pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: $.36 SOD on Shutterstock  (Read 8422 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2013, 19:52 »
+1
Of course you are correct. I don't know either way. But if someone is getting a single image that never would have come to SS or used anything microstock, because FB is making it available, then it's a benefit.

People who need one image, don't buy subscription packages. That's the people I'm looking at.

If we are competing with ourselves and stealing from our own better commissions, I'd agree with your viewpoint.

No I don't know either way for sure. I thought of it as expanding the market, not just a sideways transfer of buyers to a different way to get the same images, for less.



As unlikely as I am to get one of these, let me propose another perspective.

These are new image buyers who are not normally or currently image buyers. These are people who would never buy a Subscription or an image from SS, but now will select something from one of us and pay for that use.
I might be wrong, but it means, none of these DLs would have happened, if not for this deal. So the choice is something or nothing?

I'll take the something from someplace that would never DL anything otherwise.

Just the way I view it at this point. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me.

Percentages are irrelevant since we already sell subs. Size would be interesting, since it's not explained and appears to be some vague "digital" wording?

You don't know that Uncle Pete. They could just as easily have been sub plan purchasers and now they don't need to be, or SOD buyers, and now they don't need to be.


Me


« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2013, 23:24 »
0
Of course you are correct. I don't know either way. But if someone is getting a single image that never would have come to SS or used anything microstock, because FB is making it available, then it's a benefit.

People who need one image, don't buy subscription packages. That's the people I'm looking at.

If we are competing with ourselves and stealing from our own better commissions, I'd agree with your viewpoint.

No I don't know either way for sure. I thought of it as expanding the market, not just a sideways transfer of buyers to a different way to get the same images, for less.



As unlikely as I am to get one of these, let me propose another perspective.

These are new image buyers who are not normally or currently image buyers. These are people who would never buy a Subscription or an image from SS, but now will select something from one of us and pay for that use.
I might be wrong, but it means, none of these DLs would have happened, if not for this deal. So the choice is something or nothing?

I'll take the something from someplace that would never DL anything otherwise.

Just the way I view it at this point. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me.

Percentages are irrelevant since we already sell subs. Size would be interesting, since it's not explained and appears to be some vague "digital" wording?

You don't know that Uncle Pete. They could just as easily have been sub plan purchasers and now they don't need to be, or SOD buyers, and now they don't need to be.

That is part of the overall concern really - we just don't know. Are these buyers new, existing, moving agencies, etc? Have we had $5 sales diverted from other agencies onto $0.36 subs equivalent? Great for SS but bad for contributors. No way of knowing and even less way to find out. Guess you either live with it and do nothing or leave.

« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2013, 23:43 »
+1
Guess you either live with it and do nothing or leave.

I think that sums it up nicely.

lisafx

« Reply #53 on: December 13, 2013, 23:45 »
+3
Do we ever know where our sales come from?  Of course there's no way to know if these are new buyers or buyers who switched from some other plan or some other site.  There never is. 

Those uploading to SS have already agreed to sell licenses of their images for whatever they are getting per sub sale (in my case .38).  And that's without any size limitation and with a pretty broad usage. 

Like it or not, these side deals are something most of the agencies are making now.  Few are as transparent as SS is being.  And as we've already discussed, some of them don't pay us at all, or pay us less than we get for a sub, and allow for extremely broad, almost unrestricted use. 

I am just not sure why the big outcry over this. 

Uncle Pete

« Reply #54 on: December 14, 2013, 07:50 »
+1
Yes, and I have no complaints, SS is my favorite agency. What I was getting at is this. I don't know WHO on FB is using these. If it's people that wouldn't have used Microstock or wouldn't buy a subscription, that's a positive. If I'm getting the same as I already do for a sub, I have no complaints.

Opening new markets and bringing in new customers is not a negative.

Someone needs to explain to be who specifically is using these and what's wrong with that. I don't know. Can someone provide factual information and examples, please? Maybe I'm mistaken in my positive outlook.


Guess you either live with it and do nothing or leave.

I think that sums it up nicely.

« Reply #55 on: December 14, 2013, 09:30 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:05 by tickstock »

« Reply #56 on: December 15, 2013, 00:42 »
+1
I just had one.
I don't get what the outrage is all about just because it's a non-subs sale. iStock does non-subs sales and sometimes pays me 8c for them.  Someone on one of those deals could have bought a 5MP file from me for 32c commission and not only have used it on FB but use it everywhere else, too.
I can't help feeling that a lot of the outrage is over SS grabbing the opportunity from under GI's nose, rather than it being about a "market being ruined". Does anybody really imagine that if this had gone through via iSTock or Thinkstock we would have got anywhere near 38c per sale? And if we were getting 10c or 20c or 30c from iS, would the same critics be telling us the iStock was wrecking the market, or would they be praising getting such a good deal for such a restricted, one-off usage? We'll never know, we can only guess.....

« Reply #57 on: December 15, 2013, 00:49 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:04 by tickstock »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Shutterstock down

Started by Greg Boiarsky Shutterstock.com

2 Replies
3601 Views
Last post March 24, 2006, 12:13
by leaf
13 Replies
5181 Views
Last post September 27, 2011, 00:33
by RacePhoto
10 Replies
6882 Views
Last post September 28, 2011, 11:28
by RacePhoto
Shutterstock at 7

Started by rubyroo Shutterstock.com

6 Replies
2475 Views
Last post January 09, 2012, 14:10
by Karimala
33 Replies
6736 Views
Last post March 01, 2012, 03:19
by borg

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results