Author Topic: Adobe Stock Upfront Royalty Payment Opportunity (Read 102240 times)

PZF · « **Reply #300 on:** July 02, 2021, 01:56 »

4 out of few hundred. I only nominated - as far as possible - feeble sellers. But still.

I guess we all knew they'd only take a few and the free collection will still undermine sales everywhere.

Sigh.

I guess we can't get (all) out of this scheme for a year?

Shuttershock · « **Reply #301 on:** July 02, 2021, 02:15 »

Will go for the Adobe deal next time!

Firn · « **Reply #302 on:** July 02, 2021, 02:38 »

Quote from: rcj1uk on July 02, 2021, 02:15

Shutterstock ...

It seems you missed the part where you signed a NDA that legally forbids you to talk about this.

MadPhotos · « **Reply #303 on:** July 02, 2021, 04:34 »

Hi Mat
Would be great to know what's the plan with next review waves. In what frequency they are planed to be done and approximately how many more is scheduled. I think everyone want to know what to expect next and for many it's grate crash injection during that time. Can we know what is the plan for next month? Can we expect anything more this month or next turn will be made next month?
Thanks

MadPhotos · « **Reply #304 on:** July 02, 2021, 04:44 »

Quote from: WD3 Photography on July 01, 2021, 13:09

I've had 2 photos approved for the Free Price Tier so far.

I was told that I had 168 images eligible for the free collection.

I hope this doesn't turn into a damp squib!

Don't expect too much. Nominations were done by system not humans, most likly by count of views on each photo. Actual review was done by moderators that judge if photos are worth upfront $5 for Adobe. I think some photos could be more valuable even for Adobe to stay with contributor as have more potential for future sales. Free photos work as a advertisement of simlar photos on contributor profile so it's better to pick less attractive version of that theme.

shutterview · « **Reply #305 on:** July 02, 2021, 04:47 »

good point.....

beketoff · « **Reply #306 on:** July 02, 2021, 05:03 »

"We are sending this email to let you know that we’ve accepted 1 asset(s) you nominated for the Adobe Stock free collection. Congratulations! We’ve added an upfront payment of US$ to your overall earnings balance."

Oh, thanks so much. 1 approved photo out of 500 and for as much as a whooping US$ (I guess it's 5$?). Alright, next please.

shutterview · « **Reply #307 on:** July 02, 2021, 05:42 »

Good point......

Dumc · « **Reply #308 on:** July 02, 2021, 06:00 »

Quote from: shutterview on July 02, 2021, 05:42

Good point......

I've read your post before you deleted it.

I sure wasn't expecting to earn hundreds of dollars. I just saw this as a little bit of extra income from images that dont sell. And getting 85€ (I know that isn't a lot of money for some people) from 17 images, that earned me 10€ in the last year, I'd say that's a good deal.

shutterview · « **Reply #309 on:** July 02, 2021, 06:39 »

I know, a bit extreme view, so I deleted it, just didn't want to get involved. I understand you, no hard feelings.

offisapup · « **Reply #310 on:** July 02, 2021, 07:52 »

Quote from: Firn on July 02, 2021, 02:38

Quote from: rcj1uk on July 02, 2021, 02:15
Shutterstock pay upfront also, I was offered just under $2000 for around 1000 of my images. I declined as the difference with Shutterstock is you give them away FOREVER not just the 12 months Adobe offer. Shutterstock also choose the images.

It seems you missed the part where you signed a NDA that legally forbids you to talk about this.

I'm glad he did. Now some of us who didn't receive this "exciting" email know what it is. Something SS wants to keep under wraps and makes it look much poorer and shadier in comparison to other agencies who are at least more honest and upfront about making such deals.

Reimar · « **Reply #311 on:** July 02, 2021, 08:02 »

Quote from: offisapup on July 02, 2021, 07:52

Quote from: Firn on July 02, 2021, 02:38
Quote from: rcj1uk on July 02, 2021, 02:15
Shutterstock pay upfront also, I was offered just under $2000 for around 1000 of my images. I declined as the difference with Shutterstock is you give them away FOREVER not just the 12 months Adobe offer. Shutterstock also choose the images.

It seems you missed the part where you signed a NDA that legally forbids you to talk about this.

I'm glad he did. Now some of us who didn't receive this "exciting" email know what it is. Something SS wants to keep under wraps and makes it look much poorer and shadier in comparison to other agencies who are at least more honest and upfront about making such deals.

If I were SS, I'd be embarrassed to offer their kind of "deal" too. With the secrecy, they are more likely to suck in more victims.

wordplanet · « **Reply #313 on:** July 02, 2021, 12:54 »

I only nominated 23 of 85 possibilities, they chose 2 so far, but many of the nominees were older autumn and Christmas-themed images that haven't sold in a while. Hoping more will be chosen by September. I didn't expect a big cash infusion since I chose so few. In retrospect, it would've made sense to choose a lot more if I wanted any kind of meaningful cash infusion.

I've seen a nice uptick in sales on Adobe the past couple of months, including more single sales in the $3-20 range rather than the more common 99 cents per download, so I was reluctant to settle for $5 for images I felt had potential. Only time will tell if I made the right choice but without nominating a large selection, the earnings are really nominal, so I'm thinking maybe I should have taken a chance with more of them.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #314 on:** July 02, 2021, 21:16 »

At the end of the day, this is not a good deal for us.

Many of my proposed photos gathered much more than $5 elsewhere, while AS didn't do a good job in promoting them.
Since everybody jumped this opportunity, it didn't make sense for me to sit on the bench and watch everybody else selling themselves short. So, I submitted a couple of dozens of photos, out of the several hundred requested by AS.

I am now happy to see that only a negligible amount has been selected.

I can only hope that this free collection initiative will be a big financial failure and a tough lesson to be learnt by AS!

Hildegarde · « **Reply #315 on:** July 02, 2021, 23:09 »

Quote

]
The criteria was less than 4 downloads in the past 12 months. If you had an eligible file with more than 200 downloads, it is likely the majority of those downloads happened more than a year ago.
Thanks,
Mat

Mat, no not more than a year ago. I had my bestsellers marked as eligible!!! Ones that sell daily-weekly. Of course I did not nominate them and never will but the a LOT of mine that were downloaded a lot more than 4 were in my eligible list-- it looked like system picked all mine down to a few sales.

WD3 Photography · « **Reply #317 on:** July 03, 2021, 01:10 »

I've had this message (below) from Adobe Stock last night. I'm not sure what 10 credits means.

CORRECTED: You have assets accepted for the free collection

We are sending this email to let you know that we’ve accepted 2 asset(s) you nominated for the Adobe Stock free collection. Congratulations! We’ve added an upfront payment of 10 credits to your account. (Please note, that there won't be an itemized entry for the free assets.)

We’re still reviewing all nominated assets for the free collection. We may still accept additional nominated assets until September 30. If we accept more of your assets, you'll receive another notification and payment.

shutterview · « **Reply #318 on:** July 03, 2021, 03:07 »

Quote from: WD3 Photography on July 03, 2021, 01:10

I've had this message (below) from Adobe Stock last night. I'm not sure what 10 credits means.

CORRECTED: You have assets accepted for the free collection

We are sending this email to let you know that we’ve accepted 2 asset(s) you nominated for the Adobe Stock free collection. Congratulations! We’ve added an upfront payment of 10 credits to your account. (Please note, that there won't be an itemized entry for the free assets.)

We’re still reviewing all nominated assets for the free collection. We may still accept additional nominated assets until September 30. If we accept more of your assets, you'll receive another notification and payment.

Credit is 1 euro or dollar, depending on where and how you are registered.

cascoly · « **Reply #319 on:** July 03, 2021, 16:50 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 02, 2021, 21:16

At the end of the day, this is not a good deal for us.

Many of my proposed photos gathered much more than $5 elsewhere, while AS didn't do a good job in promoting them..,..

1. so, adding them to AS makes sense as you'll get more than they've earned
2. buyers at other sites are unlikely to find same images among AS free

and have those images made $5 on other sites in the last year??

Zero Talent · « **Reply #320 on:** July 03, 2021, 20:57 »

Quote from: cascoly on July 03, 2021, 16:50

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 02, 2021, 21:16
At the end of the day, this is not a good deal for us.

Many of my proposed photos gathered much more than $5 elsewhere, while AS didn't do a good job in promoting them..,..

1. so, adding them to AS makes sense as you'll get more than they've earned
2. buyers at other sites are unlikely to find same images among AS free

and have those images made $5 on other sites in the last year??

My point is that many "buyers" will just be satisfied with free, instead of paying for something else.
So instead of driving additional sales (as this new business model is expecting), it will rather prevent regular sales to be made.

Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors with a similar subject. The losses will exceed $5, because nothing beats free.

We don't shoot ourselves in the foot, indeed (because we get $5).
We rather shoot each other in the feet (because we will both lose more than $5, when we compete against each other with free vs paid)

It looks to me like John Nash's game theory, described in A Beautiful Mind: what is the best outcome for the individuals is not always the best outcome for the group.

Dumc · « **Reply #321 on:** July 04, 2021, 00:36 »

This is not the first time they are offering free images, they did it before with a small number of contributors. According to Mat, the experiment attracted more buyers, that's why they're doing it again

ravens · « **Reply #322 on:** July 04, 2021, 08:08 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 02, 2021, 21:16

My point is that many "buyers" will just be satisfied with free, instead of paying for something else.
So instead of driving additional sales (as this new business model is expecting), it will rather prevent regular sales to be made.

Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors with a similar subject. The losses will exceed $5, because nothing beats free.

We don't shoot ourselves in the foot, indeed (because we get $5).
We rather shoot each other in the feet (because we will both lose more than $5, when we compete against each other with free vs paid)

Agreed.

Did not participate in this offer. My personal policy is and will be: no free images.

MadPhotos · « **Reply #323 on:** July 04, 2021, 10:25 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 03, 2021, 20:57

Quote from: cascoly on July 03, 2021, 16:50
Quote from: Zero Talent on July 02, 2021, 21:16
At the end of the day, this is not a good deal for us.

Many of my proposed photos gathered much more than $5 elsewhere, while AS didn't do a good job in promoting them..,..

1. so, adding them to AS makes sense as you'll get more than they've earned
2. buyers at other sites are unlikely to find same images among AS free

and have those images made $5 on other sites in the last year??

My point is that many "buyers" will just be satisfied with free, instead of paying for something else.
So instead of driving additional sales (as this new business model is expecting), it will rather prevent regular sales to be made.

Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors with a similar subject. The losses will exceed $5, because nothing beats free.

We don't shoot ourselves in the foot, indeed (because we get $5).
We rather shoot each other in the feet (because we will both lose more than $5, when we compete against each other with free vs paid)

It looks to me like John Nash's game theory, described in A Beautiful Mind: what is the best outcome for the individuals is not always the best outcome for the group.

"Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors "

I produce couple hunderets assets per month and giving away free images is marketing and promoting for me (still not free as they pay) always did it and it worked for me every time. I dont mind giving away assets that not selling and im constantly working on making better and more saleable assets.
I think the problem starts when someone expect his old portfolio to sell forever then other contributtors that produce new assets will outpreform them in few months free or not anyway.

If you active and working to make more, customers always will need new and actual photos. If there will be free photo of location that travel agency will use they will need more most likely and wont use one photo forever because it was free. If there is customer that use only free photo he wont be on adobe but pexel, unsplash etc. so someone i dont care about anyway and most likely he never bought photos anyway.

Its about real customers that constantly need photos for company etc. If someone come for free photos only most likely he never bought photos anyway.

"We rather shoot each other in the feet"

There is no we in sales, we compete against each other free or not best assets gets more sales and everyone is assessing best that works for them. Would be silly to lose oportunity to earn more because i want someone else to sell their photos better.

Just my point of view.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #324 on:** July 04, 2021, 15:29 »

Quote from: MadPhotos on July 04, 2021, 10:25

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 03, 2021, 20:57
Quote from: cascoly on July 03, 2021, 16:50
Quote from: Zero Talent on July 02, 2021, 21:16
At the end of the day, this is not a good deal for us.

Many of my proposed photos gathered much more than $5 elsewhere, while AS didn't do a good job in promoting them..,..

1. so, adding them to AS makes sense as you'll get more than they've earned
2. buyers at other sites are unlikely to find same images among AS free

and have those images made $5 on other sites in the last year??

My point is that many "buyers" will just be satisfied with free, instead of paying for something else.
So instead of driving additional sales (as this new business model is expecting), it will rather prevent regular sales to be made.

Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors with a similar subject. The losses will exceed $5, because nothing beats free.

We don't shoot ourselves in the foot, indeed (because we get $5).
We rather shoot each other in the feet (because we will both lose more than $5, when we compete against each other with free vs paid)

It looks to me like John Nash's game theory, described in A Beautiful Mind: what is the best outcome for the individuals is not always the best outcome for the group.

"Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors "

I produce couple hunderets assets per month and giving away free images is marketing and promoting for me (still not free as they pay) always did it and it worked for me every time. I dont mind giving away assets that not selling and im constantly working on making better and more saleable assets.
I think the problem starts when someone expect his old portfolio to sell forever then other contributtors that produce new assets will outpreform them in few months free or not anyway.

If you active and working to make more, customers always will need new and actual photos. If there will be free photo of location that travel agency will use they will need more most likely and wont use one photo forever because it was free. If there is customer that use only free photo he wont be on adobe but pexel, unsplash etc. so someone i dont care about anyway and most likely he never bought photos anyway.

Its about real customers that constantly need photos for company etc. If someone come for free photos only most likely he never bought photos anyway.

"We rather shoot each other in the feet"

There is no we in sales, we compete against each other free or not best assets gets more sales and everyone is assessing best that works for them. Would be silly to lose oportunity to earn more because i want someone else to sell their photos better.

Just my point of view.

I understand your point of view.
My experience is different. I have solid assets that sell well over and over again, since many years!
Producing more of the same, will only devalue my best sellers.

Yes, you have to shoot more, indeed, but different themes and subjects. Otherwise, you are really shooting yourself in the foot!

Taking this in consideration, if now AS has in its free collection assets that compete with my best sellers, I will lose, even if my stuff is better, because nothing competes with free.

Of course we are competitors, but as the boys in A Beautiful Mind went home without getting laid, because they all set their eyes on the gorgeous blonde while neglecting the other girls, the same way we will lose because we set our eyes on those $5, without seing the big picture and the science behind this game theory. 😉

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Adobe Stock Upfront Royalty Payment Opportunity (Read 102240 times)

PZF

Shuttershock

Firn

MadPhotos

MadPhotos

shutterview

beketoff

shutterview

Dumc

shutterview

offisapup

Reimar

MatHayward

wordplanet

Zero Talent

Hildegarde

MatHayward

WD3 Photography

shutterview

cascoly

Zero Talent

Dumc

ravens

MadPhotos

Zero Talent

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors