MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime selected as a beta provider of stock photos for Google display ads  (Read 35962 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

No Free Lunch

« Reply #75 on: January 20, 2015, 14:46 »
+14
If DT doesn't have the balls to chime into this discussion that tells me enough - I am out  >:(




« Reply #76 on: January 20, 2015, 14:59 »
-1
whilst the rest of us successfully held out for the higher royalty payments we earned for you.
I really don't recall that, as far as I remember the TS rate has been the same ever since I joined.
* Correction * I see that they increased the rate from 25 to 28c in Jan 2011, a year after the programme started, not sure you can claim credit for that, though.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 15:26 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #77 on: January 20, 2015, 15:11 »
+10
If DT doesn't have the balls to chime into this discussion that tells me enough - I am out  >:(

DT won't respond here because the first question I'd ask would be "did you receive an upfront payment from Google for this deal, in addition to per-image revenues, and if so what was the amount?"    And they'd have to reply "terms of the deal are not being disclosed". 

Then they'd tell us that these are sales which we otherwise would not have gotten.  But what they really mean is, sales THEY otherwise would not have gotten.

And that's all we'd get.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 15:44 by stockastic »

« Reply #78 on: January 20, 2015, 15:50 »
+2
I certainly have my suspicions on this and most deals these days that there is a per image component that we get a percent of and there is an up front deal fee (or however the accountants justify it) that we will never see a piece of.  I can see why the buyers and the sites would be fine with that and why it would hurt us.

« Reply #79 on: January 20, 2015, 16:03 »
+10
I opted my 3000 images out. This is a goldmine for dt and peanuts for us.

« Reply #80 on: January 20, 2015, 16:12 »
-1
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.


Tend to agree.  It's all very well to talk about licencing for peanuts but most of us went down that road by putting material on subs sites in the first place.

« Reply #81 on: January 20, 2015, 17:05 »
+9
... It's all very well to talk about licencing for peanuts but most of us went down that road by putting material on subs sites in the first place.

I think there's a big difference between agreeing to a small per sale amount in return for high volume sales - 300 x y - and a small amount for an unlimited number of sales - (300 x 0) + 5y


Quote
* Correction * I see that they increased the rate from 25 to 28c in Jan 2011, a year after the programme started, not sure you can claim credit for that, though.

There was a big forum fight over that raise. A number of exclusives, including me, opted out of the PP and argued strenuously that this notion that subs buyers were different and it wouldn't erode credit sales was nonsense. Because of the holdouts, they tried to encourage more people to opt in by very slightly increasing the bribe royalty.

Back then, iStock was still a major player and provided substantial income to indies and exclusives alike; it was worth the risks of a fight to try and get the contributor situation improved. DT is a fast-sinking also ran, so given they've let us opt out, I'm not sure they're worth arguing with - except to say that the deal sucks for contributors in spite of all their happy talk :)

« Reply #82 on: January 20, 2015, 17:53 »
+3
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.

If it was a good deal for us, no reason to keep it secret.  It would not be a guessing game if it was positive for contribs.  They treat us like marks in a con game, not like informed business partners.  Any casino owner will tell you, when you gamble odds are always in the house favor.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 18:00 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #83 on: January 20, 2015, 19:26 »
-8

I really don't recall that, as far as I remember the TS rate has been the same ever since I joined.
* Correction * I see that they increased the rate from 25 to 28c in Jan 2011, a year after the programme started, not sure you can claim credit for that, though.

No, I wouldn't expect you remember the facts let alone to thank or even acknowledge the steadfast position of your fellow contributors that secured your royalty increase. Why would you?

For several years you have quite deliberately undermined your fellow contributor ... as you are doing yet again with DT ... because apparently, to quote yourself, you think you might get a beer out of it. Well done you.

Hope you enjoy that beer and can live with how you sold out so cheaply, once again, to the detriment of your fellow contributor. Like I said, a leopard really doesn't change it's spots. Once a cheap sell-out ... always a cheap sell-out.

« Reply #84 on: January 20, 2015, 21:34 »
+5
If DT doesn't have the balls to chime into this discussion that tells me enough - I am out  >:(

DT won't respond here because the first question I'd ask would be "did you receive an upfront payment from Google for this deal, in addition to per-image revenues, and if so what was the amount?"    And they'd have to reply "terms of the deal are not being disclosed". 

Then they'd tell us that these are sales which we otherwise would not have gotten.  But what they really mean is, sales THEY otherwise would not have gotten.

And that's all we'd get.

I doubt you will ever see DT respond here considering the last time he visited (around 2 years ago) Serban was treated so badly he said he'd had enough and would NEVER speak up on MSG again.

« Reply #85 on: January 20, 2015, 21:37 »
+4
I doubt you will ever see DT respond here considering the last time he visited (around 2 years ago) Serban was treated so badly he said he'd had enough and would NEVER speak up on MSG again.

Well that shouldn't happen.  I can promise that if he did show up, I'd be polite. But I would ask those questions.   If he refused to answer, then I'd have to ask why he came here at all. 

« Reply #86 on: January 21, 2015, 03:36 »
+12

I really don't recall that, as far as I remember the TS rate has been the same ever since I joined.
* Correction * I see that they increased the rate from 25 to 28c in Jan 2011, a year after the programme started, not sure you can claim credit for that, though.

No, I wouldn't expect you remember the facts let alone to thank or even acknowledge the steadfast position of your fellow contributors that secured your royalty increase. Why would you?

For several years you have quite deliberately undermined your fellow contributor ... as you are doing yet again with DT ... because apparently, to quote yourself, you think you might get a beer out of it. Well done you.

Hope you enjoy that beer and can live with how you sold out so cheaply, once again, to the detriment of your fellow contributor. Like I said, a leopard really doesn't change it's spots. Once a cheap sell-out ... always a cheap sell-out.

Total nonsense - and as I said once before, it's a bit thick to be lectured by someone who constantly calls on his fellow contributors to man the barricades and then after declaring that iStock is so outrageous that he will probably never upload there again (and urging his fellow contributors to join him in sacrificing income) quietly chickens out a month later ... at exactly the same time that I started uploading again after I said that I would temporarily suspend uploads as a gesture. Your stand on principle lasts as long as my  temporary gestures, and you then quietly leave your followers in the lurch ... a veritable Napoleon, abandoning his Grand Army at Moscow!
Going back to TS, you may - with your excellent memory for ancient spats - remember the reason you gave me for not joining "you probably won't see $30 a month, it's not worth it" and that you were a bit miffed when you belatedly discovered that your return would have been five or ten times your estimate and you had gone without that for a couple of years. It's like the old joke about a guy asking a girl if she would sleep with him for a million bucks: "oh yes," she coos.  "well, what about $10 then?" he asks. "What sort of girl do you think I am?!!!" "We've already established that," he replies, "now it's just a matter of haggling about the price."  The funny thing is, that if you weren't so aggressive then people might have told you in this forum how much you were missing out on from TS.
You're not logical, either, because you admitted earlier that being part of the DT/Google deal wasn't going to undermine other contributors, though you said it would undermine my own portfolio. Now you accuse me of undermining my fellow contributors "again".
However, contrary to your belief you are not the Voice of Microstock (there would be more people on this thread and this site if you were), though you may be good at working a crowd and browbeating those who disagree with you into silence (which happens to be a tactic that doesn't work with me - though according to Pixart it's a tactic that worked on Serban).
What I have done in this thread is not to "undermine my fellow contributors", it is to let them know what my opinions are so that they can see another point of view. Obviously, several people disagree with me, from the "down" arrows, but that's fair enough. Unlike you I don't hold to the Stalinist notion that my view is the only one that should be heard. As far as I can see the latest DT deal is not going to hurt us and one of your arguments against it - that Google can afford to buy expensive content so it shouldn't do a deal with the micros - makes no sense at all, it's just an argument against microstock in general. I also think that, being realistic rather than talking about hypothetical cases, it is unlikely that the same images will turn up in ads for many different Google customers, there may be some that don't get used at all, so I'm not convinced by the argument about images swamping the internet and being devalued (I don't think there is any evidence that simply being popular and being seen a lot damages an images sale value).
So my opinion is that this whole rabble-rousing exercise is misguided and a waste of time that will just cost your supporters a little bit of money and do them no good at all. It's fine for you to disagree, but never forget that you sold out your supporters over iStock because - as you say - a leopard never changes its spots: once a turncoat, always a turncoat - and I really don't want to have to remind you again.

« Reply #87 on: January 21, 2015, 05:26 »
+4
Opted out, as it didn't make financial sense to me from a contributors point.

« Reply #88 on: January 21, 2015, 10:16 »
+1

I really don't recall that, as far as I remember the TS rate has been the same ever since I joined.
* Correction * I see that they increased the rate from 25 to 28c in Jan 2011, a year after the programme started, not sure you can claim credit for that, though.

No, I wouldn't expect you remember the facts let alone to thank or even acknowledge the steadfast position of your fellow contributors that secured your royalty increase. Why would you?

For several years you have quite deliberately undermined your fellow contributor ... as you are doing yet again with DT ... because apparently, to quote yourself, you think you might get a beer out of it. Well done you.

Hope you enjoy that beer and can live with how you sold out so cheaply, once again, to the detriment of your fellow contributor. Like I said, a leopard really doesn't change it's spots. Once a cheap sell-out ... always a cheap sell-out.

Total nonsense - and as I said once before, it's a bit thick to be lectured by someone who constantly calls on his fellow contributors to man the barricades and then after declaring that iStock is so outrageous that he will probably never upload there again (and urging his fellow contributors to join him in sacrificing income) quietly chickens out a month later ...

However, contrary to your belief you are not the Voice of Microstock (there would be more people on this thread and this site if you were), though you may be good at working a crowd and browbeating those who disagree with you into silence (which happens to be a tactic that doesn't work with me - though according to Pixart it's a tactic that worked on Serban).

What I have done in this thread is not to "undermine my fellow contributors", it is to let them know what my opinions are so that they can see another point of view. Obviously, several people disagree with me, from the "down" arrows, but that's fair enough. Unlike you I don't hold to the Stalinist notion that my view is the only one that should be heard.

Excellent post

« Reply #89 on: January 21, 2015, 16:18 »
+3
My take on this is a bit different and no doubt simplistic.

Your 'agent' - Dreamstime - just licensed one of your photos to a corporation with a market cap of $344 billion, with the potential for that photo to be seen around the planet.  You get $2.  You should be happy with the deal he cut for you.  He's a hard bargainer.

That's what you have to accept, in order to believe this is "a good deal".    Are we there yet?

There was nothing stopping this from happening before, though, for $0.35 to the contributor!  Starbucks could purchase a shot of coffee beans and plaster it all over the world, Hilton could print wall art in their hotel chain, a web designer could use our images for Fortune 500 company websites, etc.  Did Serban drive a hard bargain?  Is it any kind of 'good deal' for contributors?  No.  But did he attract a large client to purchase RF licensing from DT?  Yes.  Surely better news for the site than contributors, though...

When you read between the lines in people's posts, I think the real complaint here is that sites sell images as RF for subscription (or low dollar) pricing at all.  This deal is just a sad reminder of the potential of what one agrees to, when one agrees to sell RF under a subscription model...  This use by Google sounds to me exactly like what the RF license was intended for (which is to say nothing about getting good returns for the contributor):

What Royalty-Free means is that you pay for the image only once and then you can use it as many times as you like, with just a few restrictions. In other words, there are no license fees except the initial fee and no other royalties to be paid except those included in the initial cost.

...you may use the image in a concept in as many websites as you want, for any number of clients.


Their announcement sounds more like a news release for shareholders, than for contributors!

« Reply #90 on: January 21, 2015, 16:23 »
+13
A while ago I was directly contacted by DT asking my permission to use a certain number of my images in their beta test program. Their email was considerate and polite, and I was given an easy way to opt out - which I did since I didn't particularly like the deal. I understand that the agency might be looking for new sources of revenue and trying new things out, and I also don't have to like everything they are doing, but if they are properly informing me and giving me an easy opt out - I don't see a problem with that. In fact, I don't see a problem with that at all. This is how it should be.

« Reply #91 on: January 21, 2015, 18:04 »
+12
...When you read between the lines in people's posts, I think the real complaint here is that sites sell images as RF for subscription (or low dollar) pricing at all.  This deal is just a sad reminder of the potential of what one agrees to, when one agrees to sell RF under a subscription model...  This use by Google sounds to me exactly like what the RF license was intended for (which is to say nothing about getting good returns for the contributor):...

I don't think it is at all a typical RF use - it's more like Google becoming a distributor to all the companies it sells an ad with that image to.

In the "normal" way of things, each company buying an ad would have to purchase an RF license for the smallest size to use the image in their ad. And that's very much how SS's deal with Facebook works - we get a subscription royalty for each ad run; what Facebook has done is make it easy for the ad customer to do this by taking the image purchase complexities off their plate.

In the DT/Google scheme, the contributor gets paid a very small amount once for 12 months of unlimited ads.

As I said above "I think there's a big difference between agreeing to a small per sale amount in return for high volume sales - 300 x y - and a small amount for an unlimited number of sales - (300 x 0) + 5y"

cuppacoffee

« Reply #92 on: January 21, 2015, 20:54 »
+6
These days I dont think that there is a normal way of things when it comes to the purchase of microstock images. I worked for a large company that produced newspaper fliers for many clients. They would buy a stock image (microstock) and use it in many different print vehicles, mainly newspaper inserts. The example I always like to use is that of Danny Smythes wonderful image of a simple orange on a white background (weve all seen it and probably never paid any attention). The image was purchased by the company and then used in every grocery store newspaper ad under the sun in every state in the US when oranges were in season. They probably should have purchased the license for extended seats but didnt know or care that that license even existed. No one kept track. They still use the image and Ive been gone 7 years. Once the image was purchased and thrown in the pool of other images it was free to be used as needed and was, over and over again for multiple clients. Is it right? No. Does it happen more than we would like to know about. Yes.

« Reply #93 on: January 21, 2015, 23:59 »
+6
These days I dont think that there is a normal way of things when it comes to the purchase of microstock images. I worked for a large company that produced newspaper fliers for many clients. They would buy a stock image (microstock) and use it in many different print vehicles, mainly newspaper inserts. The example I always like to use is that of Danny Smythes wonderful image of a simple orange on a white background (weve all seen it and probably never paid any attention). The image was purchased by the company and then used in every grocery store newspaper ad under the sun in every state in the US when oranges were in season. They probably should have purchased the license for extended seats but didnt know or care that that license even existed. No one kept track. They still use the image and Ive been gone 7 years. Once the image was purchased and thrown in the pool of other images it was free to be used as needed and was, over and over again for multiple clients. Is it right? No. Does it happen more than we would like to know about. Yes.

Too bad this happens.  But in this we are being asked to consent to this sort of abuse, not being random victims of it. 

And I agree with Jo Ann.  Each company buying an ad should pay at least a sub royalty for the image to make it fair or reasonable. 

fujiko

« Reply #94 on: January 22, 2015, 04:09 »
+13
In this deal google becomes a redistributor, which is strictly prohibited by existing licenses and is one of the only things that is preventing the whole business from collapsing.
RF low prices are sustainable because the price is per single use/client. There is no way that a sane person would consider this deal as a single use on google part, it's a redistribution loud and clear.

Now imagine that thinkstock paid $2 to istock users once and licensed the images indefinitely, suddenly $0.28 per download is a fantastic deal.
And this could apply to any other partner, POD site, ad agency.

« Reply #95 on: January 22, 2015, 04:22 »
+2
These days I dont think that there is a normal way of things when it comes to the purchase of microstock images. I worked for a large company that produced newspaper fliers for many clients. They would buy a stock image (microstock) and use it in many different print vehicles, mainly newspaper inserts. The example I always like to use is that of Danny Smythes wonderful image of a simple orange on a white background (weve all seen it and probably never paid any attention). The image was purchased by the company and then used in every grocery store newspaper ad under the sun in every state in the US when oranges were in season. They probably should have purchased the license for extended seats but didnt know or care that that license even existed. No one kept track. They still use the image and Ive been gone 7 years. Once the image was purchased and thrown in the pool of other images it was free to be used as needed and was, over and over again for multiple clients. Is it right? No. Does it happen more than we would like to know about. Yes.

Too bad this happens.  But in this we are being asked to consent to this sort of abuse, not being random victims of it. 

And I agree with Jo Ann.  Each company buying an ad should pay at least a sub royalty for the image to make it fair or reasonable.

+10

Ad agencies working on multi million dollar campaigns pay peanuts for our work.
Total rip off!

Semmick Photo

« Reply #96 on: January 22, 2015, 06:16 »
+3
In this deal google becomes a redistributor, which is strictly prohibited by existing licenses and is one of the only things that is preventing the whole business from collapsing.
RF low prices are sustainable because the price is per single use/client. There is no way that a sane person would consider this deal as a single use on google part, it's a redistribution loud and clear.

Now imagine that thinkstock paid $2 to istock users once and licensed the images indefinitely, suddenly $0.28 per download is a fantastic deal.
And this could apply to any other partner, POD site, ad agency.

This

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #97 on: January 22, 2015, 06:34 »
+9
I wonder where the bottom is. The more announcements I see like this the more I think we're not even close.

« Reply #98 on: January 22, 2015, 06:45 »
+6
A while ago I was directly contacted by DT asking my permission to use a certain number of my images in their beta test program. Their email was considerate and polite, and I was given an easy way to opt out - which I did since I didn't particularly like the deal. I understand that the agency might be looking for new sources of revenue and trying new things out, and I also don't have to like everything they are doing, but if they are properly informing me and giving me an easy opt out - I don't see a problem with that. In fact, I don't see a problem with that at all. This is how it should be.

Very good point here.  I'm opted out and don't particularly like the deal, but a big applause to Dreamstime for making an easy opt-out before the deal launches.

« Reply #99 on: January 22, 2015, 06:47 »
+8
I used to run google adwords campaigns for my business. To get my ad seen on the first page for some keywords I had to pay 5 dollars per click. On average I was paying between 30-1.50 per click.

Paying 30 cents for the right picture is less than peanuts for the google adwords user. These are not private bloggers, this is straightforward commercial use.

I really cannot understand the idea of allowing Google to freely redistribute even small files for commercial advertising and just be paid 2 dollars.

But I appreciate that I was given an opt out and removed my files. It is sad, because dreamstime has a good reputation I decided to opt in end of last year to see if it is worth it. It was the only company I was opted in for distribution deals.

 They announced the plan in time and gave us an opt out. That is definitely more than the other agencies did.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2015, 07:17 by cobalt »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2614 Views
Last post June 14, 2008, 19:27
by madelaide
2 Replies
2941 Views
Last post June 16, 2009, 15:36
by zymmetricaldotcom
2 Replies
2080 Views
Last post October 26, 2010, 20:06
by RacePhoto
57 Replies
13470 Views
Last post February 04, 2013, 07:09
by Reef
5 Replies
2273 Views
Last post July 04, 2016, 20:07
by CJH Photography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results