - $0.65/DL
Hmm... my RPD at iStock just for subs is higher than any of those sites. Too bad Adobe didn't choose to go a bit (a lot) higher with sub royalties.
717
« on: June 16, 2015, 10:48 »
Mat, any plans to give exclusive contributors a better deal on Adobe sales than nonexclusive contributors or files.?
718
« on: June 16, 2015, 10:22 »
I expect another positive spin.
Only 20% of my FT sales come from US.
Now, with the increased exposure through Adobe Cloud, the US sales will probably get a visible boost!
And since FT has already a slightly better average $/DL than SS, with this increase, it's good news for the contributors, even if FT eats up some of the SS US market share.
What do you think SS will do if they lose market share to FT?
I don't think SS will lower prices, price isn't the attraction with CC/FT, it's the convenience of staying in program and using the image before you buy it. Difficult to see how SS or anyone else can compete with that. BIG USP for them and probably one of the most attractive in the marketplace. Buyers will pay a bit more for that to save their time.
You think of all the service businesses out there who only thrive because they provide services that people either haven't got the skills to do themselves, can't be bothered to do or do not have the time to do; cleaners, chaffeurs, gardeners, printers, photographers, etc, etc. People will pay for convenience and in a business like the creative market where the more time you have the more money you earn it, will be accepted wholesale.
So you think they'll just sit back and allow FT to take market share without doing anything?
719
« on: June 16, 2015, 10:12 »
I agree but SS will probably respond so they don't lose too much market share. The most obvious way would be by lowering prices.
Anything is possible, but that solution seems to ignore the last 5 years in micro for SS.
How so? Shutterstock has been taking market share for the last 5 years this seems like it could be a real challenge.
720
« on: June 16, 2015, 09:57 »
I expect another positive spin.
Only 20% of my FT sales come from US.
Now, with the increased exposure through Adobe Cloud, the US sales will probably get a visible boost!
And since FT has already a slightly better average $/DL than SS, with this increase, it's good news for the contributors, even if FT eats up some of the SS US market share.
What do you think SS will do if they lose market share to FT?
You never know. I'm only guessing that it might be more convenient for a busy PS user to try and then buy a photo without leaving PS.
I agree but SS will probably respond so they don't lose too much market share. The most obvious way would be by lowering prices. It seems very unlikely that they will grow without taking some market share from SS, it may not mean much but SS shares are down 4% in the first couple hours of trading today so it seems like investors believe market share will be taken.
721
« on: June 16, 2015, 09:50 »
I expect another positive spin.
Only 20% of my FT sales come from US.
Now, with the increased exposure through Adobe Cloud, the US sales will probably get a visible boost!
And since FT has already a slightly better average $/DL than SS, with this increase, it's good news for the contributors, even if FT eats up some of the SS US market share.
What do you think SS will do if they lose market share to FT?
722
« on: June 16, 2015, 09:11 »
iStock is paying serious exclusives a higher royalty rate than most of the competition and subs for higher quality work get $2.50. I think the pressure is going to be on places like SS to lower prices and royalties as FT takes market share. Those higher priced sites you mention have not been shown to be that great, at least from the almost nonexistent info on what people are making there. Basically I see nonexclusive work dropping in value faster than exclusive work, there is a lot of pressure coming from all sides just in the last year.
723
« on: June 16, 2015, 08:46 »
I think the changes at Fotolia will make a change ...let's see. I wonder how many contributors are not supplying images to small agencies with minuscule returns and those that have minimal commissions. And that is lagging behind....sooner or later buyers realize that the competitor has a broader spectrum of images. Since I left exclusivity I have not supplied with new images to Istock. Why? Because I rather sell the image at a site that pays me a minimum of 30% that a site that has the lowest subscriptions (for nox-ex) and smallest royalties of the whole industry. So yes I think the agencies will have to adapt or fade away. Natural market forces
Interesting. For me the average monthly RPI on SS increased every year from 2009-2012 then stayed the same for the next three years. So far this year it has dropped a penny compared to the last three due to the last two months, where it has been back to where it was in 2009. So far this month it also is low. Hmmm. Of course it is still three times higher than at iS but the drop is worrisome. If the new changes at FT lead to positive buzz there then maybe it will cause the other agencies to consider contributors as well - we can hope.
Looking through past reports it looks like SS had a steady RPI at 19 cents until this year when it dropped to 17 cents. They are still accepting massive amounts of files so that number will probably drop again. It doesn't do much good to compare nonexclusive istock RPI to SS RPI since most people will contribute to both at least it's unlikely anyone would just be on iStock and not on SS as a nonexclusive. RPI should compare exclusive to total nonexclusive RPI to be meaningful.
The new changes at FT probably won't make an overall positive change. How many people will stop contributing to other sites because of those changes? That's the only way other sites will change. I doubt anyone is going to stop uploading to SS because of those changes. If FT gains market share how will SS respond? I don't think they gain anything by increasing royalty rates since that won't stop people from uploading to FT, they may lower prices but that won't be beneficial to contributors.
iStock still has a large exclusive collection to use as a selling point and are a lot of people actually stopping uploading to them, I'm not sure they are. SS is the largest part for most nonexclusives where the pressure will be to lower prices to compete with FT, there probably will be no pressure for SS to raise royalties. Not uploading to iStock will make it harder to replace exclusive RPI even if you don't like the royalty you are getting.
724
« on: June 16, 2015, 08:20 »
Interesting. For me the average monthly RPI on SS increased every year from 2009-2012 then stayed the same for the next three years. So far this year it has dropped a penny compared to the last three due to the last two months, where it has been back to where it was in 2009. So far this month it also is low. Hmmm. Of course it is still three times higher than at iS but the drop is worrisome. If the new changes at FT lead to positive buzz there then maybe it will cause the other agencies to consider contributors as well - we can hope.
Looking through past reports it looks like SS had a steady RPI at 19 cents until this year when it dropped to 17 cents. They are still accepting massive amounts of files so that number will probably drop again. It doesn't do much good to compare nonexclusive istock RPI to SS RPI since most people will contribute to both at least it's unlikely anyone would just be on iStock and not on SS as a nonexclusive. RPI should compare exclusive to total nonexclusive RPI to be meaningful. The new changes at FT probably won't make an overall positive change. How many people will stop contributing to other sites because of those changes? That's the only way other sites will change. I doubt anyone is going to stop uploading to SS because of those changes. If FT gains market share how will SS respond? I don't think they gain anything by increasing royalty rates since that won't stop people from uploading to FT, they may lower prices but that won't be beneficial to contributors.
725
« on: June 16, 2015, 08:15 »
Wow!
I am shocked at how many NEGATIVE post have come out of this great news... Maybe that's why I come less often on this forum. All contributors have been stating about the cut in the commissions in Fotolia. Now that we have big increase and receive a 1/3 commission along with a new platform to generate revenue, most of you still find place to complain instead of taking one small moment to say Thank You to Adobe for taking a step forward in fixing a flawed system.
Cheer up everyone! 
Is it a pay raise? 750 images for $199 means you would get something like 8 or 9 cents per sale doesn't it?
If you look into this link (https://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties) that Mat had given on page 1, it appears that "Adobe Stock - 750 images per month" will give the "Minimum guarantee" which starts at 25 cents. On the same page in Adobe FT words "Get 33% on every sale on a Fotolia subscription or on Adobe Stock. Actual payout will depend on the price of the image paid by the buyer. Minimum guarantee applies to make sure contributors are always fairly compensated, whatever the price is."
This is my take reading the link; I hope we will be able to get a reply from Mat on this.
I think that's correct but then is it a raise since everyone will get the guaranteed minimum? Did they raise that or is it staying the same?
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
