MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How I got from 400 sales a day to 130  (Read 3470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2020, 11:07 »
+2
In a sense Adobe is worse then SS. Fotolia was great for me then came Adobe and wrecked a good agency. I had reached Emerald at Fotolia but that meant nothing when Adobe took over.

Why does that mean nothing?

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html

Lifetime Downloads    Minimum Subscription Royalty
0-999    $0.33
1,000-9,999    $0.36
10,000 and above    $0.38

Maybe they don't have cute metal or jewel names but you still make more than "Bronze and Silver".  ;D Is that .38 a drop from what FT paid for the same subscription downloads?

Other royalties were raised and standardized, making them higher than Fotolia was. There's the bonus program, which I understand doesn't mean everyone benefits, but any artist type can now get a free years subscription to one of the CC products, for free. Only 150 downloads needed. That's not a huge number?

I can't speak if overall downloads changed, some people say they make more, some say they make less. I dropped FT when DPC came in, and only re-joined when Adobe bought them.

If the problem is lower sales, not lower royalties, that's a different issue than being Emerald and somehow getting less commission? Or both maybe?


« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2020, 12:03 »
+1
In a sense Adobe is worse then SS. Fotolia was great for me then came Adobe and wrecked a good agency. I had reached Emerald at Fotolia but that meant nothing when Adobe took over.

No, they have not wrecked it. It is just not better for you but that does not mean that it is worse for everybody. Many other contributors are happy with the performance of Adobe Stock (including me).

« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2020, 12:54 »
+1
I uploaded significantly more last year and was seeing an income bump from that effort that is now gone. Before March my SS income was on a strong upward trajectory, doubling from December to January, and then doubling again from January to February. But it dropped 75% in March, as the coronavirus really hit the US, and April has been abysmal.

Much of my content is travel oriented, and most of it is US-based, so not a surprise. I added a lot of backgrounds and illustrations in 2019, and some coronavirus- themed images this year, but this is not making up for the drop in my travel image my best-sellers.

Concepts around the US election were selling until the primary and general election were eclipsed by the coronavirus. Bernie dropping out isn't going to change that in terms of the images I have.

Adobe's promise still hasn't come through for me to the extent I'd hoped, despite higher RPI and steady earnings since last year. With a significant reliance on travel images in my portfolio, I recognize that this puts me at a disadvantage, not just because oof the coronavirus, but also because Adobe appeals more to designers than editorial buyers.

Now that I am limited by what I can shoot at home, I've been brainstorming timely ideas, but it has been hard to motivate myself to shoot when sales are drying up. I've been cooking a lot and keep thinking I should shoot what I cook but with all the photos on instagram, are people going to bother buying them from stock sites in a tumbling economy?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2020, 13:06 by wordplanet »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2020, 13:45 »
+2
In a sense Adobe is worse then SS. Fotolia was great for me then came Adobe and wrecked a good agency. I had reached Emerald at Fotolia but that meant nothing when Adobe took over.

No, they have not wrecked it. It is just not better for you but that does not mean that it is worse for everybody. Many other contributors are happy with the performance of Adobe Stock (including me).

Here's what happened when Adobe took over. I can't compare the percentages for the other licenses, that could have dropped or increased. And I think for many people, sales could have dropped. But the point is, Emeralds did not get cut, they actually got a raise.



White or whatever it was, was eliminated, (I didn't know that?) everyone starts as Bronze? 6c raise. Silver 7c raise. Gold, Emerald, Sapphire, Ruby all got a raise. The only people making less were the ones with over 1,000,000 downloads.

If someone is making less, maybe the reason is less sales. Or what else changed? Type of licenses? But everyone is getting more per sub except who? Anyone here who had 1 Million downloads?  :)



« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2020, 19:32 »
+1
Anyone here who had 1 Million downloads?  :)

Definitely not moi! :D

« Reply #30 on: April 10, 2020, 04:01 »
0
In a sense Adobe is worse then SS. Fotolia was great for me then came Adobe and wrecked a good agency. I had reached Emerald at Fotolia but that meant nothing when Adobe took over.

Why does that mean nothing?

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html

Lifetime Downloads    Minimum Subscription Royalty
0-999    $0.33
1,000-9,999    $0.36
10,000 and above    $0.38

Maybe they don't have cute metal or jewel names but you still make more than "Bronze and Silver".  ;D Is that .38 a drop from what FT paid for the same subscription downloads?

Other royalties were raised and standardized, making them higher than Fotolia was. There's the bonus program, which I understand doesn't mean everyone benefits, but any artist type can now get a free years subscription to one of the CC products, for free. Only 150 downloads needed. That's not a huge number?

I can't speak if overall downloads changed, some people say they make more, some say they make less. I dropped FT when DPC came in, and only re-joined when Adobe bought them.

If the problem is lower sales, not lower royalties, that's a different issue than being Emerald and somehow getting less commission? Or both maybe?


Not sure I understand what you are trying to say?..I reached Emerald about six month's before the Adobe takeover and was earning very well indeed. Adobe came along and after two month my income was down by 50%  and I wasn't alone I spoke to at least a dozen members in my position and it was all the same down by 50%  the sales started to go to lower members with a lower royalty percentage....Adobe treats Fotolia as a side-kick thats all.

« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2020, 05:41 »
0
Just popping in to say SS keeps degrading for me, while Adobe is skyrocketing. Now I'am getting 160dl a day on Adobe hah. This keeps me wondering how can one agency be affected so much by the coronavirus (SS), and another agency (Adobe) is selling like crazy in these crazy times.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #32 on: April 10, 2020, 11:53 »
+1
In a sense Adobe is worse then SS. Fotolia was great for me then came Adobe and wrecked a good agency. I had reached Emerald at Fotolia but that meant nothing when Adobe took over.

Why does that mean nothing?

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html

Lifetime Downloads    Minimum Subscription Royalty
0-999    $0.33
1,000-9,999    $0.36
10,000 and above    $0.38

Maybe they don't have cute metal or jewel names but you still make more than "Bronze and Silver".  ;D Is that .38 a drop from what FT paid for the same subscription downloads?

Other royalties were raised and standardized, making them higher than Fotolia was. There's the bonus program, which I understand doesn't mean everyone benefits, but any artist type can now get a free years subscription to one of the CC products, for free. Only 150 downloads needed. That's not a huge number?

I can't speak if overall downloads changed, some people say they make more, some say they make less. I dropped FT when DPC came in, and only re-joined when Adobe bought them.

If the problem is lower sales, not lower royalties, that's a different issue than being Emerald and somehow getting less commission? Or both maybe?


Not sure I understand what you are trying to say?..I reached Emerald about six month's before the Adobe takeover and was earning very well indeed. Adobe came along and after two month my income was down by 50%  and I wasn't alone I spoke to at least a dozen members in my position and it was all the same down by 50%  the sales started to go to lower members with a lower royalty percentage....Adobe treats Fotolia as a side-kick thats all.

You made less and your sales were less, but if you look, you actually got a raise. Everyone except Rainbow or whatever that one is, got a raise. And because you were Emerald you made 38 cents instead of 33 cents for a sub. That's subs, it's near impossible to figure out how the others changed. So if becoming Emerald did nothing, I'd disagree.

But the other part seems to be what many people found. Less sales, lower commissions on sales, and in general, less earnings. I don't think it has to do with being Emerald or not, was my point?

You'll have to wait for someone who has found better sales from AS than FT and I can't make that claim as I left during DPC and came back after Adobe. There are some people who are saying that their sales picked up after Adobe, and others like you have found their income has dropped after Adobe. Maybe the flood of new people and returning artists had something to do with taking away your business?

I do feel that the drop is unfortunate since you worked hard and stuck with FT for so long. I can't see much of a change except, like other times when there's re-organization, more things were made subs and less specific licenses. Look at the whole old FT thing, image sizes and a shopping list of different types. Adobe simplified. FT had Royalty based on size?

We've also been making less at SS even though no commission cuts. Same things happened, Licenses changed, priced charged changed, less EL, OD and Single. So Oh nice, I make the same commission, but the agency charges less, so in reality, I make less.

Just a guess that that's part of what happened at Adobe?

Hopefully someone else who didn't leave will know how their percentages changed. But subs didn't go down, everyone makes more now, than we did before. I kind of like the 99c subs.  :) But I still don't make as much as I do on SS.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2020, 12:01 »
+1
Anyone here who had 1 Million downloads?  :)

Definitely not moi! :D

Reminds me of when Bigstock started levels and all someone needed was 50,000 downloads a year to go up. If I had stayed there from the time I joined in 2008, I still wouldn't have 50,000 downloads. How anyone got to 1 million on FT, they must have been really big and prolific.

I didn't take notes on all the changes, but basically, I used to get 50c a download on BS. After SS took over, I got 25c a download. Talk about cuts!

IS dropped the independent people to 15% for photo and 20% for illustrations. Oh thank you.

Adobe bought FT and gave us all a raise FOR SUBS, but cut the price by size accounting. I'm just guessing that could have been what cut all the higher people down and made their earnings drop up to 60%?

 

« Reply #34 on: April 10, 2020, 12:12 »
0
...
« Last Edit: April 10, 2020, 13:18 by pics2 »

« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2020, 11:17 »
+1
Not sure I understand what you are trying to say?..I reached Emerald about six month's before the Adobe takeover and was earning very well indeed. Adobe came along and after two month my income was down by 50%  and I wasn't alone I spoke to at least a dozen members in my position and it was all the same down by 50%  the sales started to go to lower members with a lower royalty percentage....Adobe treats Fotolia as a side-kick thats all.

Once again. Because YOU are getting less money on Adobe does not mean that EVERYBODY does and that the agency was ruined and it is a side-kick (it has been integrated to Photoshop and other Creative Cloud apps,...). It is true that for some people, the direction of Adobe Stock is not great, but for many people it is opposite. The polls here are also showing the fact that Shutterstock which was way higher than Fotolia, is nowadays comparable. So, it does not seem that you are true. If Adobe is failing than all others are failing much faster.

For example, for me, Adobe Stock extremely improved in recent times and is far better than SS. But I am not saying that Adobe is better than SS only because it is true in MY case.

wds

« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2020, 13:21 »
0
Generally speaking in terms of ups and downs, it's as much about the direction as the quantities. Upward trends at any level are very encouraging, downward trends at any level are very discouraging


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3155 Views
Last post December 27, 2012, 15:44
by Microbius
34 Replies
54114 Views
Last post January 21, 2015, 10:11
by mendopato
63 Replies
15568 Views
Last post November 29, 2015, 19:16
by Digital66
10 Replies
5436 Views
Last post March 11, 2017, 10:47
by helloitsme
6 Replies
3921 Views
Last post February 06, 2018, 10:14
by trucic

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle