MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime selected as a beta provider of stock photos for Google display ads  (Read 37053 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cuppacoffee

« on: January 19, 2015, 07:23 »
+1
Just announced (from Serban, on the forums) -

Hello everyone,

As some of you will recall, we advised you many months ago that we would have some exciting news to share.  This is that news: Dreamstime has been selected as a beta provider of stock photos for Google display ads! Although we have agreed to keep details of our arrangement confidential, we can share with you as a selected member of our contributor community a few specifics about this relationship.  We commend Google on their efforts to effectively utilize and integrate stock photography into their advertising products in a way that will be beneficial to advertisers and photographers alike.

The details of the program that we can share with you at this time are that Google has selected a large number of images from our collection for use in display ads: Google will be able to use pre-selected Dreamstime RF images only for ads, and in limited sizes to accommodate ads.  During the beta period, images will not be available in a template library. These images will be used under the Royalty Free license in a beta for the next 12 months, and contributors will receive royalties soon. The royalties for the first 12 months will be based on our all-at-once subscriptions i.e., $2.00 (non exclusive) and $2.20 (exclusive) per image.  As we do with other initiatives, Dreamstime supports the volume discounts and we expect to at least double our regular royalty rate.  The volume discount also reflects the use case, since these images will be used in limited-sized ads and not in more prominent uses. We have decided to provide a higher royalty rate for this launch than originally planned as a demonstration of our long-term commitment to offering fair revenue to our contributors.  It is important to note when considering the amounts that were talking about a very high volume purchase that will hopefully increase even more over time.

Provided the first phase of this project goes as expected, after a maximum of 12 months (we all hope it will be sooner), in addition to the royalties described above, Google will initiate another volume purchase of an upgraded W-EL license for each image. We might switch images that didn't perform well with new ones, awarding royalties as appropriate. For the second stage we will award EL royalties (25%-60%). Overall the royalties will average approximately 50%.
Although we are very enthusiastic about the long-term potential for this collaboration, and we would anticipate your enthusiastic participation in this groundbreaking program, you may elect to opt out any time until January 31st by removing your participation in the Alliances program on your account management page. We will proceed awarding royalties after this date. If you have opted-out in the past from Alliances and wish to participate you can opt-in using same Alliances & Partnerships page (which will of course enroll in all our Alliances).

In our opinion, this is potentially not only a very attractive deal for our contributors, but with so much future potential, will ultimately be good for our entire community.  Its a collaboration with the worlds most acclaimed advertising network and is something we have dreamed of since inception of the site.  This has taken many months to finalize, we thank all of our contributors for their patience and, of course, for their support through all these years.

Good times!


« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2015, 07:33 »
+1

fujiko

« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2015, 08:51 »
+13
Google purchases the image once and its millions of clients use it on ads?

« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2015, 09:01 »
+6
Google purchases the image once and its millions of clients use it on ads?

This was my VERY FIRST QUESTION I asked myself. I posted over in the DT forum asking this very question.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2015, 09:08 by Mantis »

« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2015, 09:09 »
+6
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_39797

Thanks for posting that link, Sean. I don't normally spend time on the forums, but that thread looks like something worth monitoring.

Most of the first responses there were the usual wooyay! I may be more clueless than most, but I don't understand the deal at all. Seems wise to be cautious at this point.

No Free Lunch

« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2015, 09:12 »
+12
Google purchases the image once and its millions of clients use it on ads?

Dj vu

Google seems to be good at screwing the contributors!   Also, now when I read "Exciting News for Contributors" I will run like hell!  :-[


« Last Edit: January 19, 2015, 09:18 by No Free Lunch »

Shelma1

« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2015, 09:31 »
+5
Once again an "exciting" announcement that leaves out a lot of the pertinent details. If it's a yearlong license for Google to make the images available for infinite use and we get paid $2 once, it svcks. If we get paid every time someone wants to use one of our images in a Google ad, like the Facebook/SS deal, woo yay.

I'm always suspicious when they leave out important details like that.

« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2015, 10:29 »
+4
Once again an "exciting" announcement that leaves out a lot of the pertinent details. If it's a yearlong license for Google to make the images available for infinite use and we get paid $2 once, it svcks. If we get paid every time someone wants to use one of our images in a Google ad, like the Facebook/SS deal, woo yay.

I'm always suspicious when they leave out important details like that.

Why do you think there is anything "left out"? In my opinion it's quite clearly written: "Google licenses those images for the next 12 months, and the royalty is $2 per image."

It's just not what we would rather think as reasonable from a contributor's perspective: "Google's clients can license those images, and the royalty is $2 per use"

Anything else would surprise me. I think the words were wisely chosen to reflect what the deal is.

« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2015, 10:55 »
+2
I had a $2.00 subscription sale on DT yesterday, small, licence RF. I do not allow the web usage licence, but wonder if this one was sold to Google. I have not seen $2.00 subscriptions on DT before.

« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2015, 11:01 »
+3
I've had 2 $2 sales.

« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2015, 11:25 »
+15
Thankfully I am not enrolled in third party partnerships.

The announcement is incredibly badly written and convoluted. I think I get the gist now after the thread over on DT plus here.

This deal is another terrible one for contributors. We need a commission per use. Google hates paying for content, their whole model is to present other people's content for free and rake in the cash. I would rather not have any deal with them at all than get into bed with them for peanuts.

« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2015, 11:31 »
+3
hmmmm... I'm showing 12 $2- subscriptions dating back into December... 

I will opt out of any deal that is not pay per download/end user.

« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2015, 11:32 »
+4
Of my last 200 sales I've had 11 of the $2.00 sub sales - and I am not opted into any of the Alliances or partnership deals.

I'm not interested in this new deal with Google and won't be opting any of my files into the alliances -- it's all or nothing. You either opt into all of their alliances or out of all of them.

Nothing said so far makes me want to opt into all of their side deals.

Edit:  why is everbody's DT meter on the left at zero today?
« Last Edit: January 19, 2015, 11:34 by PhotoBomb »

« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2015, 11:35 »
0
I'm also opted out of alliances... I'm really not sure where the $2- subs are coming from. 

« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2015, 11:38 »
0
I've had 2 $2 sales.
So have I, and I didn't know what in he_ll they were for. Guess I do now.

« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2015, 11:47 »
0
Quote :  "During the beta period, images will not be available in a template library ..."

I had $2 sales too, but that does not have to be a Google sale.
My BIG question is :  do I smell exclusivity here?  If Google gets exclusivity during these 12 months, with one of my best selling images, that would mean I will lose instead of earn money ...

« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2015, 11:53 »
+2
I think (hope!) what they mean is that if it is an exclusive DT image you get a bit more money NOT that Google will get exclusive use. That would be insane for $2.20. You would be paying Google for the privilege of having them give your work away.

« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2015, 12:09 »
+14
I've been opted out of Alliances for a while now (can't remember which partner site with a crappy rate led to that, but I'm pretty sure that was why).

I had several $2 sales last week and one on Sunday, so they're definitely coming from other buyers, not just Google.

If I thought this was a good deal, I'd be urging them to allow contributors to choose individual alliances, so one could opt out of the bad deals and opt in to the favorable ones (it's just software, and an API could certainly handle something of this sort)

However the notion that because Google is technically the purchaser, they get to pay $2 royalty once for resale of the image in multiple ads over a period of time is insane. Daylight robbery is the phrase that comes to mind.

I know many weren't happy over the SS/Facebook deal, but we get a subscription royalty for every ad usage, and while that won't make me rich, it's pretty much the subscription deal I already agreed to with SS.


« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2015, 12:11 »
+5
the $2.00 sales are the under the 'Subscription all at Once' plan...

"These plans are now available at $39 and $69, giving access to five or ten files. The files can be downloaded anytime throughout the next 30 days. The royalties awarded are $2.00 for non-exclusive contributors and $2.20 for exclusives. These values are computed based on our historical average for downloads generated by both credits and subscriptions."
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_35047

Shelma1

« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2015, 12:11 »
+2
I just checked, and I am not enrolled in their alliance program.  :D

« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2015, 12:44 »
+7
I posted something in the DT forums asking for clarification. It's all very well that they trumpet that the selected images get a $2 royalty even if no advertiser ever uses the image, but they're apparently glossing over the fact that Google can resell the image to multiple end users multiple times if an image ends up in lots of ads.

This really isn't different from the Google/Getty deal with the exception that there's an opt out offered (which is a very good thing; and the worse the deals, the more I appreciate that). I think people see Google and get all starry eyed and do daft things.

« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2015, 13:12 »
+3
I feel like I'm having deja vu... (the last google drive/istock licensing agreement).  I seriously hope $2 isn't all we're going to get for adsense users to have full reign to plaster our image's thumbnails all over the internet.  $2 per use; that would be incredible.  I hope Dreamstime allows us to opt out of the google adsense program.  I am interested in the other partnerships, but not one like this.


« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2015, 13:44 »
+4
This is very different from the iStock/google drive deal. It is a lot worse for the contributor. In the Dreamstime/google deal, an unlimited amount of end users can use our images for advertising purposes and all you get is 2 dollars. No one should ever accept this.

« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2015, 14:18 »
+14
I posted something in the DT forums asking for clarification. It's all very well that they trumpet that the selected images get a $2 royalty even if no advertiser ever uses the image, but they're apparently glossing over the fact that Google can resell the image to multiple end users multiple times if an image ends up in lots of ads.

This really isn't different from the Google/Getty deal with the exception that there's an opt out offered (which is a very good thing; and the worse the deals, the more I appreciate that). I think people see Google and get all starry eyed and do daft things.

Agreed - this sounds exactly like the Google/Getty deal and if that is the case (I need to look more into it) I'll certainly be opting out. 
The Shutterstock/Facebook version of this type of partnership is what should be the standard....  Everyone wins in that situation.
The advertiser gets a 'free' image to use in their facebook ads, the shutterstock contributer gets paid for each image that is used in an ad (every time it is used).. Shutterstock get's their cut and facebook collects their image use fees through the ad fees.  Four wins.

As far as the Dreamstime / Google deal - I'm not ready to give away a year long unlimited reselling license to my best images for $2.00

« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2015, 14:20 »
+4
To opt out:   http://www.dreamstime.com/alliances

I was not opted in - opted out when they wanted us to donate to a "big secret partner" and donating is almost the same as $2 unrestricted as far as I'm concerned. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2704 Views
Last post June 14, 2008, 19:27
by madelaide
2 Replies
3045 Views
Last post June 16, 2009, 15:36
by zymmetricaldotcom
2 Replies
2141 Views
Last post October 26, 2010, 20:06
by RacePhoto
57 Replies
13822 Views
Last post February 04, 2013, 07:09
by Reef
5 Replies
2640 Views
Last post July 04, 2016, 20:07
by CJH Photography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results