My royalty per SOD has been dropping steadily for a while now, but yesterday was the first time it dropped to the same as a sub. So Shutterstock now has to be selling single images for close to a dollar each. How is this different than DPC or Onepixel? Asking for a friend.

In all seriousness - the SS/FB deal was one of the deciding factors when I quit doing microstock.    It was pretty discouraging to see comments - from people who should have known better - about this being a "great deal" for "sales you otherwise wouldn't get".   In my mind, it was all over at that point.  FB was a huge new advertising market, and microstock had entered it at giveaway prices; there was no upside left.

I can't quite accept the idea that Facebook, with a market cap of $400 billion, can only pay 38 cents for a image, for an ad that might be seen by millions.  Call me na�ve.

In all seriousness - the SS/FB deal was one of the deciding factors when I quit doing microstock....

Given the nature of the deal - one purpose use of a thumbnail size image - I thought it was very like a custom RM deal with limited use for a limited price.

The FB ad buyer didn't get access to a full sized image and could not use the image for anything else. This wasn't anything like the uses of a standard RF sale with virtually no usage or time limits.

We never got to see the license terms, but as I understand it, it was not the case that FB got to buy once for an unlimited number of ad buyers. The Getty-Google deal (and the lack of opt out for that) was a train wreck because there was unlimited access forever to any number of users for one tiny one-time payment to the contributor. That was why I all-but-left iStock (removed all but 100 images I can't license anywhere else) in 2013.

I don't mind variations in license terms or prices as long as those take account of contributor interests as well as agency interests. I do think the total lack of transparency regarding terms - at SS, Adobe and other agencies that do partner deals and corporate deals - is a huge problem. At this point, given the history, an agency saying "just trust us" is not appealing.

IMHO, pricing by pixel size was another major factor in the collapse. Image size has no relation to the costs of production, and "thumbnail" can be anyrhing.  It's like selling low resolution versions of hit tunes at a huge discount.  FB is a new form of advertising, some of the old licensing concepts don't really apply.

Anyway, I'm out of it. I no longer need to rationalize the pricing.

Though that is what happens with music...you can stream virtually free. Downloading in MP3 costs more and then more again for the (allegedly) better quality vinyl or CD. Pricing generally has nothing to do with input costs its a function of supply and demand.

Quote from: stockastic on January 08, 2019, 17:04

IMHO, pricing by pixel size was another major factor in the collapse. Image size has no relation to the costs of production, and "thumbnail" can be anyrhing.  It's like selling low resolution versions of hit tunes at a huge discount.  FB is a new form of advertising, some of the old licensing concepts don't really apply.

Anyway, I'm out of it. I no longer need to rationalize the pricing.

Though that is what happens with music...you can stream virtually free. Downloading in MP3 costs more and then more again for the (allegedly) better quality vinyl or CD. Pricing generally has nothing to do with input costs its a function of supply and demand.

Yes, price is set by supply and  demand.  But if that process ends up at a point where suppliers can't even recover their costs, production will cease.  Of course, in the case of microstock, buyers and producers don't negotiate directly, so it's far from an ideal market.


Music streaming is comparable to microstock in some ways.  I guess we'd have to ask some musicians if they thought streaming was a good thing.  I think they'd say 'no'.

In all seriousness - the SS/FB deal was one of the deciding factors when I quit doing microstock.    It was pretty discouraging to see comments - from people who should have known better - about this being a "great deal" for "sales you otherwise wouldn't get".   In my mind, it was all over at that point.  FB was a huge new advertising market, and microstock had entered it at giveaway prices; there was no upside left.

I can't quite accept the idea that Facebook, with a market cap of $400 billion, can only pay 38 cents for a image, for an ad that might be seen by millions.  Call me na�ve.

I'll assume you are also happy to not see your photos being sold by art.com at Walmart.  Just another kick in the ass for us and we don't know how much we get. Oh not me, I don't think any of mine got selected for the API partners.

The Facebook deal was, I think, the first of that kind and all the 38 cent royalties for using a SS image in a Facebook ad (which the ad buyer didn't pay for) were reported as SOD.  They've been around since at least the end of 2015.

The 38 cent SODs aren't a problem - it's the lack of $75, $90 and $120 SODs that's been noticable and one of the huge hits to income at SS. The other has been replacing the $2.85 OD income with all sorts of lower numbers, without any increase in volume - all those experiments with lower-priced packages they've introduced over the last year or so.

i agree the rpi is falling down to stock level...this company has been hitting hard by instagarma and site like unsplash...there are many images out there that can be had for free now, and cover 90% of need of buyer, only released model files have still some kind of protection.

Quote from: stockastic on January 09, 2019, 16:30

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 08, 2019, 17:35

Quote from: stockastic on January 08, 2019, 17:04

IMHO, pricing by pixel size was another major factor in the collapse. Image size has no relation to the costs of production, and "thumbnail" can be anyrhing.  It's like selling low resolution versions of hit tunes at a huge discount.  FB is a new form of advertising, some of the old licensing concepts don't really apply.

Anyway, I'm out of it. I no longer need to rationalize the pricing.

Though that is what happens with music...you can stream virtually free. Downloading in MP3 costs more and then more again for the (allegedly) better quality vinyl or CD. Pricing generally has nothing to do with input costs its a function of supply and demand.

Yes, price is set by supply and  demand.  But if that process ends up at a point where suppliers can't even recover their costs, production will cease.  Of course, in the case of microstock, buyers and producers don't negotiate directly, so it's far from an ideal market.


Music streaming is comparable to microstock in some ways.  I guess we'd have to ask some musicians if they thought streaming was a good thing.  I think they'd say 'no'.

soon micro sock won't have any professional ready to invest more than 50 bucks in any kind of shooting...even bog company are hit, lower their earning. only desperate from eastern europe and thailand still upload . out of their camera, but it's just the impossibility to accept that micro stock is ending.

It's hard to imagine anyone, anywhere, making "substantial" money at this game - by which I mean at least a good portion of their income.   But what do I know, I'm just an old guy in a wealthy country.