I am new to Adobe stock and I've tried reading the forum to find the answer but after about 30 mins of searching don't seem any closer to when I started. I am a South African based contributor and am trying to figure out what the minimum payment translates to for my images. I have sold 3 images to date. The first I received the equivalent of less than $0.10 (10cents), the second about $0.14 (14cents) and the latest by my calculation is about $0.18 (18cents) and was on the 28 September after the apparent increase on the 24 September from the minimum of $0.25 to $0.33. I have been receiving less than half the minimum it seems. I have had a look at my tax information and that is verified so with holding tax should not be an issue. If anyone can direct me to why I would be not earning the minimum for the lowest rank i would appreciate it.
Copy link to clipboard
Adobe uses fixed values to convert one credit (1credit=1$) into local currencies. It seams that the South African Rand is especially bad valued, probably because of the rapid devaluation of the currency during the last year (?). I didn't follow that extensively, but I know from one of your fellow photographers that the valuation is way out of what is the real value.
Here's why I don't buy that argument: The rate I am getting is effectively half the official rate like I said in the initial post - its not costing Adobe anything to make that minimum payment so they are then netting the arbitrage on the exchange rate that they made up by themselves. Why not just pay me in dollar denominations and I will do the conversion once the money is into my PayPal account? If I was to buy a creative cloud subscription for instance, would my exchange rate be just as arbitrary? Are South African image purchasers billed at the same rate? Because then Adobe is making both buy side and sell side arbitrages. I know Adobe is this big dominant beast in the photography and video world but making up your own currency exchange rates is arrogant to say the least...
Adobe is a challenger in the field of stock photography. And using credits is a matter of facility. I agree with you, that it is rather unfair for the ZA seller but quite advantageous for the ZA buyer, as the buyer also buys in credits. It would be arrogant to disadvantage the seller and not to advantage the buyer. But as there are probably more buyers then sellers, the disadvantage is on Adobe's side. If I sell a picture to ZA, the ZA buyer pays X credits that get translated in RAND. I get paid in 30% of X credits in €. I get effectively a higher relative commission. The lost is for Adobe.
You see, the system is not only in favour of Adobe.