MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Poll

Which deal is better?

Shutterstock + Facebook
Getty + Google Drive
Both deals are not good
Both deals are fine

Author Topic: Shutterstock - Facebook vs Getty - Google Drive  (Read 11174 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ron

« on: December 04, 2013, 14:46 »
0
Which deal was better? Shutterstock - Facebook or Getty - Google Drive?

I like the SS Facebook deal. Its about smaller sized images and only for use on Facebook, in ads.

What do you think?

Edit: poll updated as per request
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 02:19 by Ron »


« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2013, 14:54 »
+9
All bad, particularly lack of transparency and accountability to contributors!

« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2013, 14:55 »
+10
You cant even begin to compare the two, can you?

Getty handed over our files to 400 million Google Drive/community users for 6 or 12 dollars.

Shutterstock made a deal where every customer needs to decide individually on a file and even if they dont see the payment itself because it is maybe hidden in their overall Facebook advertising charges, at least we get paid every single time, for every individual customer at around 30 cents (?) per usage.

You would just need more than 20/40 people licensing the file to earn more than in the Getty deal. And the customer still has a file in a very small size, so if he wants to print it or make a poster, he will need to go to Shutterstock to license it in full size there.


Ron

« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2013, 14:57 »
+1
I dont think Facebook pays Shutterstock more than a subscription package would cost. So we would have equal or better royalty. Its also paid per download on the SS-FB deal. On the GY-GD deal it was a one time payment for unlimited downloads.

« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2013, 14:58 »
-2
j
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:26 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2013, 15:00 »
0
Seems pointless to compare the two, they are different deals with no relation to each other.
Come on, in this thread you can tell us what you think of the Getty Google deal. Its not off topic now. What was bad about the Getty deal in your view?

« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2013, 15:05 »
-1
k
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:26 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2013, 15:22 »
+2
Exactly, you cant compare the two as the Google deal was a complete rip off and the Facebook deal gets us paid per download. I guess you have said your thing, so for the rest of the discussion we wont see you here then? Yet I have a feeling we wont have seen the last of you, trying to give this Facebook deal a negative spin.

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2013, 15:29 »
+3
Ha, well the facebook deal has pushed me to install AdBlock, so all good.

« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2013, 15:38 »
0
They're very similar.  A new market opportunity comes along - Google Drive, Facebook ads.   Google and Facebook are enormous companies with enormous resources.   The agencies decide the thing to do is give these big players exactly what they want - a huge image giveaway that costs the big players peanuts, but generates some nice profits for the agencies in the short term, while paying contributors the absolute minimum they think they can get away with.  And to heck with the future - because this Internet stuff is all going away, right?  There won't be any online advertsing or document creation 5 years from now.  Or maybe there will be - who cares, it's all about next quarter's numbers.

The people at Google and Facebook have to be very happy with these deals.  Why we should be happy with them just totally escapes me.  And stay tuned, because the next ones will be even worse.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 15:47 by stockastic »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2013, 15:42 »
+5
I can't vote. I don't see "none or the above" or "Neither" as a choice.

You seem to be forcing an answer, without the third option.

Example: Which is better? To be stabbed and bleed to death and then shot, or to bed shot dead and then stabbed and drained of all blood? Doesn't matter does it?

None of the above...

Ron

« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2013, 15:50 »
-2
YOur example is stupid. Its nonsense. Choosing between death or death.

By the way, I'd rather be shot dead and then drained then drained and then shot dead.

Ever watch Family Guy?

« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2013, 15:55 »
+5
YOur example is stupid. Its nonsense. Choosing between death or death.

By the way, I'd rather be shot dead and then drained then drained and then shot dead.

Ever watch Family Guy?

I love that show but am pissed that they killed off Brian.

Oh, and to stay on topic, I hate the Google deal way more because they essentially, for all intents and purposes, gave away our copyright in perpetuity.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 15:59 by Mantis »

Ron

« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2013, 15:56 »
0
YOur example is stupid. Its nonsense. Choosing between death or death.

By the way, I'd rather be shot dead and then drained then drained and then shot dead.

Ever watch Family Guy?
I love that show but am pissed that they killed off Brian.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I didnt not know that yet !!!!!! FF.S

« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2013, 15:59 »
0
YOur example is stupid. Its nonsense. Choosing between death or death.

By the way, I'd rather be shot dead and then drained then drained and then shot dead.

Ever watch Family Guy?
I love that show but am pissed that they killed off Brian.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I didnt not know that yet !!!!!! FF.S

Yes, you have to watch the new episode. He is gone.

« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2013, 16:01 »
-4
I have the impression that the Google thing turned out to be of almost no practical or significant consequence.

Ron

« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2013, 16:02 »
0

Yes, you have to watch the new episode. He is gone.
Yeah, thats ruined now. Sigh.


« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2013, 16:04 »
+3
I have the impression that the Google thing turned out to be of almost no practical or significant consequence.

Unless you happen to be one whose image they stole.

« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2013, 16:06 »
-1
I have the impression that the Google thing turned out to be of almost no practical or significant consequence.

Maybe true.  IS got a huge kickback from contributors and probably won't make another similar deal for a while - they'll have to cook up something less obvious.  Which is what SS did when Facebook came calling - basically gave FB an all-you-can-eat deal at the lowest possible price, in perpetuity.   But contributors seem to be accepting this one because there's a (tiny) payment per download.  So watch for IS to announce something similar with Google, accompanied by some "we listened to ouir contributors" language. 
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 16:09 by stockastic »

« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2013, 16:09 »
+5
These two things aren't the same type of transaction, so it seems pointless asking which is worse.

I don't like the fact that we can't get details on the types of deals SS is now doing, even though they're proving very lucrative - and I'm talking about the SOD licenses - but there's nothing comparable to Getty/Google there either.

Giving people a way to do things legally - as long as we get compensated - is in general a good thing IMO. I just can't imagine there will be too many takers for purchases of FB-only licenses, but possibly SS can create a market there - which would also be a good thing

« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2013, 16:13 »
0
I have the impression that the Google thing turned out to be of almost no practical or significant consequence.

Maybe true.  IS got a huge kickback from contributors and probably won't make another similar deal for a while - they'll have to cook up something less obvious.  Which is what SS did when Facebook came calling - basically gave FB an all-you-can-eat deal at the lowest possible price, in perpetuity.   But contributors seem to be accepting this one because there's a (tiny) payment per download.  So watch for IS to announce something similar with Google, accompanied by some "we listened to ouir contributors" language.

Ha...that's funny...but probably true.

Ron

« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2013, 16:27 »
-1
These two things aren't the same type of transaction, so it seems pointless asking which is worse.

I don't like the fact that we can't get details on the types of deals SS is now doing, even though they're proving very lucrative - and I'm talking about the SOD licenses - but there's nothing comparable to Getty/Google there either.

Giving people a way to do things legally - as long as we get compensated - is in general a good thing IMO. I just can't imagine there will be too many takers for purchases of FB-only licenses, but possibly SS can create a market there - which would also be a good thing
They dont have to be the same to ask which one is better. If it was the same, there was nothing to compare.

« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2013, 16:42 »
+3
;
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:26 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2013, 19:42 »
+1
These two things aren't the same type of transaction, so it seems pointless asking which is worse.

I don't like the fact that we can't get details on the types of deals SS is now doing, even though they're proving very lucrative - and I'm talking about the SOD licenses - but there's nothing comparable to Getty/Google there either.

Giving people a way to do things legally - as long as we get compensated - is in general a good thing IMO. I just can't imagine there will be too many takers for purchases of FB-only licenses, but possibly SS can create a market there - which would also be a good thing
According to Jon Oringer "It's just one deal" and "there are other deals like it."  One that is mentioned is with Constant Contact, I wonder what the other ones are?

At least we know about it and Jon is making it public.  We had to find out about the Google deal through Sean.  And you and I both know that Istock/Getty KNEW there would be a SH*T storm over it if contributors found out....and we did. Whether or not D-day had any negative affect on them is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that they tried to hide it.  And they tried to hide it because they knew it was wrong to do in the first place; money grabs are a powerful influencer indeed.

Edit: Just to be clear, I was affected by it.  They gave away my single best selling image of my 3000 image port.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 19:48 by Mantis »

« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2013, 20:11 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:25 by Audi 5000 »

Microstock InsiderEnvato Elements

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2146 Views
Last post January 17, 2013, 10:42
by Elenathewise
34 Replies
5920 Views
Last post January 30, 2013, 02:21
by skubai
28 Replies
6298 Views
Last post February 01, 2013, 14:32
by polar
9 Replies
2265 Views
Last post May 11, 2013, 21:11
by w7lwi
36 Replies
10485 Views
Last post April 01, 2016, 06:01
by Microstock Posts

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements