MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: melastmohican on April 01, 2014, 13:56
-
What's the point of handling it special if it is subscription price?
-
.
-
I've been wondering the same thing, but the FB thing would make sense.
-
Yes, a SOD with the same royalty as your subs is a FOD as I call it. Facebook On Demand :)
-
Because it's Facebook, and Facebook is Very Big and Important, this has been declared "A Good Deal". Otherwise it would be just another huge giveaway from our perspective.
-
Me: "where can I opt out of this FB sales?"
SS: "Unfortunately you can not opt out from this option."
Lovely... ::) ???
-
Me: "where can I opt out of this FB sales?"
SS: "Unfortunately you can not opt out from this option."
Lovely... ::) ???
Hmmm well excuse me but then it isn't really an "option" is it? :)
-
You get 38 cent for a small thumbnail, or you will sell a full res for 38 cent. The image can only be used on Facebook, against a royalty free licence to use the image everywhere.
The licence is more restricted an the size sold is smaller. Why would you want to opt out?
-
You get 38 cent for a small thumbnail, or you will sell a full res for 38 cent. The image can only be used on Facebook, against a royalty free licence to use the image everywhere.
The licence is more restricted an the size sold is smaller. Why would you want to opt out?
The fact that a particular deal isn't as bad as some other deals does not make it a "good" deal.
-
How can it not be a good deal to me? I am selling more images, and the images sold have restricted use. Otherwise A) I wouldnt have those sales, B) I may have the sales but with a broader licence.
I know you and a few others will tell me I dont know what SS got out of the deal, but you dont either. So therefore, as it is, it looks like a good deal to me.
-
How can it not be a good deal to me? I am selling more images, and the images sold have restricted use. Otherwise A) I wouldnt have those sales, B) I may have the sales but with a broader licence.
I know you and a few others will tell me I dont know what SS got out of the deal, but you dont either. So therefore, as it is, it looks like a good deal to me.
I think we're at a point of total mutual incomprehension.
From my perspective, SS is paying us the absolute rock-bottom minimum they thought they could get away with. I agree we don't know what FB is really paying SS but one might have suspicions. Basically they have now established 38 cents as appropriate compensation for a photographer when his image is used in an online ad. Future online advertising deals will be modeled on this one.
If this adds up to a "good deal" for you, then so be it. I cannot convince you otherwise.
-
The people using the image have no idea you were paid 38¢.
-
Naturally, I'd like to be paid more but the FB deal has generated $75 per month for me on average. This is a fresh and growing revenue stream from newly acquired market share. Good business.
-
I believe my regular 25d sales don't let client use image on FB? That's why SS gives us SOD for low (facebook) price to use file with FB...?
I don't want to have nothing to do with FB. I removed my images from FB and I don't want SS or any other agency to sell my images to use in FB.
-
Naturally, I'd like to be paid more but the FB deal has generated $75 per month for me on average. This is a fresh and growing revenue stream from newly acquired market share. Good business.
Do you mean that $0.38 SOD sales are ONLY Facebook sales? Or in other words: How do you calculate your FB generated sales per month?
Thanks in advance.
-
Yes, Facebook deal. I tested it and the images were paid as SOD: http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/shutterstock-and-the-facebook-deal/ (http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/shutterstock-and-the-facebook-deal/)
I think it's a good deal: The actual user gets a tiny image that only can be used for the FB ad and they don't have to pay for it because FB covers the cost within the ad fees. We are actually giving away less rights for the image than if any client would buy it through his own subscription.
-
Yes, Facebook deal. I tested it and the images were paid as SOD: [url]http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/shutterstock-and-the-facebook-deal/[/url] ([url]http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/shutterstock-and-the-facebook-deal/[/url])
I think it's a good deal: The actual user gets a tiny image that only can be used for the FB ad and they don't have to pay for it because FB covers the cost within the ad fees. We are actually giving away less rights for the image than if any client would buy it through his own subscription.
Thanks for that information. Much appreciated.
-
I believe my regular 25d sales don't let client use image on FB? That's why SS gives us SOD for low (facebook) price to use file with FB...?
I don't want to have nothing to do with FB. I removed my images from FB and I don't want SS or any other agency to sell my images to use in FB.
Your images are used in tiny ads on the side of the page. They are not used freely on Facebook for everyone to like and share.
-
Basically they have now established 38 cents as appropriate compensation for a photographer when his image is used in an online ad.
They have long before established that 25 - 38 cents is an appropriate compensation for nearly unlimited usage of high-res files.
Under their standard license you can use the image for almost anything you want, from huge billboards, magazine covers to online ads.
This new deal gives the customer less - smaller size and usage restricted to a specific facebook ad. If he wants to use the same image again for a different usage (print, a different online usage) he has to buy it again.
If you are opposing the subs model of Shutterstock in general, I can fully understand the criticism.
But for all people who agree to this model (by selling their files on Shutterstock) this deal can be seen as an improvement.
-
Naturally, I'd like to be paid more but the FB deal has generated $75 per month for me on average. This is a fresh and growing revenue stream from newly acquired market share. Good business.
Do you mean that $0.38 SOD sales are ONLY Facebook sales? Or in other words: How do you calculate your FB generated sales per month?
Thanks in advance.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but yes, I'm working on the basis the 0.38 SOD sales are all FB sales. I arrived at the $75 just by deducting all other SOD sales over and above $0.38c when I worked through my monthly sheets. And April could be a bumper month - just under $15 in FB sales already.
On a side note, at least SS haven't been so cavalier with my property as others and given FB an embedding deal.
-
What's the point of handling it special if it is subscription price?
I had one of that two weeks ago..... and 3 weeks ago i had two $27.9 SOD's not EL's ;)
-
From my perspective, SS is paying us the absolute rock-bottom minimum they thought they could get away with. I agree we don't know what FB is really paying SS but one might have suspicions. Basically they have now established 38 cents as appropriate compensation for a photographer when his image is used in an online ad. Future online advertising deals will be modeled on this one.
Given the kind of deals I have seen in the past few years, I would have stated it opposite: Shutterstock has established the fact that even large companies are able and willing to pay at least some money for each of their clients to use images.
The past deals of a well established big agency that come to mind with companies like Google or Microsoft involved giving aways images for free or for a one-time fee of $12 for unlimited redistribution to millions of users. Or more recently: Giving away images for free to the public hoping to generate some advertising revenue from it in the future.
Yes, I prefer to get 38 cents for a tiny image used mostly by small or medium businesses each time it gets used within a well-defined and restricted context.
-
Naturally, I'd like to be paid more but the FB deal has generated $75 per month for me on average. This is a fresh and growing revenue stream from newly acquired market share. Good business.
How do you know that $75 is all $.38 SOD ? Is there a way to list your SODs for a day, or are you just checking the contributor app for $.38 licenses?
-
That (http://submit.shutterstock.com/stats_date.mhtml?date=2014-04-02) lists all sold images for today.
On the submit homepage, click on Earnings in the top right corner, on the next page on the date you want to see.
No nice list with sums, but at least all sales for any date.
-
Ah, ok. I see I had one $.33 SOD yesterday, so that must have been FB. Thx!
-
.
-
Naturally, I'd like to be paid more but the FB deal has generated $75 per month for me on average. This is a fresh and growing revenue stream from newly acquired market share. Good business.
How do you know that $75 is all $.38 SOD ? Is there a way to list your SODs for a day, or are you just checking the contributor app for $.38 licenses?
As per response from dirkr.
I'm doing very well out of the deal, although I can't yet put my finger on why. Strangely, days will go by with zero FB sales in the SOD column and then I have a day like the 31st March where I racked up just under $20 in short order.
-
Naturally, I'd like to be paid more but the FB deal has generated $75 per month for me on average. This is a fresh and growing revenue stream from newly acquired market share. Good business.
How do you know that $75 is all $.38 SOD ? Is there a way to list your SODs for a day, or are you just checking the contributor app for $.38 licenses?
You can download a CSV file with daily earnings and it is broken down by category. So there's a column for SODs although you'd have to go look at specific days with the web interface to see the breakdown - given the very wide range of price points in that category I don't think there's any way to automate a breakdown.
-
..
-
I believe my regular 25d sales don't let client use image on FB? That's why SS gives us SOD for low (facebook) price to use file with FB...?
I don't want to have nothing to do with FB. I removed my images from FB and I don't want SS or any other agency to sell my images to use in FB.
I had thought that the SS license did not allow our images to be uploaded on social media sites like Facebook? I found one of my images uploaded by a German magazine to their FB business page (not an ad on the right side of the page). The image in question has never had an SOD or EL license...just regular sub sales. I emailed SS and was told the following:
"Thank you for this information. It appears that this image is being used correctly under the applicable Shutterstock license.
In general, under Shutterstock's licenses, images may be used on websites, including Facebook. However, if you have a specific concern about how this image is being used, please let us know and we will be happy to look into it further."
So customers are allowed to upload our images on Facebook? The more I learn about licensing language, the less I know and understand what's going on. Can someone help me understand what the restriction #14 in the license actually means then? Sorry if this is a dumb question.
Edit: Fixed typo.
Its explained in this very thread what the difference is.
-
.
-
The Constant Contact deal licenses images for $8. The Facebook deal pays us a subscription DL even though the end user gets the image "free"-- facebook is footing the bill.
-
.
-
.
-
Why don't you check your sales at Shutterstock and see?
Oh wait...
-
.
-
The fact that a particular deal isn't as bad as some other deals does not make it a "good" deal.
It's not a great deal, but much better than subscription prices or partner sales at some other agencies. And as Ron points out, it's only a thumbnail. No danger of theft or inappropriate use. It's an additional application or sales channel.
Now, what I find really puzzling is that some contributors get ecstatic about their 10-27 cents sales for full-size mages with the other agencies.
-
It's a subscription royalty for a tiny thumbnail image. Sure you can argue that this isn't a good deal, but within the Shutterstock ecosystem, it's pretty fair. $0.38 for a thumbnail vs. $0.38 for a regular subscription DL that gives the buyer a high-res image or a vector, really the thumbnail sale is the more fair deal if you ask me.
I think if anyone is going to argue that this is an unfair deal, really you need to be arguing that Shutterstock in general is unfair. Otherwise I just don't see how this fb thing pans out any worse than what we are already used to.
Maybe I shouldn't be ok with a $0.38 for a non-subscription one-off sale. And maybe I should have higher expectations for the stock business and not feel like this is a decent deal within the context of microstock. But this is microstock. And coming off of some discussions over the past couple of weeks about these insane partner programs, API deals, and jokers on Fiverr reselling our work, this fb deal is far from anything that I could possibly be upset about right now.
-
I can't understand how anyone feels this is a bad deal. Like others have said, the image sizes are small, use is very restrictive and limited and the buyer (the end user who runs an ad on facebook) uses the images for free (pays through paying for their ad) so they'll use lots of images. As an advertiser I love the idea and as a stock photographer I also love the idea.
I wouldn't bet that Shutterstock is getting any crazy bonus for this as it is mutually beneficial for them as it is for Facebook. Even if they were, we can easily see the gross income Shutterstock takes in each quarter and the total amount paid out to artists. We can easily keep tabs on the overall % they pay out to us. If the % dropped we know they are getting more than they are sharing.. if it stays the same (like it has appeard to do) then our comissions have been staying the same, on average, over all their products and deals.
-
what i'd like to see noted (by Facebook) is that the images aren't "free" but rather part of their advertising package. The downside of this deal is that it still is training potential customers to think "free" when it comes to images.
-
I actually like it!
• actually better than subs, what I think the sub model should be
• a deal that you can SEE where the $$ is and track "good transparency"
• we will reach a lot more DoItYourSelfers "an actual untapped market" I'm talking about folks that may have only herd of Photoshop can now put together a nice add for themselves :)
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
-
:)You all are giving me a good education here.I m almost ready to sign with one of the agencies. So far Shuterstock seems to be the way to go.
-
I usually have quite good amount of FB deal SOD sales almost everyday. Since 27 June I didn't get a single FB deal SOD sale!
Is there anyone having the same experience or it's just me?
-
I made a test and run an ad on fb with my images a couple of hours ago, but as of this moment the sales are not shown in my earnigs summary... Do you know how long this should take?
-
Pablox, did the sales from your test appeared in your account?
-
I usually have quite good amount of FB deal SOD sales almost everyday. Since 27 June I didn't get a single FB deal SOD sale!
Is there anyone having the same experience or it's just me?
Also stopped dead for me as of 27 June. I haven't seen any announcements about the FB deal ending.
-
Pablox, did the sales from your test appeared in your account?
No!, the images never appeared on the earnings summary!,
its been two days now. I wrote them on Saturday but no reply yet. And the images are being used in the ads
-
Pablox, did the sales from your test appeared in your account?
3 days no answer from SS, i wrote them again today, hopefully we can get a response
-
Hmm very strange! No info about this in SS forum. Hope they clarify what's going on soon!
-
Got an email from SS today...
"Dear xxxx,
Thank you for your email.
We are working with Facebook on correcting this matter and expect the sales to start showing in your earnings again soon. We will of course also look into correcting any previous earnings that were not recorded.
Thank you for your patience.
Best regards,
Vincent Jansen
Manager Contributor Success
Shutterstock"