MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime selected as a beta provider of stock photos for Google display ads  (Read 36124 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: January 20, 2015, 03:11 »
+2
So there is still nobody thinking about whether or not this would actually affect any other sales?


Semmick Photo

« Reply #51 on: January 20, 2015, 03:18 »
0
So there is still nobody thinking about whether or not this would actually affect any other sales?
which agency deal really did?

« Reply #52 on: January 20, 2015, 03:28 »
+3
So there is still nobody thinking about whether or not this would actually affect any other sales?
which agency deal really did?
Google drive could well have done.
I'm opting into this because it might be a bit more money and I'm d'mned sure none of my images is so wonderful that 10,000 advertisers would grab it for free just because it is one of a pile available free. I'll probably get a handful selected and be able to buy a beer with the proceeds.
There may be a "devalues the market" argument, but since we all opted out of the mysterious free give-away last year and there are still enough images available for DT to go ahead with this, being opted in or out is going to make no difference to that at all.
Having what is going on explained actually removes the objection I had to secret giveaways which caused me to opt out in the first place.
Besides, I'm not in the mood today to light my brand, pick up my pitchfork and head up to the grim old Romanian castle, I've got other things to do.

« Reply #53 on: January 20, 2015, 03:56 »
+2
Verified that it is opted out. Will revisit this setting to be sure that it is opted out till decide to close account. Many years, but no regret

« Reply #54 on: January 20, 2015, 08:46 »
+4
Verified that it is opted out. Will revisit this setting to be sure that it is opted out till decide to close account. Many years, but no regret

But you have to opt out of all parter alliances, right? I couldn't find any opt out option just for the Google deal, which would be nice if they offered that. Not sure if anything is happening with Google yet but I've had several $2 dl's in the last week, very unusual compared to the dozens of 35 cent sales.

On another note, but DT related, isn't it strange that DT cut our sub commissions from tiered to one size fits all then ALL OF A SUDDEN we see a flood of subs that make up 95% of my downloads now. I think they knew all along that they were going to make a big push for sub growth and knew they could do a big money grab by eliminating tiered sub commissions in prep for that growth. All of this conveniently happened at the same time.

« Reply #55 on: January 20, 2015, 08:50 »
+4
Yes they don't provide a selective opt-out. And i opted-out all.
I think that working with Google i will loose much more than "lost" 2$ now. This will damage my business in general.

« Reply #56 on: January 20, 2015, 09:21 »
+3
What really annoys me about all these deals is that it cuts my options to grow/spread  my earnings. I am no longer with DP FT DT IS and Alamy so SS share of earnings increased from 70% to roughly 90%. That worries me. I wish agencies started to respect the law and copyrights. And most of all... Respect us the contributors.
I'm with you there, Ron. The first agency I applied to was iStock, and I was delighted when they accepted me right away. Then I got into SS on the first try, then DT, FT, P5, and Envato.

But then... after the nasty stuff started for non-exclusives at iS, I dropped out early in 2011. I dropped out of FT after the Dollar Photo Club debacle. So now I'm down to DT, which seems to be fading away, and SS, which is fast becoming a monopoly.

I'm still in P5 and Envato, but they've never done much. If DT collapses, SS will be the only game in town for me. That's sad.

« Reply #57 on: January 20, 2015, 11:39 »
+4
Yes they don't provide a selective opt-out. And i opted-out all.
I think that working with Google i will loose much more than "lost" 2$ now. This will damage my business in general.
If everyone has opted out, it will hurt DT's business also.  What about all the "partners" who suddenly have no inventory to sell?  I don't know how many deals they have, but the Google deal better be great for them if their existing partners suffer!

« Reply #58 on: January 20, 2015, 11:41 »
0
Well said "for them". And i think about myself. :-)

« Reply #59 on: January 20, 2015, 12:56 »
+3
So there is still nobody thinking about whether or not this would actually affect any other sales?

This is the first thing I thought and my big reason for opting out.  If one of my best sellers ends up littering the internet all over the place in Google ads, nobody is ever going to buy it again.

« Reply #60 on: January 20, 2015, 13:02 »
+5
I am confused that anybody who opted out from DPC where you get a sub royalty for every use would opt in to this deal where you get one time payment of $2 for unlimited use by an unlimited number of different users.

« Reply #61 on: January 20, 2015, 13:19 »
+1
So there is still nobody thinking about whether or not this would actually affect any other sales?

This is the first thing I thought and my big reason for opting out.  If one of my best sellers ends up littering the internet all over the place in Google ads, nobody is ever going to buy it again.

I thought about that, too, but if it is a best-seller it is already littering the internet - and the best-sellers keep selling regardless.

Shelma1

« Reply #62 on: January 20, 2015, 13:26 »
+18
I don't know about anyone else, but I think just being pissed off is enough reason to opt out. These guys made a nice deal for themselves and gave their suppliers two bucks.  It's insulting. That's enough for me.

« Reply #63 on: January 20, 2015, 13:27 »
+8
So there is still nobody thinking about whether or not this would actually affect any other sales?

This is the first thing I thought and my big reason for opting out.  If one of my best sellers ends up littering the internet all over the place in Google ads, nobody is ever going to buy it again.

I thought about that, too, but if it is a best-seller it is already littering the internet - and the best-sellers keep selling regardless.

I don't understand what the mechanism might be for this deal to boost sales.

DT images (some selection) appear in Google ads. The buyers of ads don't get to look at DT (at least not for the first year) or have any reason to look at anything other than which of the freebie images they can put in their ad. They might not even know where the images come from.

If I could envision some workflow where something good (for contributors) might come from this deal, I'd be game to take some risk, but I can't.

Can you walk me through a possible scenario where this deal (first 12 months) boosts DT traffic/business and/or your sales at DT?

« Reply #64 on: January 20, 2015, 13:36 »
-5
Can you walk me through a possible scenario where this deal (first 12 months) boosts DT traffic/business and/or your sales at DT?

I'm not thinking about a positive effect on sales, I'm thinking that it won't have a negative effect so it might chuck a bit of  beer money in the kitty. I don't see it as making much difference either way, really.

« Reply #65 on: January 20, 2015, 13:41 »
+5
What sucks here is that we dont know whats in the deal yet we have to choose to opt in or out before we know any details.

We have to opt in before we know whats in it. The window of opting in or out closes before we know any key factors of the deal to make an informed opt in  or out business decision. Does that sound anything like Nancy Pelosis classic comment, you have to pass the bill before you know whats in it. This is exactly that scenario.

So, if we opt in and it is nothing more than $2 and the image is used 50 times, BIG FAIL.

if we opt out and then the details emerge where we can make a fair recurring return, BIG FAIL.

Only those who guess correctly win.....in some ways.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 14:00 by Mantis »

« Reply #66 on: January 20, 2015, 13:42 »
+3
Can you walk me through a possible scenario where this deal (first 12 months) boosts DT traffic/business and/or your sales at DT?

I'm not thinking about a positive effect on sales, I'm thinking that it won't have a negative effect so it might chuck a bit of  beer money in the kitty. I don't see it as making much difference either way, really.

Ah.

If you're not on Canva yet, once they've sorted out their review backlog (not yet), give them a try for beer money for the kitty :)

I'll take another look in a year when they roll out phase 2 to see if the deal looks any better to me.

« Reply #67 on: January 20, 2015, 13:49 »
+12
I'm opting into this because it might be a bit more money and I'm d'mned sure none of my images is so wonderful that 10,000 advertisers would grab it for free just because it is one of a pile available free. I'll probably get a handful selected and be able to buy a beer with the proceeds.
There may be a "devalues the market" argument, but since we all opted out of the mysterious free give-away last year and there are still enough images available for DT to go ahead with this, being opted in or out is going to make no difference to that at all.

<Sigh> You won't so much 'devalue the market' but, by your actions, you certainly devalue your own portfolio. You were amongst the first to dive into Istock's PP and I'm quite sure, if you were still with FT, that you'd have opted-in to the DPC too.

There is a major problem with these 'fantastic opportunities' that involve major operators such as Google or Microsoft. As we know from previous similar deals at IS and FT you will likely lose control of any images involved forever.

A few of my images were 'selected' for both the IS and FT deals which again was supposedly for a time-limited period of one year. I got paid a handful of change for maybe 20 images. Thirty months later all the images were still available for free to anyone who wanted them and had been downloaded thousands of times. Things/personal had moved on at all of the companies involved and no-one was interested in doing anything about the issue (or could even remember what the original deal was).

As far as I'm concerned my images are widely available for cheap enough prices already. If a potential user wants to pay less then I'd rather they go elsewhere. If Google want to give images away for free then they are wealthy enough to buy the images outright or create their own content.

DT need to be stronger and negotiate a MUCH better deal for us ... or recognise what a waste of time this is and walk away from it.

« Reply #68 on: January 20, 2015, 14:04 »
+9
I'm opting into this because it might be a bit more money and I'm d'mned sure none of my images is so wonderful that 10,000 advertisers would grab it for free just because it is one of a pile available free. I'll probably get a handful selected and be able to buy a beer with the proceeds.
There may be a "devalues the market" argument, but since we all opted out of the mysterious free give-away last year and there are still enough images available for DT to go ahead with this, being opted in or out is going to make no difference to that at all.

<Sigh> You won't so much 'devalue the market' but, by your actions, you certainly devalue your own portfolio. You were amongst the first to dive into Istock's PP and I'm quite sure, if you were still with FT, that you'd have opted-in to the DPC too.

There is a major problem with these 'fantastic opportunities' that involve major operators such as Google or Microsoft. As we know from previous similar deals at IS and FT you will likely lose control of any images involved forever.

A few of my images were 'selected' for both the IS and FT deals which again was supposedly for a time-limited period of one year. I got paid a handful of change for maybe 20 images. Thirty months later all the images were still available for free to anyone who wanted them and had been downloaded thousands of times. Things/personal had moved on at all of the companies involved and no-one was interested in doing anything about the issue (or could even remember what the original deal was).

As far as I'm concerned my images are widely available for cheap enough prices already. If a potential user wants to pay less then I'd rather they go elsewhere. If Google want to give images away for free then they are wealthy enough to buy the images outright or create their own content.

DT need to be stronger and negotiate a MUCH better deal for us ... or recognise what a waste of time this is and walk away from it.

this time i have to agree with gostwyck.
dt has been sinking from the time they rejected anything more than 2 "similars" which was also the time they brought in facebook like.
when business starts to suck, they think it will improve by giving the shop away. much easier for agencies since the shop is filled with our work not their homes or property or children,etc
it's like your children and wife are unemployable in a world of stiff competition for jobs,
so you give your wife and children away free to be scrub maids, cha lady, escorts for free >:(
so they now have a job.
i remember once long ago, some wise promoter suggested we hold free seminars for pros. no one came because it was free (can't be that good).
they fire this promoter and the new one came in and had us charge $100 per seat. the seminar was filled.
something to think about why freebies never win paying clients, they only attract scavengers

« Reply #69 on: January 20, 2015, 14:11 »
+1

<Sigh> You won't so much 'devalue the market' but, by your actions, you certainly devalue your own portfolio. You were amongst the first to dive into Istock's PP and I'm quite sure, if you were still with FT, that you'd have opted-in to the DPC too.

DPC was fundamentally different from the Thinkstock. But thank you for telling me what I would have done. I didn't know that.

« Reply #70 on: January 20, 2015, 14:11 »
+3
If Google want to give images away for free then they are wealthy enough to buy the images outright or create their own content.

agree again. even gmail is not free as ads pay for the freebies.

while we are talking about giving away everything,  may we suggest these hot shots provide us with their homes to be used for our photo-shoot for free, (and for those who are into "glamor" work, maybe we could suggest to have these hot shots provide us with their wives and daughters to serve them cookies during shoots at their homes, or model for them for free too ) .
absurd idea isn't it?

« Reply #71 on: January 20, 2015, 14:24 »
-2

<Sigh> You won't so much 'devalue the market' but, by your actions, you certainly devalue your own portfolio. You were amongst the first to dive into Istock's PP and I'm quite sure, if you were still with FT, that you'd have opted-in to the DPC too.

DPC was fundamentally different from the Thinkstock. But thank you for telling me what I would have done. I didn't know that.

Well, as you pointed out a few posts earlier, you are always happy to opt-in your images if you think there might be a beer in it for you. Me thinks a leopard cannot change his spots.

« Reply #72 on: January 20, 2015, 14:33 »
0

<Sigh> You won't so much 'devalue the market' but, by your actions, you certainly devalue your own portfolio. You were amongst the first to dive into Istock's PP and I'm quite sure, if you were still with FT, that you'd have opted-in to the DPC too.

DPC was fundamentally different from the Thinkstock. But thank you for telling me what I would have done. I didn't know that.

Well, as you pointed out a few posts earlier, you are always happy to opt-in your images if you think there might be a beer in it for you. Me thinks a leopard cannot change his spots.
I didn't say "always", I was referring to my assessment of this particular issue. I don't think that having some thumbnails pop up in Google adverts will adversely affect ordinary sales. So it is a case of some images earning a little bit more than they would otherwise. Of course, I might be wrong, but as far as I can see there isn't really any downside to this (and there certainly is with the DPC which is aiming at undercutting the entire industry - that's a completely different kettle of fish).

« Reply #73 on: January 20, 2015, 14:44 »
+6
No way I'm handing out my portfolio forever for 2 bucks per image.
I make that every couple of months.

This is a pure crap of a deal.

« Reply #74 on: January 20, 2015, 14:44 »
0

I didn't say "always", I was referring to my assessment of this particular issue. I don't think that having some thumbnails pop up in Google adverts will adversely affect ordinary sales. So it is a case of some images earning a little bit more than they would otherwise. Of course, I might be wrong, but as far as I can see there isn't really any downside to this (and there certainly is with the DPC which is aiming at undercutting the entire industry - that's a completely different kettle of fish).

Well the PP wasn't "undercutting the entire industry" either, it was 'just' undercutting the subscription royalties paid to contributors at SS, DT and FT. But you still volunteered your portfolio for it at the first opportunity. I hope you enjoyed the beer you got out of it whilst the rest of us successfully held out for the higher royalty payments we earned for you.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2626 Views
Last post June 14, 2008, 19:27
by madelaide
2 Replies
2958 Views
Last post June 16, 2009, 15:36
by zymmetricaldotcom
2 Replies
2092 Views
Last post October 26, 2010, 20:06
by RacePhoto
57 Replies
13545 Views
Last post February 04, 2013, 07:09
by Reef
5 Replies
2339 Views
Last post July 04, 2016, 20:07
by CJH Photography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results