MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How will embed advertising work?  (Read 4037 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 09, 2014, 15:53 »
+2
I can't see how it will work. I get the data mining but not the rest. How will advertisers choose which images to attach ads to? Would a fast food restaurant want to advertise on a blog about healthy living? Would the blog want that ad showing up? Why would someone interested in cooking click on an image of strawberries? Why would they even be interested in buying an image? If contributors get paid a % per click how many clicks would it take? Maybe someone can illuminate me on why advertisers would even be interested in this form if advertising. What do you think? If it just about data mining then what benefit is there to the contributor at all?


Shelma1

« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2014, 15:57 »
0
Just a guess, but Getty would somehow bundle a bunch of blogs or news sources with similar content and audiences and sell the ad space. I'm guessing ad agencies would place ads based on demographics and interests. Probably has nothing to do with the specific image in question.

Ron

« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2014, 16:03 »
0
Probably the same as Google Ads.

It just registers the user's browsing behavior and shows ads accordingly. Or it scans the website its embedded to for metadata such as keywords and description and then places the ad accordingly.


« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2014, 17:34 »
+1
Ok I can see how this is good for Getty and advertisers might like it. But why would bloggers like this once the ads start appearing? Also proponents of this keep saying it will be good for contributors but I don't see how?  I'm not on Getty but IS is obviously next so how am I going to make any income from this at all? Click throughs off of a blog photo? I don't see it? Finally aren't blogs about the advertising? Once ads are imbedded won't bloggers just remove the embedded image? Those of you who thinks this is good please take a moment to convince me?

Ron

« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2014, 17:46 »
0
The embedded image will register how many times its being called from the server. So every time the page is shown to a reader, it will register a page view. At 10,000 page views Getty could say they made a dollar and you get 20 cent.

« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2014, 17:54 »
+2
I see. How many blogs get 10000 page views? If they have that big of an audience why aren't they selling their own advertising? 10000 views and I get 20 whole cents. 1 million views and I make slightly more than 1 sale off of my own site. This is crazy. Am I wrong?

Ron

« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2014, 18:25 »
0
My numbers were made up to explain how it works. But if a site like the NY times uses the embedded images, I reckon they get a fair bit of views.

Shelma1

« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2014, 18:30 »
+2
I doubt the Times would use this. They want, need, to be in charge of their own advertising...that's how they stay in business. They can't have a competitor's ad popping up randomly on the same page as a paid ad because it appears in a Getty embed. This is really only meant for smaller pubs and bloggers.

I really don't see how it would work. With YouTube, at least you can see in real time how many views your video has. How would you know with Getty? How could any individual contributor possibly know how many times their image was viewed, how much ad revenue was generated, and whether they were paid the correct amount?

Ron

« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2014, 18:37 »
0
I am just providing examples to explain how it could work.

« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2014, 18:59 »
+1
Ron, your numbers seem reasonable from the advertisers perspective. Even $1.00 per thousand page views. Still that takes 100,000 views from small blogs for me to make $20. I have a theory as to why certain people are advocating for this Getty program but I will wait a bit to see if they will answer my call to convince me I am wrong. Honesty I am trying to be open minded, someone convince me this could be good for me.

« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2014, 19:13 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:44 by tickstock »

« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2014, 19:18 »
+1
I guess I need to reread that other thread. By my count there were at least three. remind me, what is your opinion again?

« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2014, 21:41 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:44 by tickstock »

« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2014, 22:42 »
+7
I agree with pretty much all of what you just said. But if it took us only two days to come to this conclusion why didn't Getty reach it as well? If you are right and this is not a game changer or massively destructive why did they do it? They effectively wiped out the blog value of millions of images. Virtually right before they launched a subs campaign on IS. How do sales reps explain why customers should buy an image when everyone else can have it for free? Remember this is not about reality it is about perception, and Getty is now perceived as the place for free images. This is about corporate positioning and it will be destructive to an entire market of buyers. Bloggers now will not be able to discern the difference between embedding and stealing. "It is a free image who cares how I use it." That is the message and it cannot be undone.

I believe there is no advertising campaign. This is about something else entirely. This feels like burning the oil fields before you retreat in defeat. Right now none of my images are affected but I find myself asking the same question everyone else is asking themselves "When is this coming to Istock? And what should I do before it does?"

If it really is about the advertising I think we will get paid - but I don't think it will amount to anything.

Shelma1

« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2014, 07:36 »
+3
It bothers me because they purposely sent out a press release (which was picked up/modified by the press) shouting that they'd made 35 million images FREE, and it was only if you read all the details in the articles and the TOS that you realized that wasn't really true. In the comments sections bloggers are talking about yay it's free and all I have to do is right click to get rid of the frame. So they've just released everyone's work into the stratosphere and lulled people into believing it's ok.

Something bad up their sleeves.

stocked

« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2014, 08:08 »
0
I can see a few advantages for Getty:
- SEO these links will work in favor them! How much? Hard to tell but similar stuff (embedded charts for stock prices etc) proved to be very effective, I don't think it will punished by Google as it is truly no spam.
- Many people get used to search on Getty, and content-wise Getty is really great. They will love it.
- Getty gets a lot of embedded downloads on their agency and they can better analyze the needs and trends and the actual keywords people are looking for.
- Getty can analyze the data from the used embeds, real user-data which is very valuable itself.
- Getty can include ads in the embedded images.
 

Shelma1

« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2014, 08:44 »
+2
Where are the advantages for the contributors?


ShadySue

« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2014, 08:55 »
+3
Where are the advantages for the contributors?
Who cares about the contributors?
We're just inconveniences they need to make money.

ShadySue

« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2014, 09:07 »
+3
It bothers me because they purposely sent out a press release (which was picked up/modified by the press) shouting that they'd made 35 million images FREE, and it was only if you read all the details in the articles and the TOS that you realized that wasn't really true. In the comments sections bloggers are talking about yay it's free and all I have to do is right click to get rid of the frame. So they've just released everyone's work into the stratosphere and lulled people into believing it's ok.
Something bad up their sleeves.


Again, Getty shows their disdain for UK consumer law1.
"consumer contracts must be clear and have no unwelcome surprises buried in the small print. ... Harm can arise when a small print term alters the deal from what consumers understand it to be."
http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2011/24-11#.Ux3GDIXla0s

1Though to be fair, there are several other micro sites where the conditions for how files may be used, or where they need an extended licence are extremely well hidden, even when I've specifically been looking for such detail.

Shelma1

« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2014, 09:56 »
+1
I found this article about payment demand letters from Getty really interesting, especially this part:

"If Getty tells you something like 'we don't care if you take it down or not, you still have to pay our demands,' they are misleading their victims into thinking that paying the demand means you have purchased the rights to use the image. It does not -- the demand for settlement is purely punitive, asking for for restitution for violating a copyright law, and nothing more."

If the payment they demand is purely punitive, and does not mean the person is now paying to license the image, my guess is they would not pay the image contributor because no license was sold. N'est ce pas?

http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/copyrightlaws/a/Can-I-Ignore-A-Getty-Settlement-Demand-Letter.htm

stocked

« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2014, 10:09 »
+1
Where are the advantages for the contributors?
Since than do agencies care about contributors?

« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2014, 10:09 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:44 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2014, 10:13 »
0
I found this article about payment demand letters from Getty really interesting, especially this part:

"If Getty tells you something like 'we don't care if you take it down or not, you still have to pay our demands,' they are misleading their victims into thinking that paying the demand means you have purchased the rights to use the image. It does not -- the demand for settlement is purely punitive, asking for for restitution for violating a copyright law, and nothing more."

If the payment they demand is purely punitive, and does not mean the person is now paying to license the image, my guess is they would not pay the image contributor because no license was sold. N'est ce pas?

http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/copyrightlaws/a/Can-I-Ignore-A-Getty-Settlement-Demand-Letter.htm

I don't think that's correct.  My understanding is contributors get paid after expenses for going after infringers is deducted.  The best thing to do would be to use primary sources, check your Getty Contributor agreement.


Can you point us to that understanding in writing somewhere?

« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2014, 10:20 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:44 by tickstock »

« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2014, 10:28 »
0
We seem to have several people here who have been contributing to Getty for a very long time? Maybe they can share their experience? Sounds like an easy question.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
IPTC Embed

Started by Leo Blanchette General Stock Discussion

4 Replies
2427 Views
Last post September 14, 2011, 07:03
by Microbius
6 Replies
2701 Views
Last post November 08, 2011, 06:20
by michealo
2 Replies
1827 Views
Last post February 29, 2016, 14:32
by wds
8 Replies
2948 Views
Last post January 30, 2018, 17:12
by k_t_g
9 Replies
1079 Views
Last post January 29, 2019, 12:02
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results