Adobe Stock Contributer Portal is Stone Age and urgently needs to be adapted to market conditions

[v.poth]

Hi,

it has been a long time since Adobe added the agency Fotolia to its package and offers its own provider portal to upload and manage images. Compared to Fotolia's vendor portal and other global stock agencies, the Adobe Stock vendor portal is a bad joke when it comes to provider status/account information and statistical analytics...

Not even the submitted proof of identity nor the specified e-mail address will be displayed here. No image views are displayed nor are further statistical values available.

I do not understand why such a global corporation does not manage to make the most rudimentary information available on the provider portal within years. There is an absolutely massive and meanwhile really embarrassing deficit on the part of Adobe compared to any stock agency active on the world market, I think. Here, a fundamental step forward should finally be taken in order to adapt to the usual market level and to eliminate the unequal relationships between providers with and those without Fotolia accounts.

What is your opinion on this?

Greets,

v.poth

[ricky336 · Accepted solution]

In my opinion the Adobe portal is great and easy to use - and I like the idea that you can upload directly from Bridge or Lightroom - assuming of course one uses those programmes. I also think that the auto keywording function is very useful indeed - although it is not fool proof and one needs to edit them accordingly, but it most certainly saves time having to input more of the common keyword terms!

As for the number of views - how useful and accurate this actually is debatable I think. Image views were in the past - but were taken down due to inaccuracies apparently.

I have tried another agency before Adobe, but resigned from that because their portal was awful to use - although just after I joined they were making a lot of changes to the service - but these changes drove me nuts - so I quit! For me the Adobe portal is NOT cluttered with I think useless information, which is more out of interest rather than being practical - although a lot of people may disagree with this, and is debatable.

As for the email being displayed - this information is available in your Adobe Account. And if you submit your proof of ID, and it is approved, you can upload. If not, then you can't upload. You get an email sent anyway.

I cannot compare to Fotolia as it is now owned by Adobe, but I think the Adobe portal is just fine.

So, really, this is just a matter of opinion. I don't think I would call the Adobe portal stone aged. Quite the opposite - up there with the movers and shakers.

[joanH]

Hi,

You and v.poth are two of my favorite forum contributors. Your experience in areas where my experience is not great, it gives me reassurance that the high quality of forum answers I strive for are available. Now - you two differ in your replies to the Adobe stock contributor portal quality and update question. What is a newcomer like me to do with this?   I will reread both your posts and - as always take a bit from both and carry on. Thank you rickey36 and v.poth. I am a fan of both. Best regards, JH

[v.poth]

Hi,

I think if some of the information on the Adobe Stock Supplier Portal were clearer, we would have to answer less of these recurring questions here in the forum. Questions such as "Why are my images not selected", "Is there something wrong with my tax form", "My account is blocked, for what reason and to whom can I contact", etc... In this case, support would certainly have fewer requests to process.

It is certainly true that Adobe wanted to facilitate or optimize the upload process for vendors, but I think it's about time that the focus here is also on the analysis possibilities of vendors with regard to the saleability of your accepted image material. This could relieve the selection department and make the search results more optimal for customers, I think.

If providers could decide better here before the upload, what pictorial material I will actually upload in the future that can increase my sales and meaningfully supplement the image database.

Views/downloads are a possibility to judge the success/failure of his pictures. But here you never know if it was the picture itself or maybe only the keywords that it has so little or no views/downloads.

For example, if I could see with which keywords my images were found/purchased, as a provider I could do an optimization here. If, for example, the image material would contain a general assessment of the selectors' saleability when considering the comparable image material available in the database, the learning curve of the providers would certainly be steeper and the providers could optimize their image offerings correspondingly faster. Here is certainly still technically by means of AI air upward and further innovation makes possible which could help the provider here.

Why is there nothing on the Adobe site like the bestseller ad on the Fotolia site? Always well attended by buyers and good for sales and motivation of the supplier.

Why is there no ranking system comparable to Fotolia at Adobe Stock in terms of motivation and recognition that allows a comparison of the performance of individual providers?

I think Fotolia has had a really good and successful impact on the providers and motivated them effectively. Adding this to the Adobe Stock System certainly makes sense and would promote sales.

I think that on the Adobe Stock portal, not only the premium vendors but also the standard vendors should be given good attention and presence and their commitment should be encouraged. This important point does not seem to me to be sufficiently taken into account in the concept of the Adobe Stock Page.