MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime selected as a beta provider of stock photos for Google display ads  (Read 36115 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: January 27, 2015, 16:21 »
+1
I'm out. Not a big earner for me in any event. I allowed some images for the test, which I now regret in principle.


cuppacoffee

« Reply #151 on: February 20, 2015, 12:35 »
+2
Earnings have started to be reported. Today and tomorrow. Just in case you are opted in.

« Reply #152 on: February 20, 2015, 13:54 »
0
Yes, these are flowing in.  VERY nice.

« Reply #153 on: February 20, 2015, 13:57 »
0
Yes, these are flowing in.  VERY nice.

I am desperate for some good news this Friday... please share, if any? :-)

« Reply #154 on: February 20, 2015, 14:38 »
0
Verified that it stays opted out in my account. With experience of FT i think i will check this periodically

« Reply #155 on: February 20, 2015, 18:51 »
0
What i wonder is whether being in this deal would actually cost any other sales? If not, then maybe it's not really all that bad (though it's certainly not all that good).

When he posted this, I PMed him, "You make a valid point. Not much point in posting about it though, with blood in the water and a 'kill DT' frenzy getting started. If Google said to me, "We would like to offer 500 of your images in small size to our display advertisers for one year and pay you $1000" I would think about, because you are probably right, very few if any of those advertisers would have bought my images on say SS, where I might only have earned. 38 anyway. So I'm not opting out.

I have never seen any reason to distrust or doubt Serban. He is a smart businessman who has done a lot of things that are good for contributors. I thought this looked like it might be a good deal for me and I never opted out.

Today so far I have gotten $168 subscription sales at DT. Still not planning on opting out.

dbvirago

« Reply #156 on: February 20, 2015, 20:05 »
+2
Not only did I just get a huge influx from these sales, almost all of them were very old and only a few were decent sellers.

« Reply #157 on: February 21, 2015, 02:21 »
+1
I am oupted out all the time - but I had some  2$ sub sales in january


edit - I can see now that it is already answered
« Last Edit: February 21, 2015, 04:03 by ferdinand »

« Reply #158 on: February 21, 2015, 06:36 »
0
Dreamstime.... THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!


Everyone who didn't opt into this should be kicking themselves right now.


PLUS... and this is a Big plus... this is only phase one of the Google deal.  Remember that Google will be buying W-ELs on these (some? all?) about a year from now.  That windfall has the potential to make this one look like peanuts.

Did I say it yet?  Thank you Dreamstime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: February 21, 2015, 15:13 by stockmarketer »

« Reply #159 on: February 21, 2015, 06:54 »
0
I guess we are all turning into "whatever works" and living a low cost life.
 
I am happy for all who will take their families on vacation with Dreamstime/Google deal and looks like there are many happy and rather modest folks out there.

http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_40127_pg1

 :-X
« Last Edit: February 21, 2015, 07:50 by KnowYourOnions »

« Reply #160 on: February 21, 2015, 06:56 »
+1
I would be careful. The trend is - to hide real process behind deals. The mass expectations are usually correct - avoid max not clear situations in business. And somebody wrote already on this forum: after pessimistic posts always come just several positive which don't do a trend. If it is so good for contributors, why to provide opt-in /out only all or nothing? Why not per client/contributor/image? Why not to give more clarity before action? Was the result of any deal of any agency last years positive for contributors? Why all agencies started to work through partners? Symbiostock with good idea could not compete with advertising budgets and power platforms. But the idea was idealistic and practically doable with heavy investments. Personally i don't want to give for google licensing images which will be used as they were boughtout forever. For majority of contributors it will be final. Even somebody from them will receive good money, still current situation cannot change my opinion and opt in.

Shelma1

« Reply #161 on: February 21, 2015, 07:39 »
+7


Everyone who didn't opt into this should be kicking themselves right now.


I was working in a major ad agency this week. If you saw what an ad agency pays for one-time use of an image (from Shutterstock and Getty in most ad agencies), you'd be shaking your head sadly at these $2 resell-all-you-like Google payments, as I am today.

I'm not kicking myself at all about opting out...instead I'm realizing how much people are actually willing to pay for one use of my images. (It's a lot more than all the $2 payments you got for all those images put together.)

« Reply #162 on: February 21, 2015, 07:49 »
+5
There's no way for me to let DT sell my images and pay me $2 royalty for an EL!
Some of these images will be used (sold by G**gle) thousand times over and over again!
Usually the contributor knows the price customer pays for a license and the percentage he gets! I don't know how much money DT gets from this shady deal?! I'm pretty sure their cut is shamefully bigger!
BTW I have few thousand SOD(FB deal) sales on SS and I get paid for every single usage in FB advert. That's how it should be!

« Reply #163 on: February 21, 2015, 08:03 »
+1
What I'm waiting to hear is Serban said something along the lines of, "there is a lot more good stuff coming for the contributors but I can't divulge that at this time"....... Something along these lines. I'm definitely not a fan if these $2 sales are essentially selling the rights as has been discussed. To me the Google deal IStock/Getty did was stealing my work legally.  My knee jerk reaction is that DT picked up on this scheme and did their own, but opt-inners might find that Serban has some more goodies in store for artists and his integrity is shored up by the details. It's important that he come in here and share "phase two" as he promised, or the other half of the deal. Or it could be just BS like most agencies spread.

« Reply #164 on: February 21, 2015, 09:02 »
+1


Everyone who didn't opt into this should be kicking themselves right now.


I was working in a major ad agency this week. If you saw what an ad agency pays for one-time use of an image (from Shutterstock and Getty in most ad agencies), you'd be shaking your head sadly at these $2 resell-all-you-like Google payments, as I am today.

I'm not kicking myself at all about opting out...instead I'm realizing how much people are actually willing to pay for one use of my images. (It's a lot more than all the $2 payments you got for all those images put together.)

I can confirm this and I am very upset about bargaining that is happening all over.
Ad agencies with massive budgets gets stuff for nothing.
How to stop this, I have no idea!  :( :( :(

Shelma1

« Reply #165 on: February 21, 2015, 09:10 »
0


Everyone who didn't opt into this should be kicking themselves right now.


I was working in a major ad agency this week. If you saw what an ad agency pays for one-time use of an image (from Shutterstock and Getty in most ad agencies), you'd be shaking your head sadly at these $2 resell-all-you-like Google payments, as I am today.

I'm not kicking myself at all about opting out...instead I'm realizing how much people are actually willing to pay for one use of my images. (It's a lot more than all the $2 payments you got for all those images put together.)

I can confirm this and I am very upset about bargaining that is happening all over.
Ad agencies with massive budgets gets stuff for nothing.
How to stop this, I have no idea!  :( :( :(

Wow, did you misunderstand me. It's just the opposite...ad agencies pay more than anyone else.

« Reply #166 on: February 21, 2015, 09:16 »
+1


Everyone who didn't opt into this should be kicking themselves right now.


I was working in a major ad agency this week. If you saw what an ad agency pays for one-time use of an image (from Shutterstock and Getty in most ad agencies), you'd be shaking your head sadly at these $2 resell-all-you-like Google payments, as I am today.

I'm not kicking myself at all about opting out...instead I'm realizing how much people are actually willing to pay for one use of my images. (It's a lot more than all the $2 payments you got for all those images put together.)

I can confirm this and I am very upset about bargaining that is happening all over.
Ad agencies with massive budgets gets stuff for nothing.
How to stop this, I have no idea!  :( :( :(

Wow, did you misunderstand me. It's just the opposite...ad agencies pay more than anyone else.

That's exactly what I am saying. Ad agencies pay more than anyone else with Getty and Shutterstock but slowly they are switching to these cheap deals too.
What I am saying, nobody should bargain their own work.
(sorry if I wasn't clear enough)
« Last Edit: February 21, 2015, 09:27 by KnowYourOnions »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #167 on: February 21, 2015, 10:15 »
+9
What i wonder is whether being in this deal would actually cost any other sales? If not, then maybe it's not really all that bad (though it's certainly not all that good).

When he posted this, I PMed him, "You make a valid point. Not much point in posting about it though, with blood in the water and a 'kill DT' frenzy getting started. If Google said to me, "We would like to offer 500 of your images in small size to our display advertisers for one year and pay you $1000" I would think about, because you are probably right, very few if any of those advertisers would have bought my images on say SS, where I might only have earned. 38 anyway. So I'm not opting out.

I have never seen any reason to distrust or doubt Serban. He is a smart businessman who has done a lot of things that are good for contributors. I thought this looked like it might be a good deal for me and I never opted out.

Today so far I have gotten $168 subscription sales at DT. Still not planning on opting out.


But its more like: "We would like to offer 500 of your images for free to our advertisers for one year without any limit to the amount of advertisers who can use the images and pay you $1000"

Its great making 168$ today, but people seem to forget thats the only time they get paid. Once Google is done shopping, you wont see any more $$$ but your images are being used over and over and etc by anyone and everyone for a whole year and you wont get another cent.

At least in the SS / FB deal you get paid for every usage. And we know from the Microsoft/Getty and Google/Getty deals that images are used in the thousands and millions of times. The Google/Getty deal caused an outrage when they found out they got paid 12$ per image. But now at 2$ per image its a great deal.

People need to start valuing their work.

« Reply #168 on: February 21, 2015, 11:42 »
0
Also don't forget the reports on the DT forum of $2 royalties "raining down" from the Google deal. Weeks ago. Before any Google payments were even made  ???

« Reply #169 on: February 21, 2015, 15:11 »
+4

Its great making 168$ today, but people seem to forget thats the only time they get paid. Once Google is done shopping, you wont see any more $$$ but your images are being used over and over and etc by anyone and everyone for a whole year and you wont get another cent.


Wrong.  In a year W-EL licenses will be purchased for the images.  It will make yesterday's and today's windfalls look tiny.  (And for the record, I've made considerably more than $168 from this deal so far.)

I look at it this way... Google paid $2 per photo to put them in a gallery where its advertisers MIGHT choose them to run in their ads.  I bet a majority of them will never be used.  Maybe some will be used multiple times.  It will probably balance out to maybe a few uses per image.  And then I get W-EL revenue on them a year from now.  (You might scoff and say "We'll see," but so far this deal has played out exactly the way DT told us it would, so we have NO reason to call them liars.)

In the end, people can accuse me of prostituting my images all they want.  Guess what... they're right!  I'm selling rights to my images here, there, everywhere that looks like a good deal to me.  Isn't everyone contributing to microstock a prostitute?  Are you selling your precious images for pennies on several ms sites?   You've accepted subs.  But you've drawn a line here.  Which is fine... microstock is a big gray area, and we all decide when we're being taken advantage of.  All I can say is when I do the math on this deal, and look at how often my images are actually likely to be used, and the fact that these buyers would not have otherwise purchased my images anywhere else, it's clear to me that the rewards FAR outweigh the risks.

« Reply #170 on: February 21, 2015, 15:22 »
+1

Its great making 168$ today, but people seem to forget thats the only time they get paid. Once Google is done shopping, you wont see any more $$$ but your images are being used over and over and etc by anyone and everyone for a whole year and you wont get another cent.


 and the fact that these buyers would not have otherwise purchased my images anywhere else

The key part right there.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #171 on: February 21, 2015, 15:30 »
0

Its great making 168$ today, but people seem to forget thats the only time they get paid. Once Google is done shopping, you wont see any more $$$ but your images are being used over and over and etc by anyone and everyone for a whole year and you wont get another cent.


Wrong.  In a year W-EL licenses will be purchased for the images. 

I didnt know that. Thats great. Maybe I had it wrong and in a year from now I punch myself in the head. Too late now for me anyway, I only have 58 images on DT as I cant be bothered by their similars policy.

« Reply #172 on: February 21, 2015, 15:35 »
+5
No, in a year -some- ELs will be purchased for some.

« Reply #173 on: February 21, 2015, 15:53 »
+3
Does the fact that the $2 royalties are being paid out mean that Google (or DST) has finished selecting the images?
If yes, is it "safe" to opt in again?   (the "old" opt-in I mean)

« Reply #174 on: February 21, 2015, 15:54 »
+1
Not only did I just get a huge influx from these sales, almost all of them were very old and only a few were decent sellers.
Strange but true in my case also. A surprising number of the 100 or so of my images selected so far are of Level 1 or Level 2 sellers. A few of them have only sold once or twice on any microstock site. One was a Level 0 submitted in April 2013, in other words, as I understand DT's level system, in almost 2 yrs on DT that image has never been sold, until today.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2626 Views
Last post June 14, 2008, 19:27
by madelaide
2 Replies
2957 Views
Last post June 16, 2009, 15:36
by zymmetricaldotcom
2 Replies
2089 Views
Last post October 26, 2010, 20:06
by RacePhoto
57 Replies
13540 Views
Last post February 04, 2013, 07:09
by Reef
5 Replies
2337 Views
Last post July 04, 2016, 20:07
by CJH Photography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results