pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: .38 SODs  (Read 2035 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« on: January 08, 2019, 07:13 »
+3
My royalty per SOD has been dropping steadily for a while now, but yesterday was the first time it dropped to the same as a sub. So Shutterstock now has to be selling single images for close to a dollar each. How is this different than DPC or Onepixel? Asking for a friend.


« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2019, 07:42 »
0
I get a few of those from what I can recall it's something to do with Facebook advertising sales.  They've been around a few years now.

I do get higher values but for some reason I get lots of 61 cent SODs too


« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2019, 10:09 »
+11
The Facebook deal was, I think, the first of that kind and all the 38 cent royalties for using a SS image in a Facebook ad (which the ad buyer didn't pay for) were reported as SOD.  They've been around since at least the end of 2015.

The 38 cent SODs aren't a problem - it's the lack of $75, $90 and $120 SODs that's been noticable and one of the huge hits to income at SS. The other has been replacing the $2.85 OD income with all sorts of lower numbers, without any increase in volume - all those experiments with lower-priced packages they've introduced over the last year or so.

Shelma1

« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2019, 10:15 »
0
Hmmm. I haven't checked Facebook advertising in a while, but when it was first introduced illustrations didn't seem to be included. Perhaps that's changed.

« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2019, 11:34 »
+2
In all seriousness - the SS/FB deal was one of the deciding factors when I quit doing microstock.    It was pretty discouraging to see comments - from people who should have known better - about this being a "great deal" for "sales you otherwise wouldn't get".   In my mind, it was all over at that point.  FB was a huge new advertising market, and microstock had entered it at giveaway prices; there was no upside left.

I can't quite accept the idea that Facebook, with a market cap of $400 billion, can only pay 38 cents for a image, for an ad that might be seen by millions.  Call me nave.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 11:42 by stockastic »

« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2019, 11:54 »
+3
.38 seems to be the most common amount I get for SODs these days. Very rarely are they more than 2.85 and mostly they are under $1. I got one higher value sale last year - and it was under $8

I sure miss the days of double digit sales amounts, and I am no longer making it up in volume either.

« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2019, 14:13 »
+3
In all seriousness - the SS/FB deal was one of the deciding factors when I quit doing microstock....

Given the nature of the deal - one purpose use of a thumbnail size image - I thought it was very like a custom RM deal with limited use for a limited price.

The FB ad buyer didn't get access to a full sized image and could not use the image for anything else. This wasn't anything like the uses of a standard RF sale with virtually no usage or time limits.

We never got to see the license terms, but as I understand it, it was not the case that FB got to buy once for an unlimited number of ad buyers. The Getty-Google deal (and the lack of opt out for that) was a train wreck because there was unlimited access forever to any number of users for one tiny one-time payment to the contributor. That was why I all-but-left iStock (removed all but 100 images I can't license anywhere else) in 2013.

I don't mind variations in license terms or prices as long as those take account of contributor interests as well as agency interests. I do think the total lack of transparency regarding terms - at SS, Adobe and other agencies that do partner deals and corporate deals - is a huge problem. At this point, given the history, an agency saying "just trust us" is not appealing.

« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2019, 17:04 »
0
IMHO, pricing by pixel size was another major factor in the collapse. Image size has no relation to the costs of production, and "thumbnail" can be anyrhing.  It's like selling low resolution versions of hit tunes at a huge discount.  FB is a new form of advertising, some of the old licensing concepts don't really apply.

Anyway, I'm out of it. I no longer need to rationalize the pricing.

« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2019, 17:35 »
0
IMHO, pricing by pixel size was another major factor in the collapse. Image size has no relation to the costs of production, and "thumbnail" can be anyrhing.  It's like selling low resolution versions of hit tunes at a huge discount.  FB is a new form of advertising, some of the old licensing concepts don't really apply.

Anyway, I'm out of it. I no longer need to rationalize the pricing.
Though that is what happens with music...you can stream virtually free. Downloading in MP3 costs more and then more again for the (allegedly) better quality vinyl or CD. Pricing generally has nothing to do with input costs its a function of supply and demand.

« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2019, 23:04 »
0
I just made a 0.29 "single & other" sell... It's like a sub what?

« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2019, 16:30 »
0
IMHO, pricing by pixel size was another major factor in the collapse. Image size has no relation to the costs of production, and "thumbnail" can be anyrhing.  It's like selling low resolution versions of hit tunes at a huge discount.  FB is a new form of advertising, some of the old licensing concepts don't really apply.

Anyway, I'm out of it. I no longer need to rationalize the pricing.
Though that is what happens with music...you can stream virtually free. Downloading in MP3 costs more and then more again for the (allegedly) better quality vinyl or CD. Pricing generally has nothing to do with input costs its a function of supply and demand.


Yes, price is set by supply and  demand.  But if that process ends up at a point where suppliers can't even recover their costs, production will cease.  Of course, in the case of microstock, buyers and producers don't negotiate directly, so it's far from an ideal market.


Music streaming is comparable to microstock in some ways.  I guess we'd have to ask some musicians if they thought streaming was a good thing.  I think they'd say 'no'.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 16:33 by stockastic »

« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2019, 16:45 »
0
IMHO, pricing by pixel size was another major factor in the collapse. Image size has no relation to the costs of production, and "thumbnail" can be anyrhing.  It's like selling low resolution versions of hit tunes at a huge discount.  FB is a new form of advertising, some of the old licensing concepts don't really apply.

Anyway, I'm out of it. I no longer need to rationalize the pricing.
Though that is what happens with music...you can stream virtually free. Downloading in MP3 costs more and then more again for the (allegedly) better quality vinyl or CD. Pricing generally has nothing to do with input costs its a function of supply and demand.


Yes, price is set by supply and  demand.  But if that process ends up at a point where suppliers can't even recover their costs, production will cease.  Of course, in the case of microstock, buyers and producers don't negotiate directly, so it's far from an ideal market.


Music streaming is comparable to microstock in some ways.  I guess we'd have to ask some musicians if they thought streaming was a good thing.  I think they'd say 'no'.
Indeed over time you would expect fewer people to enter the market or leave if they can't make a living at the price. But it works that way round i.e suppliers need to determine if they can make a living by selling at a price the market will bear rather than expecting to be able add a percentage on to meet their production costs....particularly valid in an international business where costs vary.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #12 on: January 09, 2019, 17:22 »
+1
In all seriousness - the SS/FB deal was one of the deciding factors when I quit doing microstock.    It was pretty discouraging to see comments - from people who should have known better - about this being a "great deal" for "sales you otherwise wouldn't get".   In my mind, it was all over at that point.  FB was a huge new advertising market, and microstock had entered it at giveaway prices; there was no upside left.

I can't quite accept the idea that Facebook, with a market cap of $400 billion, can only pay 38 cents for a image, for an ad that might be seen by millions.  Call me nave.

I'll assume you are also happy to not see your photos being sold by art.com at Walmart.  ;D Just another kick in the ass for us and we don't know how much we get. Oh not me, I don't think any of mine got selected for the API partners.

« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2019, 11:11 »
0
The Facebook deal was, I think, the first of that kind and all the 38 cent royalties for using a SS image in a Facebook ad (which the ad buyer didn't pay for) were reported as SOD.  They've been around since at least the end of 2015.

The 38 cent SODs aren't a problem - it's the lack of $75, $90 and $120 SODs that's been noticable and one of the huge hits to income at SS. The other has been replacing the $2.85 OD income with all sorts of lower numbers, without any increase in volume - all those experiments with lower-priced packages they've introduced over the last year or so.

Thank you for good information.

« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2019, 13:38 »
0
The Facebook deal was, I think, the first of that kind and all the 38 cent royalties for using a SS image in a Facebook ad (which the ad buyer didn't pay for) were reported as SOD.  They've been around since at least the end of 2015.

The 38 cent SODs aren't a problem - it's the lack of $75, $90 and $120 SODs that's been noticable and one of the huge hits to income at SS. The other has been replacing the $2.85 OD income with all sorts of lower numbers, without any increase in volume - all those experiments with lower-priced packages they've introduced over the last year or so.

i agree the rpi is falling down to stock level...this company has been hitting hard by instagarma and site like unsplash...there are many images out there that can be had for free now, and cover 90% of need of buyer, only released model files have still some kind of protection.

« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2019, 13:40 »
+2
IMHO, pricing by pixel size was another major factor in the collapse. Image size has no relation to the costs of production, and "thumbnail" can be anyrhing.  It's like selling low resolution versions of hit tunes at a huge discount.  FB is a new form of advertising, some of the old licensing concepts don't really apply.

Anyway, I'm out of it. I no longer need to rationalize the pricing.
Though that is what happens with music...you can stream virtually free. Downloading in MP3 costs more and then more again for the (allegedly) better quality vinyl or CD. Pricing generally has nothing to do with input costs its a function of supply and demand.


Yes, price is set by supply and  demand.  But if that process ends up at a point where suppliers can't even recover their costs, production will cease.  Of course, in the case of microstock, buyers and producers don't negotiate directly, so it's far from an ideal market.


Music streaming is comparable to microstock in some ways.  I guess we'd have to ask some musicians if they thought streaming was a good thing.  I think they'd say 'no'.


soon micro sock won't have any professional ready to invest more than 50 bucks in any kind of shooting...even bog company are hit, lower their earning. only desperate from eastern europe and thailand still upload . out of their camera, but it's just the impossibility to accept that micro stock is ending.

« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2019, 16:57 »
+1
IMHO, pricing by pixel size was another major factor in the collapse. Image size has no relation to the costs of production, and "thumbnail" can be anyrhing.  It's like selling low resolution versions of hit tunes at a huge discount.  FB is a new form of advertising, some of the old licensing concepts don't really apply.

Anyway, I'm out of it. I no longer need to rationalize the pricing.
Though that is what happens with music...you can stream virtually free. Downloading in MP3 costs more and then more again for the (allegedly) better quality vinyl or CD. Pricing generally has nothing to do with input costs its a function of supply and demand.


Yes, price is set by supply and  demand.  But if that process ends up at a point where suppliers can't even recover their costs, production will cease.  Of course, in the case of microstock, buyers and producers don't negotiate directly, so it's far from an ideal market.


Music streaming is comparable to microstock in some ways.  I guess we'd have to ask some musicians if they thought streaming was a good thing.  I think they'd say 'no'.


soon micro sock won't have any professional ready to invest more than 50 bucks in any kind of shooting...even bog company are hit, lower their earning. only desperate from eastern europe and thailand still upload . out of their camera, but it's just the impossibility to accept that micro stock is ending.

It's hard to imagine anyone, anywhere, making "substantial" money at this game - by which I mean at least a good portion of their income.   But what do I know, I'm just an old guy in a wealthy country.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
1656 Views
Last post May 21, 2014, 14:11
by cathyslife
$4.06 SODs

Started by ultimagina Shutterstock.com

9 Replies
2934 Views
Last post November 01, 2014, 02:18
by photobee
71 Replies
10098 Views
Last post September 24, 2015, 06:37
by dirkr
17 Replies
3154 Views
Last post August 19, 2015, 06:38
by Cesar
7 Replies
2189 Views
Last post April 17, 2018, 08:17
by HalfFull

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements