pancakes

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 11153 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

Microstock InsiderEnvato Elements

 

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