Quote from: qwerty on June 25, 2015, 22:37

Quote from: tickstock on June 25, 2015, 22:13

Quote from: qwerty on June 25, 2015, 21:33

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

Your royalty will be lower than SS by a fairly large margin depending on your level.
Single sales at SS (2 for $29 is smallest package) each $4.35 at Adobe $3.30
On Demand sales at SS $2.85 at Adobe $1.65 or .99.
Subs at SS 38 cents at Adobe 31 cents for same level.

So it's about a 20-70% RPD loss depending on the type of sale.  They also don't have ELs on the site so those will much likely be a lot lower to nonexistent and there won't be any high value SODs.  Bottom line is your RPD will go down and significantly.

Okay my statement was too far reaching. Adobe deal isn't the best of all, but its certainly not the worst.
Yes it would probably reduce the RPD if all sales were taken from SS alone.
RPD last month at IS was $0.44 so I'd happily swap those for the Adobe sales.
only 11% of last months sales at Istock were Credit sales.

This is where you chime in and say how awesome exclusive at IS is and your RPD there are massive.

No, I'm not going to say anything about my RPD you probably don't care much about that.  I think you'll be swapping a very small amount of iStock sales and a larger amount of SS sales.  On top of that if Adobe is successful then SS will lower your RPD by cutting prices and possibly changing how subs are paid.

I'm interested why you think that Adobe will take more sales from SS than IS ?

Quote from: qwerty on June 25, 2015, 20:21

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on June 25, 2015, 18:38

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. 

I had a request via dreamstime and never heard back, I think I priced it at $500. Maybe they thought they'd get it for $50

I think having multiple accounts on dreamstime would be an advantage because there seems to be a portfolio boost on some rotation system. Also the earning levels there are on a per photo basis.

Most of the agencies don't have constricting upload limits anymore so that's not an issue now.

Quote from: LesPalenik on June 07, 2015, 00:26

However, if you are a landscape photographer, nothing beats the America the Beautiful - National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Senior Pass in USA - Lifetime Pass for $10. Seniors from all other countries would go to war for such a deal.

Our National Parks are free for everyone, though admittedly nothing like as varied.

What about for "commercial" photography.

pay

not too worried about the actual review time but I'm having a lot of files upload with lines through them.
Also when I upload there's like 3 copies of the same file trying to load.

Quote from: ShadySue on April 15, 2015, 19:10

^^ Another weird decision if it is a positive decision and not an occasional bug. (I don't check the bug thread there. Life's too short.

It's definitely a new design. Very slow. No Loupe. But I did find the sort order�it doesn't show up when you're looking at your own portfolio, but does show up on searches.

That's what I'm seeing, able to sort in search but not my own or anybody elses "portfolio" page

I can go to "my uploads" page and see them in upload order

my acceptance rate there has plummeted aswell. Hard to get anything through, if Shutterstock takes it with 50 million photos I can't understand why photodune would be more picky

Quote from: qwerty on March 30, 2015, 23:59

Can someone tell me what gets a print run of more than 500,000 ?

Newspapers, monthly magazines, council publications, political newsletters, promotional flyers for national events, door drops, etc. You would be surprised, 500,000 in print industry is nothing really.

Well maybe there is bigger print runs in countries other than mine but for example.

Sydney Morning Herald - Saturday = 223,000  (2013) Mon-Frid (132,000)
Women Weekly on of the biggest magazines in Australia (printed monthly ) = 459,000 (2013)
Council publications => there aren't 500,000 dwellings in a council area.

Sure there are things like the New York times, time magazine but I don't think there are as many as you say and year on year there will be less. Number of print runs allowed without EL should be reduced not increased.

Makes me feel like a minion working for cents whilst the Barons in the ivory tower drive round in their virtual Segway head machines.

I'd like to see the Istock office in comparison.

4000 images, they're really taking it to the big boys.

I'm glad they rejected 4/5 of my best sellers that I uploaded there. If they'd accepted them I would have wasted many hours uploading the rest of my portfolio.

Interesting that the cost per month they quote to keep the site running.
Shows that with some sales each month (after development etc is stopped) the small sites can still make money for the owners, but not much for contributors.