Anyone else get this?  Lowest SOD I've seen is $.80  Two days in a row now...

Hmm, interesting.  I will email them...

Yes, same here SOD for 0.95.
Cheers,

lol

Can't wait to hear the details of this Exciting New Opportunity.

Well, I never heard back from shutterstock,  but I'm pretty sure it's what Ron said.....Facebook.  The SOD is equivalent to your subscription level. 

So "high quality imagery for businesses" turns out to mean 36 cents.  And no opting out.  Sweet indeed.

They only get thumbnail size.

Quote from: Ron on December 02, 2013, 11:25

Quote from: stockastic on December 02, 2013, 11:22

So "high quality imagery for businesses" turns out to mean 36 cents.  And no opting out.  Sweet indeed.

They only get thumbnail size.

How do they define "thumbnail"?  I'll bet these are actually around 400px. Have they stated the size?

You can ask the question here,
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=133451 or try it out on Facebook yourself. I dont have the exact answer. There was a thread from SS as well on this. See if I can find it.

Quote from: stockastic on December 02, 2013, 11:39

Quote from: Ron on December 02, 2013, 11:25

Quote from: stockastic on December 02, 2013, 11:22

So "high quality imagery for businesses" turns out to mean 36 cents.  And no opting out.  Sweet indeed.

They only get thumbnail size.

How do they define "thumbnail"?  I'll bet these are actually around 400px. Have they stated the size?

You can ask the question here,
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=133451 or try it out on Facebook yourself. I dont have the exact answer. There was a thread from SS as well on this. See if I can find it.

This certainly isn't an 'exact answer'.
"Images used in ads will be limited to digital sizes � often appearing as thumbnails."

Is there a 'standard' on the definition of 'digital sizes'? All files are 'digital size'.
But then SS doesn't price by size anyway.

Good business move as far as I'm concerned. Creating another revenue stream is better than flogging off stuff wholesale for a one-off compensation or giving non-sellers away for free. And if it picks up I can stop uploading to some of the walking dead in the middle tier

Thanks Anthony, just to take away all concerns, what is the max res offered to Facebook users?

So basically it's non-subscription sales at subscription prices. 

We enter a whole new market, already at the bottom. 

Quote from: Ron on December 03, 2013, 17:54

Thanks Anthony, just to take away all concerns, what is the max res offered to Facebook users?

had one today and just checked it at FB ads, 1000 x 727, looks like Med size

Ok, thats quite big, and not a thumbnail as the blog says

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 03, 2013, 20:11

Quote from: Ron on December 03, 2013, 17:54

Thanks Anthony, just to take away all concerns, what is the max res offered to Facebook users?

had one today and just checked it at FB ads, 1000 x 727, looks like Med size

Ok, thats quite big, and not a thumbnail as the blog says

Nope, the blog says, "Images used in ads will be limited to digital sizes (which could mean anything) � often appearing as thumbnails." No definition of 'digital size' or, indeed, thumbnail.

But yes - as many Facebookers think images there are for the taking, especially in ads, it could be a worry.

Quote from: stockastic on December 03, 2013, 20:47

So basically it's non-subscription sales at subscription prices. 

We enter a whole new market, already at the bottom. 

The license is very limited, the buyer can only use the image on Facebook.. it is a bit different.  It seems like a good/fair deal to me.  Here is more info from Shutterstock http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-facebook

1 million potential new customers.  A new type of media that has a billion subscribers.  Ads that might be seen by millions, or hundreds of  millions, of readers.   And we enter this new market at 35 cents - and zero cents per click - without the slightest idea what the agency is getting - and no possibility of an increase, ever, no matter how big Facebook advertising turns out to be.

In what sense do you see this as a good deal?

I dont understand what the fuzz is.

1. I can download a subscription image from SS and use for an ad on FB - royalty 38 cent
2. I can download a subscription image from SS and use it on my website - royalty 38 cent
3. I can use an image from the SS/FB deal - royalty 38 cent

Option 3 just makes it easier for a buyer. Brilliant.

4

Quote from: Ron on December 04, 2013, 12:46

I dont understand what the fuzz is.

1. I can download a subscription image from SS and use for an ad on FB - royalty 38 cent
2. I can download a subscription image from SS and use it on my website - royalty 38 cent
3. I can use an image from the SS/FB deal - royalty 38 cent

Option 3 just makes it easier for a buyer. Brilliant.

To get an image from a subscription you need a subscription first, to get an image for facebook ads you don't.  It's sub sale royalties for single image sales.  The royalty percentage is also hidden.

Does anyone think that maybe that FB is paying SS a nice chunk of money for this arrangement -basically subsidizing their advertisers, large and small -  because they're desperate to show ad revenue growth to their stockholders?   They nice part is, we'll never know, so we don't need to be bothered by it.   But I'll bet 35 cents that the next SS report to shareholders talks about a very lucrative deal with FB. 

 

4

Quote from: Ron on December 04, 2013, 14:00

The size seems to be limited and its sales I normally wouldnt have. Well not that I have any. A few people on SS are reporting boatloads.

Maybe, maybe not.   Shutterstock says one of the big draws for this program is that advertisers don't have to go elsewhere to get images, some of those advertisers might have been going to Shutterstock to get single images or to other sites with higher prices.  You may (are likely) losing higher priced sales in exchange for sub royalty sales.  The advertisers used images before.

You are just in it to speculate on the negative side for SS. How about that Getty deal from IS, whats the positive spin on that one? You lost all credibility when I realised you might be on the Getty payroll.

You are speculating. How about that Getty deal? How was that good for you?

This is about the Facebook deal, Getty has nothing to with it.  I think the Facebook deal is negative for all of us, it's more of the race to the bottom.  Converting higher priced sales to penny sales.  I don't like that at all and I'm not afraid to say it.

What about the Getty Google Drive deal? Surely that was far, far worse from the contributors' view? That was "converting higher priced sales" ... into no sales at all after the initial $6. The license given away by Getty was also far less restrictive than the FB advertisers' license.

Also SS had the courtesy of actually announcing the FB deal. The Getty Google Drive deal was only discovered by accident if I remember correctly __ even the IS management had no idea what it was about.

LOL, you are so predictable and obvious. How about that Getty deal? But wait... I'll take another approach.

1

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.

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.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 13, 2013, 02:32

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.

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

I think that sums it up nicely.

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.

Quote from: Me on December 13, 2013, 23:24

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

I think that sums it up nicely.

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.....