.

Quote from: Ron on December 05, 2013, 16:54

Of course there is one better then.

I am completely lost here; two agencies made a deal, which one is better. I think SS has the better deal for us. Its not a bad deal at all in my opinion and the getty deal is...

I think what is getting lost here is that you are regarding the Google deal in the same space as the Facebook deal, as something that could be potentially good for some folks. The reality is that in no way is the Google deal good for anyone other than Getty and Google. And anyone who says otherwise (including the 2 people who voted as such in this poll) must surely be employees of Getty. That or they just hit the wrong option accidentally.

Like I said before, you might as well be starting a poll asking people if they'd rather eat an apple or some dirt. You're trying to weigh two options that are no where near being of similar appeal to anyone.

Ok, I understand the point now. I just got confused when some people said the SS deal was bad, and since the google deal was bad too, I wanted to know what the better deal was. But I agree with your explanation now.

No, I dont agree with that neither thing, the SS deal is the better deal in my opinion.

I dont agree with your explanation either.

See now you have me all confused again. I dont understand your reasoning.


The poll is what it is, those are the answers, if you dont like either, dont vote.

LOL, you should know, you are the expert in that, no?

A poll is to measure opinion, not direct it towards your personal opinion. That's my point.

If you think the SS deal is better, why didn't you just write that? I'm sure people who have an opinion would have contributed their viewpoint. And as others have pointed out, it's difficult to find anyone who liked the Getty/IS deal. 

No, I dont agree with that neither thing, the SS deal is the better deal in my opinion.

I dont agree with your explanation either.

See now you have me all confused again. I dont understand your reasoning.


The poll is what it is, those are the answers, if you dont like either, dont vote.

Quote from: stockastic on December 05, 2013, 10:47

Everyone likes the SS deal because it's "transparent".     

They tell you exactly how you're going to get 35 cents for a sale to an buyer who's running an ad in the world's biggest social media site, that might reach millions of users.  Wow, sounds great.  Of course if it were "print" everything would be different.  But it's the web, so we know that buyer is on a shoestring budget, and that Facebook is only charging him $5 total to run the ad, so no one in this deal is making any money.    Oh wait, just found out it's Ford Motor Co, they probably could have paid as much as 75 cents.   Not to worry, we have transparency here.

But what's the difference to the standard Shutterstock licence? That already allows to use the images in almost every conceivable way in advertising, if a multi-billion dollar company would use a Shutterstock image on huge billboards across the world for many years, it would still be within the limits of the licence. And it would not pay more than 25 to 38 cents.

What's so much worse with the FB deal?

The standard subscription "deal" stinks too.  This new "deal" is even worse.

The difference is, all these new FB advertisers are getting subscription prices without buying subscriptions. Even FB itself didn't have to buy a subscription. It's a potentially huge new market and SS has decided, right at the start, to give everyone in it unlimited images at the lowest possible price - i.e. the subscription price.  This obviously is intended to bring in a bunch of new revenue right away.

Does anyone seriously believe that a typical company advertising on FB has a budget of $1 for a photo? Or that they aren't paying FB significant amounts to run the ads?  What SS and FB have done is simply remove stock photography as a cost, for FB advertisers.  And removed FB advertisers as a significant market for microstock.  If you're advertising somewhere else, or in print, you might have to pay a few dollars for an image - or at least buy a subscription.  But on FB, you don't.  Your cost has now been set at basically nothing - the race to the bottom is complete.

I absolutely cannot comprehend why anyone thinks this is a "good deal".  I see why SS management would want it, I see how it might even be good for SS, but not why it's good for photographers.   And in fact I'm tired of beating my head against the wall - if people want to tell themselves this is great, fine,  I'm walking away.   As always, it's take it or leave it with these so-called "agencies", we have no leverage anyway.     

Quote from: dirkr on December 05, 2013, 14:33

Quote from: stockastic on December 05, 2013, 10:47

Everyone likes the SS deal because it's "transparent".     

They tell you exactly how you're going to get 35 cents for a sale to an buyer who's running an ad in the world's biggest social media site, that might reach millions of users.  Wow, sounds great.  Of course if it were "print" everything would be different.  But it's the web, so we know that buyer is on a shoestring budget, and that Facebook is only charging him $5 total to run the ad, so no one in this deal is making any money.    Oh wait, just found out it's Ford Motor Co, they probably could have paid as much as 75 cents.   Not to worry, we have transparency here.

But what's the difference to the standard Shutterstock licence? That already allows to use the images in almost every conceivable way in advertising, if a multi-billion dollar company would use a Shutterstock image on huge billboards across the world for many years, it would still be within the limits of the licence. And it would not pay more than 25 to 38 cents.

What's so much worse with the FB deal?

The standard subscription "deal" stinks too.  This new "deal" is even worse.

The difference is, all these new FB advertisers are getting subscription prices without buying subscriptions. Even FB itself didn't have to buy a subscription. It's a potentially huge new market and SS has decided, right at the start, to give everyone in it unlimited images at the lowest possible price - i.e. the subscription price.  This obviously is intended to bring in a bunch of new revenue right away.

Does anyone seriously believe that a typical company advertising on FB has a budget of $1 for a photo? Or that they aren't paying FB significant amounts to run the ads?  What SS and FB have done is simply remove stock photography as a cost, for FB advertisers.  And removed FB advertisers as a significant market for microstock.  If you're advertising somewhere else, or in print, you might have to pay a few dollars for an image - or at least buy a subscription.  But on FB, you don't.  Your cost has now been set at basically nothing - the race to the bottom is complete.

I absolutely cannot comprehend why anyone thinks this is a "good deal".  I see why SS management would want it, I see how it might even be good for SS, but not why it's good for photographers.   And in fact I'm tired of beating my head against the wall - if people want to tell themselves this is great, fine,  I'm walking away.   As always, it's take it or leave it with these so-called "agencies", we have no leverage anyway.   

Thank you for that explanation. I see your point of view. It makes sense.

SS deal is miles ahead better and why? because IS "gave" our pictures FOREVER for 12$ (one time fee)

on a side note I wish that SS gave us an option to opt in/out, I am sure they will work that out anyway

.

You two need to share your tinfoil hats, lol. Both anonymous, calling out other people who are open about everything they do. 

By the way, I have always liked the FB deal, even before I met SS. Go do some digging on the forum. 

The only thing of any possible interest to me in this poll and thread would be the reasoning of the two people who thought the Getty-Google thing was less bad than the SS-Fb deal.