pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime selected as a beta provider of stock photos for Google display ads  (Read 36182 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: January 22, 2015, 13:22 »
0
This is why I started two years ago opting out of entire agencies that were doing things like so called partner programs. They didn't tell us who or how much and tried to hide the truth. I felt I would lose control of my work and have no way of knowing who was using it.

It only got worse with the DP back door deals last year, where we got a sub commission for some reseller charging high prices, close to EL levels. (potentially it was the same people who ran DP?) Then the deals upon deals, like this?

I know some people actually depend on this income and can't break away from the abusive relationships. But most have seen the trend and are making other provisions for making money from their work and getting away from Microstock.

I'm happy at two agencies now, SS and IS, and this type of deal is why.
The invisible and unaccountable partners are another. The trend for agencies to come up with new ways to screw contributors is another.

I wonder where the bottom is. The more announcements I see like this the more I think we're not even close.

You covered it just fine.

but even ss is not all that transparent with partner programs. i still see some partners which are just some individual with their own blog site linking to selected images from each ss contributors.
but this is not an agency but a person . if this is the case, eventually, everyone can call themself an agency of ss,etc


« Reply #126 on: January 22, 2015, 13:27 »
+2
So let's say that Google decides offering an opt-out doesn't make sense for their deal with DT and removes the option to opt-out. What then?
Either Google walks away or they negotiate a fair rate for the artists.

Don't forget - if everyone opts out DT will have no content to sell via their OTHER partners, so they lose more than the Google revenue.

This seems both pointless speculation and rather confused. Google can't remove the opt-out, only DT can do that. And if they do, it means you are either fully in or you have to leave the agency - iStock did something similar and even the most ferocious critics of Thinkstock quietly knuckled under and accepted their files being sent there.

Totally different situation to Istock and TS.  Istock was most people's top or second agency then, plus by the time opt out was removed they were paying .28 per download.

From the info in this site, DT earnings has fallen to almost nil for most of us.  If they remove the opt out, they will lose a lot of content.  Mine for sure. 

As it stands now  there is an opt out.  I am not going to fall over myself praising DT for the opt out tho, cuz they make me opt out of all alliances just to avoid this one crappy deal.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2015, 13:33 by PixelBytes »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #127 on: January 22, 2015, 13:50 »
+6
Those sites aren't partners and aren't agencies of SS. Off the subject unfortunately.

My concern is undisclosed partners, api sites, agencies that re-sell and re-package our work and all we see is some Sub reported, never knowing who or what. This could lead to complete loss of all rights and does lead to anyone participating with their images being used in unknown ways by unknown parties, for undisclosed sums.

Loss of all control or tracking, loss of your work because you don't know who has it or what license they are re-distributing it under.

That kind of partner.   >:(

but even ss is not all that transparent with partner programs. i still see some partners which are just some individual with their own blog site linking to selected images from each ss contributors.
but this is not an agency but a person . if this is the case, eventually, everyone can call themself an agency of ss,etc

« Reply #128 on: January 22, 2015, 16:31 »
-1
So let's say that Google decides offering an opt-out doesn't make sense for their deal with DT and removes the option to opt-out. What then?
Either Google walks away or they negotiate a fair rate for the artists.

Don't forget - if everyone opts out DT will have no content to sell via their OTHER partners, so they lose more than the Google revenue.

This seems both pointless speculation and rather confused. Google can't remove the opt-out, only DT can do that. And if they do, it means you are either fully in or you have to leave the agency - iStock did something similar and even the most ferocious critics of Thinkstock quietly knuckled under and accepted their files being sent there.

Totally different situation to Istock and TS.  Istock was most people's top or second agency then, plus by the time opt out was removed they were paying .28 per download.

From the info in this site, DT earnings has fallen to almost nil for most of us.  If they remove the opt out, they will lose a lot of content.  Mine for sure. 


As it stands now  there is an opt out.  I am not going to fall over myself praising DT for the opt out tho, cuz they make me opt out of all alliances just to avoid this one crappy deal.

But look at what this actually means - as long as a site is delivering decent returns people will swallow their pride and accept the crappy deals. It comes back to the bottom line - yet it is the sites that DO deliver that will do most damage with lousy deals, sites that aren't selling don't have the same impact on the industry.

I understand that people get mad over getting very small returns for the effort they put into their work, but that has always been the ethos of microstock. When you get offered "insulting" deals, it's not so much the agencies that have changed, it's the expectations of the contributors.

« Reply #129 on: January 22, 2015, 16:53 »
+2
Where can I opt out? Sorry, couldn't find it!

« Reply #130 on: January 22, 2015, 17:00 »
+3
Found it!

« Reply #131 on: January 22, 2015, 18:49 »
+4
As it stands now  there is an opt out.  I am not going to fall over myself praising DT for the opt out tho, cuz they make me opt out of all alliances just to avoid this one crappy deal.

Amen, PB.

« Reply #132 on: January 22, 2015, 21:51 »
+15
So let's say that Google decides offering an opt-out doesn't make sense for their deal with DT and removes the option to opt-out. What then?
Either Google walks away or they negotiate a fair rate for the artists.

Don't forget - if everyone opts out DT will have no content to sell via their OTHER partners, so they lose more than the Google revenue.

This seems both pointless speculation and rather confused. Google can't remove the opt-out, only DT can do that. And if they do, it means you are either fully in or you have to leave the agency - iStock did something similar and even the most ferocious critics of Thinkstock quietly knuckled under and accepted their files being sent there.

Totally different situation to Istock and TS.  Istock was most people's top or second agency then, plus by the time opt out was removed they were paying .28 per download.

From the info in this site, DT earnings has fallen to almost nil for most of us.  If they remove the opt out, they will lose a lot of content.  Mine for sure. 


As it stands now  there is an opt out.  I am not going to fall over myself praising DT for the opt out tho, cuz they make me opt out of all alliances just to avoid this one crappy deal.

But look at what this actually means - as long as a site is delivering decent returns people will swallow their pride and accept the crappy deals. It comes back to the bottom line - yet it is the sites that DO deliver that will do most damage with lousy deals, sites that aren't selling don't have the same impact on the industry.

I understand that people get mad over getting very small returns for the effort they put into their work, but that has always been the ethos of microstock. When you get offered "insulting" deals, it's not so much the agencies that have changed, it's the expectations of the contributors.

Listen, I think we have to each make our own choices, and your entitled to your own opinion, but to me, there is a big difference between .28 per customer download and $2 one time for unlimited  usages to many customers. 

Yeah I agreed to sell for pennies when I joined micro, but that was a set amount per customer with no redistribution allowed.  This is a whole different thing . Only thing I seen that is as bad was the Getty Google deal and the Getty free blog use giveaway.

If Getty gives our images free to bloggers, and Google gives free thru Drive and Google Ads, who's left to PAY us for our images? 

« Reply #133 on: January 22, 2015, 22:15 »
+4
If Getty gives our images free to bloggers, and Google gives free thru Drive and Google Ads, who's left to PAY us for our images?

Yep.

« Reply #134 on: January 23, 2015, 03:49 »
+2
If Getty gives our images free to bloggers, and Google gives free thru Drive and Google Ads, who's left to PAY us for our images?

That's a sensible question. My conclusion was that Google Ads hasn't been a market for my work in the past and I don't think this deal will impact the existing pool of buyers at all. So far, I haven't seen any persuasive post explaining how it would. But the question you ask is the reason i don't have anything in DT's dreadful free section or on iStock's StockXpert (I think that's their free site, isn't it?).

I completely respect your right to make whatever decision you like for your own business and I wasn't criticising you, I was just trying to point out that a lot of this discussion seems to be a general complaint about how much images are being sold for, rather than a reasoned consideration of the particular deal DT has made.

On average, earnings of $2 per image per year are somewhat less than my average return on the 6,000+ I have online but it's not wildly different from the average (yes, it's a lot less than the top 5% make and maybe that's what I should be looking at .... but then, if it's not going to affect other sales anyway it doesn't matter).

For me, DT is delivering earnings of about a third of what it was at its peak but it's still a top-tier earner worth three figures a month.


« Reply #135 on: January 23, 2015, 04:35 »
+7
....On average, earnings of $2 per image per year are somewhat less than my average return on the 6,000+ I have online but it's not wildly different from the average (yes, it's a lot less than the top 5% make and maybe that's what I should be looking at .... but then, if it's not going to affect other sales anyway it doesn't matter)......

Don't forget that just like the Getty-Google deal, it wont be a random sample of your photos Google gets. They will pick the cream of the crop. If they offered you $2 per image per year for your whole portfolio the deal would make more sense.

Where I see the draw back is the point I made before. Only one or two of the hundreds of users would have to buy the image for their ads through a regular RF license for you to make more money than this deal.

I can see the advantage to DT, they get a huge wad of cash for the batch. Probably a lot more than they would make through Google ads otherwise as buyers would potentially be buying form other sites. For us, the content creators, it absolutely stinks.

« Reply #136 on: January 23, 2015, 06:05 »
0
Where I see the draw back is the point I made before. Only one or two of the hundreds of users would have to buy the image for their ads through a regular RF license for you to make more money than this deal.

It's the great unknowable, though, isn't it? One or two of the postulated hundreds of users might buy a licence from SS and I get 56c instead of $2 for that image and then lose whatever other $2 contracts there are in order to make sure that I get that 56c - or I might lose half-a-dozen $50 Alamy sales for the sake of keeping half-a-dozen $2 sales.  But since it's only for thumbnails, I doubt that it's really going to hit Alamy ... or even SS, really.
To some extent the judgement of risk depends on how optimistic you are about the sales prospects for your images in the broader market. If a lot of my images sold thousands of times a year then I would worry, but I don't have any like that. I probably have half-a-dozen that get around 100 sales a year from all the sites combined.

« Reply #137 on: January 23, 2015, 06:21 »
+6
I was already opted out of deals with DT and my income has been rising with them, so I wouldn't worry too much about opting out.
I opted out some days ago and suddenly the sales are rising! Strange, but true!

« Reply #138 on: January 23, 2015, 06:29 »
+3
I was already opted out of deals with DT and my income has been rising with them, so I wouldn't worry too much about opting out.
I opted out some days ago and suddenly the sales are rising! Strange, but true!

I didn't actually mean it improved my credit sales, I was just saying it didn't seem to impact me too negatively as I am one of the few who have seen increasing sales on DT and am also opted out. Great to hear that others are seeing better credit downloads though whatever the cause!

« Reply #139 on: January 23, 2015, 08:25 »
+1
When you get offered "insulting" deals, it's not so much the agencies that have changed, it's the expectations of the contributors.

Interesting observation and I think it is quite accurate.  How many of us were happy with 25 cents per DL when we started with SS but now want much more?  I think you're right here - the agencies have had their way with us for years, only now we are starting to notice.

« Reply #140 on: January 23, 2015, 08:29 »
+2
But the question you ask is the reason i don't have anything in DT's dreadful free section or on iStock's StockXpert (I think that's their free site, isn't it?).

No, StockXpert is the remains of an agency that iS bought and basically froze - images there still sell, they are not free (I still get a few DLs there a month and will close that account when that stops).  I cant imagine anyone letting their images be sent to a free section.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #141 on: January 23, 2015, 09:32 »
+1
Here's why there's some confusion. What is called Free Images http://www.freeimages.com/ now, was  a Sister site to Stockxpert. They worked providing FREE images, which I suppose, in theory, drove people to buy images? The site was http://www.sxc.hu/ or stock.xchng. If you go to sxc it redirects you to the free images site.

It will look familiar, just like Stockxpert.  :)

StockXpert was bought by Jupiter in 2008, who was then bought by Getty in 2009. And for the topping on that confetti cake, TS was announced  at the end of 2009. Some images were transferred from StockXpert to TS.

At any rate, StockXpert closed to new contributors, around Feb 2010.

These are rough dates, I didn't go dredge through emails and notices from TS and StockXpert for the exact dates.

But the question you ask is the reason i don't have anything in DT's dreadful free section or on iStock's StockXpert (I think that's their free site, isn't it?).


No, StockXpert is the remains of an agency that iS bought and basically froze - images there still sell, they are not free (I still get a few DLs there a month and will close that account when that stops).  I cant imagine anyone letting their images be sent to a free section.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #142 on: January 23, 2015, 10:25 »
+4
Here's why there's some confusion. What is called Free Images http://www.freeimages.com/ now, was  a Sister site to Stockxpert.


Just read some of the comments. Hey waitaminute. I thought free images didn't affect sales.

8. May 15, 2014 ELGraphics
"Thanks! We will be using this on one of our upcoming daily email newsletters. God bless you! www.elijahlist.com"

7. Mar 29, 2014 ohtea
"Photo will be used in a book :) Thanks!"

6. Dec 4, 2013 legacy3600
"We will be using this photo in a sign language course. Thank you!"

5. May 26, 2013 hyxmedia
"Will use it on letenkovnik.cz, thank you!"




« Reply #143 on: January 23, 2015, 10:25 »
+11
When you get offered "insulting" deals, it's not so much the agencies that have changed, it's the expectations of the contributors.

Interesting observation and I think it is quite accurate.  How many of us were happy with 25 cents per DL when we started with SS but now want much more?  I think you're right here - the agencies have had their way with us for years, only now we are starting to notice.

Maybe we were happy with 25 cents in 2006, but back then I had a D70 and a set of cheap hot lights.  I have budgeted to buy a body in March that is 30 mp larger than that D70,  I have invested tens of thousands in my business and then there's that little nuisance they call inflation that has been steadily rising since I bought my first RF at Istock.    I don't live in a third world country, 25 cents doesn't cut it any more. 

Uncle Pete

« Reply #144 on: January 26, 2015, 18:58 »
+2
I don't do free anything anywhere on the web. No Flickr, no freebees, no samples. And I won't send anything to Freeimages.com either. The flawed idea is that someone will see your work and then want to buy it?

The agencies that have free images, are trying to bring in new buyers and show them the product line. Not sure how much of a turn they have on new people buying into packages, after seeing the collections on the web. That would be an interesting statistic.

One reason I think it's fruitless is, most of the agencies have pretty much all the same images, from the same people. Why would anyone want to change? Is the Coke or Pepsi different tasting, buying at the Big grocery, instead of from the convenience store? No it's all the same. The only distinction is PRICE!

And the only way someone = agency, can compete on price is cut their own profits or cut the cost from suppliers. Hey, that's us losing as usual? Pay suppliers less and agencies can make more... or stay at the same levels on lower sales.

Nothing is free!

As for the actual issue with DT and this specific deal. It will be interesting to watch. It doesn't look good to me, but I'm not there anymore, so I'll just observe.

I can't seem to get a clear idea of what they are actually doing? One time buy for $2.00 for a years use? What's the bottom line. I missed the financial rewards specific facts behind this change?

Here's why there's some confusion. What is called Free Images http://www.freeimages.com/ now, was  a Sister site to Stockxpert.


Just read some of the comments. Hey waitaminute. I thought free images didn't affect sales.


« Reply #145 on: January 27, 2015, 10:18 »
0
 what i like on all the "exciting news" - which in general are about additional screwing and squeezing us - the contributors (you know - if there is not our content - no business at all, if there is no agencies - business somehow will run as it was before agencies, right?)(just pointing what is "essential" and what is not in business - essential is - our content) ... - is the speed in which - i call these people "little dogs" (you know - poltroon, / sponger... people) overwhelm these threads with "what a big (smart, good, very good, excellent ... ) business move, ... THANK YOU  (xyz agency)".
 i guess hoping that somehow management is going to notice that kind of messages, and these people are going to get some small gain for themselves. 
 here where i live, we say "i have to go to bathroom" (to do "big" job, (or to vomit))... :)

« Reply #146 on: January 27, 2015, 10:22 »
+4
I like DT more than any other microstock site, but I opted out.

DT management may want to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

and know we are way below the 30% "fair" limit

Uncle Pete

« Reply #147 on: January 27, 2015, 11:15 »
+4
Good one airphoto.

"The ultimatum game is important from a sociological perspective, because it illustrates the human unwillingness to accept injustice. The tendency to refuse small offers may also be seen as relevant to the concept of honour."

As my Uncle Ed used to say: I'd rather sit for nothing than work for nothing.  :) Must run in the family.

So tell me? People here are "Excited" about being "Selected" for this? Why I thought acceptance was a reward in itself. Kind of like when I was accepted into the US Army. Why I was so "excited" to pass and be drafted by the Selective Service? They are selective and I was picked...

So people fight on Micro to be accepted and then paid low rewards for their hard work. Something just seems wrong doesn't it? And then the agencies change the rules, mid-game, lower commissions and make new deals, which cost us income.

Yeah I can see all the excited people telling their friends how to get into this business because it's so f'in wonderful, and a good way to make money. Maybe we should have done more warning years ago, and tried to discourage new people. Oh wait. The agencies offered rewards for referral and recruiting, which they also pulled back from us.

But that's OK many people just want to blame the search, not the flood of new people and new images that have submerged anything old and made most of the work on the sites, about as rare as rain in the jungle.

Now you've all been selected as a beta provider, without the terms, commissions or how the program works, being once again, thrown into the pond of new Microstock plans and schemes. And people wonder why some people are bitter?

My viewpoint is now to refuse, and drop the sites that aren't making a fair offer. It's my personal decision. Everyone else can do what they want. But unless these agencies are holding your family or relatives hostage or somehow you made a deal with the devil, you have Free Will to leave at any time.

Every one of us has a choice to stay or leave. In other words reject the unfair offers and refuse to accept the injustice.

Nothing will ever change because people write messages and endless complaining on a forum. The only action that will bring about change is leaving and taking your work with you. (or stay and accept that you are a willing victim)



« Reply #148 on: January 27, 2015, 11:24 »
+3
I like DT more than any other microstock site, but I opted out.

DT management may want to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

and know we are way below the 30% "fair" limit


I also like DT a lot, and I also opted out of the Google Deal, which forced me to opt out of all their other "partner" arrangements. No doubt that will cost me money, but opting out was my choice and I did it freely. No regrets.

Thank you, airphoto, for sharing that link to the Ultimatum game. I'd never heard of that before, and it was fascinating. Something we all should be aware of.

« Reply #149 on: January 27, 2015, 11:28 »
+3
Every one of us has a choice to stay or leave. In other words reject the unfair offers and refuse to accept the injustice. ... The only action that will bring about change is leaving and taking your work with you. (or stay and accept that you are a willing victim)

I'm with you, Pete. Opting out feels good when it's warranted.

We are free agents. We need to think and act like free people, not slaves.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2629 Views
Last post June 14, 2008, 19:27
by madelaide
2 Replies
2964 Views
Last post June 16, 2009, 15:36
by zymmetricaldotcom
2 Replies
2093 Views
Last post October 26, 2010, 20:06
by RacePhoto
57 Replies
13568 Views
Last post February 04, 2013, 07:09
by Reef
5 Replies
2351 Views
Last post July 04, 2016, 20:07
by CJH Photography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results