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 11152 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 »

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2013, 21:25 »
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?

Actually not so stupid.  In the State of Utah (US) a condemned killer is given the option of being executed by firing squad or being hung.  Macabre choice, but that's the law.

« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2013, 21:28 »
0
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.
Again there is no reason to compare the two deals.  The Getty Google deal was bad but what does that have to do with the Shutterstock Facebook deal?

I was responding to your comment bolded above. My comment is relative to communication. Oringer communicates his major deals whereas gi/is does not. And there is a reason why, and I merely emphasized why.


« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2013, 21:33 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:23 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2013, 21:49 »
+2
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.
Again there is no reason to compare the two deals.  The Getty Google deal was bad but what does that have to do with the Shutterstock Facebook deal?

I was responding to your comment bolded above. My comment is relative to communication. Oringer communicates his major deals whereas gi/is does not. And there is a reason why, and I merely emphasized why.
That's strange because my point was that there is not good communication.  "there are other deals like it." we know one deal but I know of no other "deals".  If you know what those are please do share.

Keep spinning, blocking and tackling. Doesn't work with me.

« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2013, 21:56 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:23 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2013, 03:27 »
-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?

Actually not so stupid.  In the State of Utah (US) a condemned killer is given the option of being executed by firing squad or being hung.  Macabre choice, but that's the law.

Well, then there is a better option between the two bad ones, so people can vote. I dont need to put in a 3rd option. Which one is better deal, of the two deals.


Ron

« Reply #31 on: December 05, 2013, 03:29 »
-3
Keep spinning, blocking and tackling. Doesn't work with me.
Exactly. But he has to, its his job presumably.

« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2013, 03:30 »
+1
Why would you compare the two, what do you hope to accomplish by voting or proclaiming one better than the other?

I would also like to see transparency on any deal the micros make in regard to our assets.  Considering that SS can not negotiate deals without our assets, it is only fair that they should offer transparent details to contributors on any deals that they have in the works.




Ron

« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2013, 03:41 »
-4
I dont really feel compelled to explain myself to people who hide behind anonymity, demanding transparency.

« Reply #34 on: December 05, 2013, 07:24 »
0
Why would you compare the two, what do you hope to accomplish by voting or proclaiming one better than the other?

I would also like to see transparency on any deal the micros make in regard to our assets.  Considering that SS can not negotiate deals without our assets, it is only fair that they should offer transparent details to contributors on any deals that they have in the works.

Amen to that.

« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2013, 07:53 »
+1
I dont really feel compelled to explain myself to people who hide behind anonymity, demanding transparency.

The quality of the conversation here has deteriorated since anonymous posting was discouraged. The spectrum of opinion has narrowed considerably.

EmberMike

« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2013, 09:20 »
+2

The comparison makes no sense. Apple and oranges.


Ron

« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2013, 10:08 »
-3

The comparison makes no sense. Apple and oranges.
Still 92% thinks SS has the better deal

« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2013, 10:47 »
+2
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.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 11:16 by stockastic »

EmberMike

« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2013, 11:18 »
+4

The comparison makes no sense. Apple and oranges.
Still 92% thinks SS has the better deal

Ok, then my analogy is wrong. It's more like comparing apples to dirt and asking people which one they'd rather eat.

Ron

« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2013, 11:20 »
0

The comparison makes no sense. Apple and oranges.
Still 92% thinks SS has the better deal

Ok, then my analogy is wrong. It's more like comparing apples to dirt and asking people which one they'd rather eat.

No one who says its apples and oranges has explained why. So tell me why cant you compare the two? Honest question.


« Reply #41 on: December 05, 2013, 11:35 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:23 by Audi 5000 »

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2013, 14:28 »
0
It's comparable to voting in US elections these days.  You don't really vote for who you want.  More often than not, you vote for whomever you dislike the least.  Either way, you're screwed.

« Reply #43 on: December 05, 2013, 14:33 »
0
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?

« Reply #44 on: December 05, 2013, 15:17 »
+1
A few posts of jabs back and forth were removed.  Please keep the conversation civil

EmberMike

« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2013, 15:35 »
+5
No one who says its apples and oranges has explained why. So tell me why cant you compare the two? Honest question.

One is a deal that sells perpetual redistribution rights to a 3rd party for a few bucks, the other is just another licensing deal that allows the artist to earn on every sale. They're completely different.

« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2013, 15:37 »
+1
No one who says its apples and oranges has explained why. So tell me why cant you compare the two? Honest question.

One is a deal that sells perpetual redistribution rights to a 3rd party for a few bucks, the other is just another licensing deal that allows the artist to earn on every sale. They're completely different.


which is why there is no question on which one is better.


« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2013, 16:08 »
0
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.

I know that it is a fact that the Google thing really upset a lot of people. But I don't think anyone else (users) has really noticed / remembered that Google Docs offers people free to use stock images within their Google Docs. That is what I mean about it having "no practical or significant consequence" - that really nobody cares (apart from the miffed).

It just is not something which people talk or blog about today or which is considered a great feature of Google Docs. Actually the only thing I ever hear people say about Google Docs is that iWork is a less horrible experience for document sharing in the cloud. I really do not think that many people are actually using the pictures for anything that could be even vaguely considered commercial.

Therefore I really do not think that it likely represents any significant loss of sales. I think it turned out to be more or less benign. And I certainly do not believe it likely that any significant number of people are using it as a source of free images to use outside of the terms and conditions. The people who steal images would not buy them anyhow remember.

Ron

« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2013, 16:54 »
0
No one who says its apples and oranges has explained why. So tell me why cant you compare the two? Honest question.

One is a deal that sells perpetual redistribution rights to a 3rd party for a few bucks, the other is just another licensing deal that allows the artist to earn on every sale. They're completely different.


which is why there is no question on which one is better.
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.

Its funny though, because the thread opened when the deal was announced a while back before the SS deal started, everyone applauded it. Now the deal is live and everyone is upset. What happened in the mean time? What did I miss.

« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2013, 17:01 »
+4
No one who says its apples and oranges has explained why. So tell me why cant you compare the two? Honest question.

One is a deal that sells perpetual redistribution rights to a 3rd party for a few bucks, the other is just another licensing deal that allows the artist to earn on every sale. They're completely different.


which is why there is no question on which one is better.
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.

Its funny though, because the thread opened when the deal was announced a while back before the SS deal started, everyone applauded it. Now the deal is live and everyone is upset. What happened in the mean time? What did I miss.

Everyone who?  I still think it is a good deal.  Maybe a better poll would have been.. do you like the shutterstock facebook deal.. yes, no?

EmberMike

« Reply #50 on: December 05, 2013, 17:22 »
+2
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.

« Reply #51 on: December 05, 2013, 17:26 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:22 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #52 on: December 05, 2013, 18:02 »
0
Its Poncke and Poncke v2 and what has that to do with anything? You forgot the c in your attempt to troll again. Didnt Leaf say to keep it civil?

I opened the poll to find out what the general thought was on these deals, not to create controversy.

Ron

« Reply #53 on: December 05, 2013, 18:09 »
0
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.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #54 on: December 05, 2013, 18:26 »
+1
Yes I'd agree and apparently my obscure allusion, meant to be somewhat humorous, was lost in the too serious analysis. When you are dead, you're dead, it doesn't matter how. When you are being sold down the river by some agency, it doesn't matter which bad deal is "better". Thus I was trying to inject a little reason that None Of The Above in any valid poll, is a good option. Otherwise you are forcing people to make a decision, to match your limited spectrum of answers.

Try this: Poll says, What's you favorite color? 1) Blue 2) Red... but all people who like green or yellow or purple or... you get the idea, either can't answer or can only answer what the author wants to demand they answer. In which case it's a totally invalid poll and the results meaningless.

Which deal is better? Neither.   :)




The comparison makes no sense. Apple and oranges.
Still 92% thinks SS has the better deal

Ok, then my analogy is wrong. It's more like comparing apples to dirt and asking people which one they'd rather eat.

Ron

« Reply #55 on: December 05, 2013, 18:30 »
0
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.

« Reply #56 on: December 05, 2013, 18:32 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:22 by Audi 5000 »


Ron

« Reply #57 on: December 05, 2013, 18:34 »
0
LOL, you should know, you are the expert in that, no?

ShadySue

« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2013, 18:57 »
+1
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.

But then you can never know how many chose not to vote because they didn't like either, compared to those who never do polls or didn't read this thread.

I'm not sure why you don't agree with allowing 'neither' as an opinion since you prefer the Fb deal.
Essentially you prefer the Fb deal and want everyone to agree. I can't imagine a lot of people would defend the Google deal, but I can't see the results as I haven't voted.
I can't see any actual point in the poll.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2013, 19:07 »
+1
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.

ShadySue

« Reply #60 on: December 05, 2013, 19:18 »
0
Believe it or not, (but it's true) many, many years ago (at least 25+ years, as I know which room in the flat we lived in at that time I was listening it) I heard a traditional-style Essay on the radio all about how they didn't like the choices we were given at elections. Anyway, he wanted another option on the voting slip called Re-open Nominations.
I realise that you're going to think I'm taking the p*ss, (I'm not) but he was (tongue in cheek) encouraging his listeners to go out with banners and megaphones and loudspeakers on cars gathering support for his campaign to "Vote for RON". I actually really identified with that essay, so unlike most other things, it has stuck in my mind.

Oh, I just Googled and found that "many British students unions have that as an option":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above#Re-open_Nominations_.28RON.29
and for wikipedia sceptics:
https://www.warwicksu.com/elections/howtovote/ron

I see there was also a highly unsuccessful epetition to the UK Government for same, but they should have publicised it better.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/41867

« Reply #61 on: December 05, 2013, 21:07 »
+3
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.     



« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 22:09 by stockastic »

« Reply #62 on: December 05, 2013, 21:35 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:21 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #63 on: December 06, 2013, 02:18 »
0
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.

Ron

« Reply #64 on: December 06, 2013, 02:19 »
0
Believe it or not, (but it's true) many, many years ago (at least 25+ years, as I know which room in the flat we lived in at that time I was listening it) I heard a traditional-style Essay on the radio all about how they didn't like the choices we were given at elections. Anyway, he wanted another option on the voting slip called Re-open Nominations.
I realise that you're going to think I'm taking the p*ss, (I'm not) but he was (tongue in cheek) encouraging his listeners to go out with banners and megaphones and loudspeakers on cars gathering support for his campaign to "Vote for RON". I actually really identified with that essay, so unlike most other things, it has stuck in my mind.

Oh, I just Googled and found that "many British students unions have that as an option":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above#Re-open_Nominations_.28RON.29
and for wikipedia sceptics:
https://www.warwicksu.com/elections/howtovote/ron

I see there was also a highly unsuccessful epetition to the UK Government for same, but they should have publicised it better.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/41867
Ok I changed the poll answers

« Reply #65 on: December 06, 2013, 06:57 »
0
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

« Reply #66 on: December 06, 2013, 11:36 »
-3
I dont really feel compelled to explain myself to people who hide behind anonymity, demanding transparency.

I am not surprised you would avoid the question.


« Reply #67 on: December 06, 2013, 11:41 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:21 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #68 on: December 06, 2013, 12:08 »
-2
I dont really feel compelled to explain myself to people who hide behind anonymity, demanding transparency.

I am not surprised you would avoid the question.
Oh he actually does work for Shutterstock, no surprise then about the motives of this 'poll'.

Yes and it also explains the about turn in views he has demonstrated since his meeting with SS.

I do not always agree with everyone on this forum and I actually feel that is healthy.  I do value honest and varied opinions regarding various micros. I do not always agree with any one person on the boards, Tickstock included. I do read many of his posts because he makes some very good points from time to time.

This poll in its original form presented like forced SS advertising or promotion. I agree with Mike the poll in it original form is like asking people if they'd rather eat an apple or some dirt. Except at these prices we could not afford to buy one apple.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 12:13 by gbalex »

Ron

« Reply #69 on: December 06, 2013, 15:08 »
0
You two need to share your tinfoil hats, lol. Both anonymous, calling out other people who are open about everything they do.  ;D

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


« Reply #70 on: December 07, 2013, 15:14 »
+3
You two need to share your tinfoil hats, lol. Both anonymous, calling out other people who are open about everything they do.  ;D

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


Ron one of the things I admired about you when you first started participating in these boards was that you were not afraid to ask legitimate questions of the micros.  I may be an old timer but my brain is not so addled that I can not remember some of your posts.

It is not fair to vilify/denigrate anonymous members because we remember your previous posts and have noticed that you that have changed your position after your meeting with SS.

If you feel your port will have better exposure from SS by becoming a SS Ambassador more power to you.  But don't expect long time submitters to fall for or support the marketing and promotion that goes along with the position. Things have changed at SS and no amount of posting positive comments in the threads on any of the sites will change that. We judge the micros based on our bottom lines and those have changed since early this year for many long time submitters.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-ppens-a-brand-new-office-in-berlin/msg351556/#msg351556

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132988&highlight=raise

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-q2-profit-rises/msg337840/#msg337840

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-q2-profit-rises/msg336613/#msg336613

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-creates-first-silicon-alley-billionaire/msg326120/#msg326120

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-creates-first-silicon-alley-billionaire/msg326439/#msg326439

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-down-again-!/msg335712/#msg335712

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/i-think-i%27m-done/msg329935/#msg329935

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/changes-to-the-tos-at-shutterstock/msg345055/#msg345055

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/no-words-anymore/msg344523/#msg344523

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/disappearance-of-the-eds/msg348657/#msg348657

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/sstk-to-sell-3m-more-shares/msg346986/#msg346986

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/why-is-shutterstock-sellng-our-images-for-1cent-each/msg349538/#msg349538

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/why-is-shutterstock-sellng-our-images-for-1cent-each/msg349646/#msg349646

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/why-is-shutterstock-sellng-our-images-for-1cent-each/msg349551/#msg349551

ShadySue

« Reply #71 on: December 07, 2013, 19:16 »
0
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.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #72 on: December 08, 2013, 00:16 »
0
Nice and thanks for allowing options! I voted.  :)

Ok I changed the poll answers

Envato ElementsMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2142 Views
Last post January 17, 2013, 10:42
by Elenathewise
34 Replies
5908 Views
Last post January 30, 2013, 02:21
by skubai
28 Replies
6290 Views
Last post February 01, 2013, 14:32
by polar
9 Replies
2264 Views
Last post May 11, 2013, 21:11
by w7lwi
36 Replies
10475 Views
Last post April 01, 2016, 06:01
by Microstock Posts

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements