Author Topic: Feedback, thoughts on facebook shutterstock deal (Read 17611 times)

leaf · « **on:** February 23, 2014, 16:15 »

I've been running some ads on Facebook for a new project I'm building and have been really impressed by the Facebook/Shutterstock deal. I love using it on Facebook and think the payment for the users on Shutterstock (38 cents I believe) is fair.

In use, when creating an ad on Facebook you are given the option of uploading your own images, using images you already have online or getting pictures from Shutterstock. If you pick Shutterstock, you are given a search box and can simply select the 5 images you want to use (for free). Facebook then uses all the images you chose in ads and you can see how they perform differently. Very easy to do A/B testing with different images and it is surprising how much difference one image makes to another. I'm paying for the facebook ads so I guess they use some of those funds to pay for the images.

This could be a huge market for Shutterstock IMO. Very user friendly, very valuable and I feel, for what the buyer is getting, we are being paid a fair amount.

Anyka · « **Reply #1 on:** February 23, 2014, 16:32 »

Interesting. One question though : while choosing the 5 images ... can you download them?

stockastic · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2014, 16:37 »

I guess if you really think 38 cents is fair, for an ad potentially seen by millions of users - given that the real money was probably all hidden in the form of a big upfront pseudo-subscription payment from FB to SS, of which we get nothing... then probably I have nothing to add.

Let the minus-ing begin.

"But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

- "1984", George Orwell

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** February 23, 2014, 16:41 »

Quote from: Anyka on February 23, 2014, 16:32

Interesting. One question though : while choosing the 5 images ... can you download them?

no. They are just run in my ads.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2014, 16:41 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 23, 2014, 16:37

I guess if you really think 38 cents is fair, for an ad potentially seen by millions of users - given that the real money was probably all hidden in the form of a big upfront pseudo-subscription payment from FB to SS, of which we get nothing... then probably I have nothing to add.

What's the difference between someone doing this and downloading it themselves from SS and then uploading that?

Now you've got a huge new 'buyer' base that 99% of didn't have an SS subscription and wasn't going to open one just for this.

And I'm pretty sure they can't download it. FB is not licensing it to the ad creator.

stockastic · « **Reply #5 on:** February 23, 2014, 16:44 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 23, 2014, 16:41

Quote from: stockastic on February 23, 2014, 16:37
I guess if you really think 38 cents is fair, for an ad potentially seen by millions of users - given that the real money was probably all hidden in the form of a big upfront pseudo-subscription payment from FB to SS, of which we get nothing... then probably I have nothing to add.

What's the difference between someone doing this and downloading it themselves from SS and then uploading that?

Now you've got a huge new 'buyer' base that 99% of didn't have an SS subscription and wasn't going to open one just for this.

Right. SS just gave FB the Mother Of All Subscriptions. What do you suppose FB paid for it? What is the real cost of an image, to FB? We'll never know. There are no more "sales" and no more "royalties" - just token payments, for "downloads". The reason we think it's fair is that we feel lucky if we get anything at all.

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** February 23, 2014, 16:45 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 23, 2014, 16:41

Quote from: stockastic on February 23, 2014, 16:37
I guess if you really think 38 cents is fair, for an ad potentially seen by millions of users - given that the real money was probably all hidden in the form of a big upfront pseudo-subscription payment from FB to SS, of which we get nothing... then probably I have nothing to add.

What's the difference between someone doing this and downloading it themselves from SS and then uploading that?

Now you've got a huge new 'buyer' base that 99% of didn't have an SS subscription and wasn't going to open one just for this.

And I'm pretty sure they can't download it. FB is not licensing it to the ad creator.

... and it's free to them, so they'll use it like candy. I know I do. I've used probably 20 images from Shutterstock in the last couple days in my ads. I'll run an ad for 2 days.. test what type of image performs the best then change the text.... test the text for a couple days, then try the best text with 6 new images. There is nothing stopping me from testing a new set of 6 images every day to find the best one. The photographer wins... I feel it is a great exchange and deal. Facebook will make money because I'm running lots of ads, Shutterstock gets lots of customers, as a photographer I get lots of new customers and as an advertiser on FB I get free images in a very easy to implement user interface.

stockastic · « **Reply #7 on:** February 23, 2014, 16:47 »

As always - we'll Make It Up On Volume. And none of these adverstisers could possibly spend more than a dollar for an image. What do you estimate FB charges them to run the ad?

leaf · « **Reply #8 on:** February 23, 2014, 16:48 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 23, 2014, 16:44

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 23, 2014, 16:41
Quote from: stockastic on February 23, 2014, 16:37
I guess if you really think 38 cents is fair, for an ad potentially seen by millions of users - given that the real money was probably all hidden in the form of a big upfront pseudo-subscription payment from FB to SS, of which we get nothing... then probably I have nothing to add.

What's the difference between someone doing this and downloading it themselves from SS and then uploading that?

Now you've got a huge new 'buyer' base that 99% of didn't have an SS subscription and wasn't going to open one just for this.

Right. SS just gave FB the Mother Of All Subscriptions. What do you suppose FB paid for it? What is the real cost of an image, to FB? We'll never know. There are no more "sales" and no more "royalties" - just token payments, for "downloads". The reason we think it's fair is that we feel lucky if we get anything at all.

Or maybe Shutterstock paid Facebook for the right to be the exclusive distributor of images. We have no idea and are just wildly guessing. What we do know however (for fact) is that when the numbers are all tallied up.. Shutterstock paid 28% of their income out to artists. Whether that income came from a Facebook signing bonus or subscription sign ups is beside the point.

leaf · « **Reply #9 on:** February 23, 2014, 16:48 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 23, 2014, 16:47

As always - we'll Make It Up On Volume. And none of these adverstisers could possibly spend more than a dollar for an image. What do you estimate FB charges them to run the ad?

about the same as google adwords (speaking from experience)

lisafx · « **Reply #10 on:** February 23, 2014, 16:48 »

Thanks, Tyler, for sharing the user's perspective. I don't see a problem with this type of usage. We are paid for each usage, and the usages and license are more restrictive than a regular rf license from SS. Hard, IMO, to make a convincing case that this is bad for contributors.

gostwyck · « **Reply #11 on:** February 23, 2014, 16:50 »

Quote from: leaf on February 23, 2014, 16:45

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 23, 2014, 16:41
Quote from: stockastic on February 23, 2014, 16:37
I guess if you really think 38 cents is fair, for an ad potentially seen by millions of users - given that the real money was probably all hidden in the form of a big upfront pseudo-subscription payment from FB to SS, of which we get nothing... then probably I have nothing to add.

What's the difference between someone doing this and downloading it themselves from SS and then uploading that?

Now you've got a huge new 'buyer' base that 99% of didn't have an SS subscription and wasn't going to open one just for this.

And I'm pretty sure they can't download it. FB is not licensing it to the ad creator.

... and it's free to them, so they'll use it like candy. I know I do. I've used probably 20 images from Shutterstock in the last couple days in my ads. I'll run an ad for 2 days.. test what type of image performs the best then change the text.... test the text for a couple days, then try the best text with 6 new images. There is nothing stopping me from testing a new set of 6 images every day to find the best one. The photographer wins... I feel it is a great exchange and deal. Facebook will make money because I'm running lots of ads, Shutterstock gets lots of customers, as a photographer I get lots of new customers and as an advertiser on FB I get free images in a very easy to implement user interface.

Good thread Leaf.

Have you been 'choosing' any of your own images on SS to ensure that the use is properly registered and a royalty paid?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #12 on:** February 23, 2014, 16:51 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 23, 2014, 16:48

Thanks, Tyler, for sharing the user's perspective. I don't see a problem with this type of usage. We are paid for each usage, and the usages and license are more restrictive than a regular rf license from SS. Hard, IMO, to make a convincing case that this is bad for contributors.

Right - I'm missing the point of the outrage here.

leaf · « **Reply #13 on:** February 23, 2014, 16:51 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 23, 2014, 16:50

Quote from: leaf on February 23, 2014, 16:45
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 23, 2014, 16:41
Quote from: stockastic on February 23, 2014, 16:37
I guess if you really think 38 cents is fair, for an ad potentially seen by millions of users - given that the real money was probably all hidden in the form of a big upfront pseudo-subscription payment from FB to SS, of which we get nothing... then probably I have nothing to add.

What's the difference between someone doing this and downloading it themselves from SS and then uploading that?

Now you've got a huge new 'buyer' base that 99% of didn't have an SS subscription and wasn't going to open one just for this.

And I'm pretty sure they can't download it. FB is not licensing it to the ad creator.

... and it's free to them, so they'll use it like candy. I know I do. I've used probably 20 images from Shutterstock in the last couple days in my ads. I'll run an ad for 2 days.. test what type of image performs the best then change the text.... test the text for a couple days, then try the best text with 6 new images. There is nothing stopping me from testing a new set of 6 images every day to find the best one. The photographer wins... I feel it is a great exchange and deal. Facebook will make money because I'm running lots of ads, Shutterstock gets lots of customers, as a photographer I get lots of new customers and as an advertiser on FB I get free images in a very easy to implement user interface.

Good thread Leaf.

Have you been 'choosing' any of your own images on SS to ensure that the use is properly registered and a royalty paid?

No I haven't tried that - my conscious kicked in

I did see quite a few of my own though.

stockastic · « **Reply #14 on:** February 23, 2014, 17:01 »

FB just paid $19 billion for a company with about 55 employees. We're not even comprehending how deep these pockets are, or how badly FB wants to increase ad revenue. Yet we'll give them our photos for 38 cents to put in front of hundreds of millions of users.

WhatsApp claims to have 450 million users, and FB wants to start stuffing that stream with ads.

There's nothing like entering a brand new market, with unknown potential, at the absolute rock bottom price point, with nowhere to go but down.

gostwyck · « **Reply #15 on:** February 23, 2014, 17:08 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 23, 2014, 17:01

FB just paid $19 billion for a company with about 55 employees. We're not even comprehending how deep these pockets are, or how badly FB wants to increase ad revenue. Yet we'll give them our photos for 38 cents to put in front of hundreds of millions of users.

WhatsApp claims to have 450 million users, and FB wants to start stuffing that stream with ads.

There's nothing like entering a brand new market, with unknown potential, at the absolute rock bottom price point, with nowhere to go but down.

So stop your constant whining, go develop an app and then sell it to FB for $B's. Truth is you are paid what your skills are worth in the open market ... but you struggle to accept that reality.

Goofy · « **Reply #16 on:** February 23, 2014, 17:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 23, 2014, 17:08

Quote from: stockastic on February 23, 2014, 17:01
FB just paid $19 billion for a company with about 55 employees. We're not even comprehending how deep these pockets are, or how badly FB wants to increase ad revenue. Yet we'll give them our photos for 38 cents to put in front of hundreds of millions of users.

WhatsApp claims to have 450 million users, and FB wants to start stuffing that stream with ads.

There's nothing like entering a brand new market, with unknown potential, at the absolute rock bottom price point, with nowhere to go but down.

So stop your constant whining, go develop an app and then sell it to FB for $B's. Truth is you are paid what your skills are worth in the open market ... but you struggle to accept that reality.

I promise never to whine on this site

pancaketom · « **Reply #17 on:** February 23, 2014, 17:33 »

Is this deal worse than the normal subs sales - probably not. Plus they probably aren't getting or using full resolution pics.

Could FB have afforded a deal that was better for the artists - probably, but they didn't have to. I'd rather get 25 to 30% or .38 from SS licensing it than 15-19% or .28 from Getty (or whatever they are paying these days).

The point about the ability to change the pics every day on the ads is one that could work well with a sub site too.

stockastic · « **Reply #18 on:** February 23, 2014, 17:38 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 23, 2014, 17:08

Quote from: stockastic on February 23, 2014, 17:01
FB just paid $19 billion for a company with about 55 employees. We're not even comprehending how deep these pockets are, or how badly FB wants to increase ad revenue. Yet we'll give them our photos for 38 cents to put in front of hundreds of millions of users.

WhatsApp claims to have 450 million users, and FB wants to start stuffing that stream with ads.

There's nothing like entering a brand new market, with unknown potential, at the absolute rock bottom price point, with nowhere to go but down.

So stop your constant whining, go develop an app and then sell it to FB for $B's. Truth is you are paid what your skills are worth in the open market ... but you struggle to accept that reality.

The operative phrase there is "open market".

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2014, 18:24 »

"FB just paid $19 billion for a company with about 55 employees. We're not even comprehending how deep these pockets are, or how badly FB wants to increase ad revenue. Yet we'll give them our photos for 38 cents to put in front of hundreds of millions of users."

Again, since SS's captive market can do this anyways, download and upload, without the help of FB, why would you expect more? FB is just acting as a pass through middle man, except the end buyer doesn't get to use the image for anything else.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2014, 18:35 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 23, 2014, 17:01

We're not even comprehending how deep these pockets are, or how badly FB wants to increase ad revenue. Yet we'll give them our photos for 38 cents to put in front of hundreds of millions of users.

First, thanks Tyler for providing a user's view of how this works. Very helpful.

Regarding the above, I'd argue with your case on three fronts.

One is that royalty free licensing doesn't have time durations or number of eyeball limits (for web licensing) - whether it's Facebook or anyone else. This is back to the old RM model that there's more value based on type of usage (and even microstock RF does have a little of that with extended licenses). It is pointless to bring up the evils of RF licensing again as that's what every micro is selling in every context.

Two is that I don't expect any Facebook ad, let alone Tyler's new project, to be seen by hundreds of thousands of users, let alone hundreds of millions. This is about targeting the ads more narrowly - if I'm selling something in Redmond WA there's no point in me advertising in New Zealand or Norway.

Three is that the size of these images is tiny. I feel a whole lot less grief about subscriptions when it's an extra small size for a 38 cent royalty

stockastic · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2014, 19:58 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 23, 2014, 18:24

"FB just paid $19 billion for a company with about 55 employees. We're not even comprehending how deep these pockets are, or how badly FB wants to increase ad revenue. Yet we'll give them our photos for 38 cents to put in front of hundreds of millions of users."

Again, since SS's captive market can do this anyways, download and upload, without the help of FB, why would you expect more? FB is just acting as a pass through middle man, except the end buyer doesn't get to use the image for anything else.

Well yes, if every FB advertiser had, or would buy, a subscription from SS, then this deal would be no worse than that. Does that make it a "good" deal? Are subscriptions "good" now?

I'm wondering what some of you would think constitutes a "bad" deal. 25 cents? 5 cents? Nothing?

shudderstok · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2014, 20:20 »

"simply select the 5 images you want to use (for free)"

excellent, i am so supportive of SS leading the general public on that usage of images for advertising is free. oh well as long as you get your pathetic 0.38c who cares.

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2014, 20:21 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 23, 2014, 19:58

I'm wondering what some of you would think constitutes a "bad" deal. 25 cents? 5 cents? Nothing?

'Nothing' is right around the corner.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #24 on:** February 23, 2014, 20:39 »

Quote from: shudderstok on February 23, 2014, 20:20

"simply select the 5 images you want to use (for free)"

excellent, i am so supportive of SS leading the general public on that usage of images for advertising is free. oh well as long as you get your pathetic 0.38c who cares.

Perhaps it should say ( included in the price of your ad ). Why not mail Jon and suggest it?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Feedback, thoughts on facebook shutterstock deal (Read 17611 times)

leaf

Anyka

stockastic

leaf

Sean Locke Photography

stockastic

leaf

stockastic

leaf

leaf

lisafx

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

leaf

stockastic

gostwyck

Goofy

pancaketom

stockastic

Sean Locke Photography

Jo Ann Snover

stockastic

shudderstok

mlwinphoto

Sean Locke Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors