pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: $.36 SOD on Shutterstock  (Read 13414 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2013, 07:41 »
0
Always thought they were those little thumbnails on the right side with the adds???



101px 80px (scaled to 91px 72px)


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2013, 08:29 »
0
Thanks Anthony, just to take away all concerns, what is the max res offered to Facebook users?

had one today and just checked it at FB ads, 1000 x 727, looks like Med size
Ok, thats quite big, and not a thumbnail as the blog says

Nope, the blog says, "Images used in ads will be limited to digital sizes (which could mean anything) often appearing as thumbnails." No definition of 'digital size' or, indeed, thumbnail.

But yes - as many Facebookers think images there are for the taking, especially in ads, it could be a worry.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2013, 08:39 »
0
As a reluctant facebook user, btw, this is just hysterical:
"So what's the point of all these updates? To make marketing content on Facebook as interesting as possible so it's not a turn off for users. No one wants to see bland ads shoved in between fun photos from their friends."

Make that, "I don't want to see any adverts shoved in between posts I want to see forcing me to scroll and risk missing stuff I'd like to know". Putting in images makes it worse as it's just visual overkill, and it's got so bad over the last couple of weeks, I'm going to check out AdBlock or get off Fb altogether.

« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2013, 11:49 »
0
So basically it's non-subscription sales at subscription prices. 

We enter a whole new market, already at the bottom. 


The license is very limited, the buyer can only use the image on Facebook.. it is a bit different.  It seems like a good/fair deal to me.  Here is more info from Shutterstock http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-facebook


1 million potential new customers.  A new type of media that has a billion subscribers.  Ads that might be seen by millions, or hundreds of  millions, of readers.   And we enter this new market at 35 cents - and zero cents per click - without the slightest idea what the agency is getting - and no possibility of an increase, ever, no matter how big Facebook advertising turns out to be.

In what sense do you see this as a good deal?

« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 11:52 by stockastic »

« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2013, 12:33 »
+2
1 million potential new customers.  A new type of media that has a billion subscribers.  Ads that might be seen by millions, or hundreds of  millions, of readers.   And we enter this new market at 35 cents - and zero cents per click - without the slightest idea what the agency is getting - and no possibility of an increase, ever, no matter how big Facebook advertising turns out to be.

In what sense do you see this as a good deal?

Shutterstock obviously see this as good business as they negotiated it with FB. According to them we get our 'standard' rate on 'SOD & Other' downloads. I'd therefore assume that FB are paying about $1 per download although the advertiser pays nothing (directly) for the use of the image.

You don't have to agree with SS. Being a contributor to SS is not compulsory. Our learned friend Mr Locke chooses not to for example.

Personally I've done well from doing business with SS (over 9 years now) and I'm happy to accept their judgement on this deal.

Ron

« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2013, 12:46 »
+3
I dont understand what the fuzz is.

1. I can download a subscription image from SS and use for an ad on FB - royalty 38 cent
2. I can download a subscription image from SS and use it on my website - royalty 38 cent
3. I can use an image from the SS/FB deal - royalty 38 cent

Option 3 just makes it easier for a buyer. Brilliant.

« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2013, 13:00 »
+1
I dont understand what the fuzz is.

1. I can download a subscription image from SS and use for an ad on FB - royalty 38 cent
2. I can download a subscription image from SS and use it on my website - royalty 38 cent
3. I can use an image from the SS/FB deal - royalty 38 cent

Option 3 just makes it easier for a buyer. Brilliant.

Everyone seems to be analyzing this from SS's point of view - not ours.

Is this what we want - for the agencies to make it easier and easier for buyers to get our photos cheaper and cheaper? 

Sorry but all I see in this 'deal' is that SS has sold off the entire future of FB ads (or at least our part of it) at a bargain basement price.  Fortunately, SS wasn't around when glossy magazines were first introduced or they'd have instantly killed that market too.  Really, it's a lot like the Google Drive deal.    But that's what quarter-by-quarter management is all about, in a newly public company. 

But hey, maybe SS will send us all a nice Christmas card.  Featuring a beautiful photo for which the photographer receives 35 cents.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 13:30 by stockastic »

« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2013, 13:13 »
+3
4
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:28 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2013, 13:19 »
0
Fair points. I understand.

« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2013, 13:35 »
0
I dont understand what the fuzz is.

1. I can download a subscription image from SS and use for an ad on FB - royalty 38 cent
2. I can download a subscription image from SS and use it on my website - royalty 38 cent
3. I can use an image from the SS/FB deal - royalty 38 cent

Option 3 just makes it easier for a buyer. Brilliant.
To get an image from a subscription you need a subscription first, to get an image for facebook ads you don't.  It's sub sale royalties for single image sales.  The royalty percentage is also hidden.

Does anyone think that maybe that FB is paying SS a nice chunk of money for this arrangement -basically subsidizing their advertisers, large and small -  because they're desperate to show ad revenue growth to their stockholders?   They nice part is, we'll never know, so we don't need to be bothered by it.   But I'll bet 35 cents that the next SS report to shareholders talks about a very lucrative deal with FB. 

 
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 13:38 by stockastic »

Ron

« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2013, 14:00 »
0
The size seems to be limited and its sales I normally wouldnt have. Well not that I have any. A few people on SS are reporting boatloads.

« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2013, 14:08 »
+1
4
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:27 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2013, 14:15 »
0
4
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:27 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2013, 14:23 »
+1
The size seems to be limited and its sales I normally wouldnt have. Well not that I have any. A few people on SS are reporting boatloads.
Maybe, maybe not.   Shutterstock says one of the big draws for this program is that advertisers don't have to go elsewhere to get images, some of those advertisers might have been going to Shutterstock to get single images or to other sites with higher prices.  You may (are likely) losing higher priced sales in exchange for sub royalty sales.  The advertisers used images before.
You are just in it to speculate on the negative side for SS. How about that Getty deal from IS, whats the positive spin on that one? You lost all credibility when I realised you might be on the Getty payroll.

« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2013, 14:25 »
-1
4
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:27 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2013, 14:26 »
-1
You are speculating. How about that Getty deal? How was that good for you?

« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2013, 14:30 »
-1
4
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:27 by Audi 5000 »


« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2013, 14:37 »
+5
This is about the Facebook deal, Getty has nothing to with it.  I think the Facebook deal is negative for all of us, it's more of the race to the bottom.  Converting higher priced sales to penny sales.  I don't like that at all and I'm not afraid to say it.

What about the Getty Google Drive deal? Surely that was far, far worse from the contributors' view? That was "converting higher priced sales" ... into no sales at all after the initial $6. The license given away by Getty was also far less restrictive than the FB advertisers' license.

Also SS had the courtesy of actually announcing the FB deal. The Getty Google Drive deal was only discovered by accident if I remember correctly __ even the IS management had no idea what it was about.

« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2013, 14:39 »
-1
4
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:27 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2013, 14:39 »
-1
LOL, you are so predictable and obvious. How about that Getty deal? But wait... I'll take another approach.

« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2013, 14:46 »
-2
4
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:27 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2013, 14:50 »
0
1
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:27 by Audi 5000 »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #47 on: December 13, 2013, 02:32 »
+1
As unlikely as I am to get one of these, let me propose another perspective.

These are new image buyers who are not normally or currently image buyers. These are people who would never buy a Subscription or an image from SS, but now will select something from one of us and pay for that use.

I might be wrong, but it means, none of these DLs would have happened, if not for this deal. So the choice is something or nothing?

I'll take the something from someplace that would never DL anything otherwise.

Just the way I view it at this point. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me.

Percentages are irrelevant since we already sell subs. Size would be interesting, since it's not explained and appears to be some vague "digital" wording?

Me


« Reply #48 on: December 13, 2013, 05:21 »
+3
As unlikely as I am to get one of these, let me propose another perspective.

These are new image buyers who are not normally or currently image buyers. These are people who would never buy a Subscription or an image from SS, but now will select something from one of us and pay for that use.
I might be wrong, but it means, none of these DLs would have happened, if not for this deal. So the choice is something or nothing?

I'll take the something from someplace that would never DL anything otherwise.

Just the way I view it at this point. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me.

Percentages are irrelevant since we already sell subs. Size would be interesting, since it's not explained and appears to be some vague "digital" wording?

You don't know that Uncle Pete. They could just as easily have been sub plan purchasers and now they don't need to be, or SOD buyers, and now they don't need to be.

« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2013, 12:21 »
+1
They're like any other buyers.  The only difference is they want to advertise on Facebook, and Facebook made a giveaway deal with SS because FB is desperate to increase ad revenue, and SS liked the quick cash.

From out point of view, it's exactly as if SS gave FB a single subscription which FB is allowed to share with all their advertisers.    Has SS explicitly stated that they didn't receive any up-front, lump sum payment from FB for this "subscription"?

« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 12:29 by stockastic »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Shutterstock down

Started by Greg Boiarsky Shutterstock.com

2 Replies
5771 Views
Last post March 24, 2006, 12:13
by leaf
10 Replies
8341 Views
Last post September 28, 2011, 11:28
by RacePhoto
Shutterstock at 7

Started by rubyroo Shutterstock.com

6 Replies
3965 Views
Last post January 09, 2012, 14:10
by Karimala
33 Replies
12280 Views
Last post March 01, 2012, 03:19
by borg
12 Replies
3734 Views
Last post October 06, 2012, 13:13
by Poncke

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors