Author Topic: SS partners with Facebook (Read 17813 times)

Ron · « **Reply #75 on:** December 20, 2013, 15:28 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 20, 2013, 15:24

Quote from: Ron on December 20, 2013, 15:08
I am confused, I thought size does matter. Its not as if they get full res images for that price. I have different sizes on symbistock, priced accordingly
That's not SS's model.
In any case, what does " limited to digital sizes" actually mean?

I know its not SS model. I am actually on SS. There have been complaints that SS sells full res for same price. Now they sell small size for same royalty and still there are complaints. That has me confused, is all.

stockastic · « **Reply #76 on:** December 20, 2013, 15:36 »

Ron, I'm just saying that contributors have been screwed so badly in this deal that details like size don't matter.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #77 on:** December 20, 2013, 15:44 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 20, 2013, 15:36

Ron, I'm just saying that contributors have been screwed so badly in this deal that details like size don't matter.

the sizes issue still needs explanation but this deal has nothing to do with the GI one, they (GI) have "sold" an one time license for 12$ (contributor share) that can be used forever, not a small sized FB picture that will run an ad here and there

klsbear · « **Reply #78 on:** December 20, 2013, 15:47 »

Quote from: Ron on December 20, 2013, 13:06

Well this is quite shocking to be honest.

I asked Shutterstock in what size they are selling my images on Facebook. I was told they dont know and that I had to contact Facebook about it. And everyone who ever tried to contact Facebook knows that is sheer impossible.

One thing they told me was that the images can not be unincorporated from the Facebook platform, this will be managed by Facebook. Whatever that means, but it sounds like the images are locked in.

I have asked again what size the images are sold, because I cant believe Shutterstock doesnt know this.

The part in bold seems to be the big difference between this FB deal and the Google Drive deal. It seems like this lets the advertiser purchase and insert the image into one advertising campaign but it's just an insert from SS to the FB ad module, they don't get a copy downloaded to their hard drive.

In the Google Drive debacle anyone and everyone could download as many pictures as they wanted from Google Drive without any fees and could use it anywhere. From the end-user perception they were free images and from the artist's side it was giving away the farm for an insulting amount of money.

The SS deal pays for each use, same as if they had purchased direct, but they advertiser does not get a copy. Of course if they are large images they can always turn around and grab it off the web, but they could do that from any image posted on the web so I don't see where the SS is facilitating anything different in that sense. It doesn't make it more available for stealing than any other web use.

stockastic · « **Reply #79 on:** December 20, 2013, 16:00 »

Ok I'll try another analogy.

Let's say your painting was offered in a gallery by a dealer. The dealer informs you it was sold for $10, and you get $3, because his agreed-upon commission was 70%. But later you find out that the dealer charges buyers a $1000 "gallery membership fee" which entitles them to buy any work for $10. And the dealer pockets the entire $1000.

Would you feel you'd been fairly dealt with?

bunhill · « **Reply #80 on:** December 20, 2013, 16:02 »

Quote from: klsbear on December 20, 2013, 15:47

Quote from: Ron on December 20, 2013, 13:06
One thing they told me was that the images can not be unincorporated from the Facebook platform, this will be managed by Facebook. Whatever that means, but it sounds like the images are locked in.

And you keep on getting paid by Shutterstock for these usages ?

So does that mean that a Shutterstocker opted in to the FB deal can never go exclusive at iStock ?

stockastic · « **Reply #81 on:** December 20, 2013, 17:25 »

Quote from: bunhill on December 20, 2013, 16:02

Quote from: klsbear on December 20, 2013, 15:47
Quote from: Ron on December 20, 2013, 13:06
One thing they told me was that the images can not be unincorporated from the Facebook platform, this will be managed by Facebook. Whatever that means, but it sounds like the images are locked in.

And you keep on getting paid by Shutterstock for these usages ?

So does that mean that a Shutterstocker opted in to the FB deal can never go exclusive at iStock ?

2 more reasons why this 'deal' stinks.

klsbear · « **Reply #82 on:** December 20, 2013, 17:39 »

Quote from: bunhill on December 20, 2013, 16:02

Quote from: klsbear on December 20, 2013, 15:47
Quote from: Ron on December 20, 2013, 13:06
One thing they told me was that the images can not be unincorporated from the Facebook platform, this will be managed by Facebook. Whatever that means, but it sounds like the images are locked in.

And you keep on getting paid by Shutterstock for these usages ?

So does that mean that a Shutterstocker opted in to the FB deal can never go exclusive at iStock ?

Maybe I'm understanding this wrong and someone from SS will chime in to clarify, but this is how I'm understanding it:

FB has a special subscription deal with SS which they extend only to those buying ads on FB.
FB advertisers can select any SS image to use ONLY in the FB ad - it gets inserted directly into the ad. They don't pay a fee, it's part of the cost of their advertising fee to FB and they don't get a copy of the image to use in any other way.
When it is inserted into a FB ad, the artist gets paid, same as any other subscription DL.
If the same image is selected by 100 different advertisers and is used in 100 different FB ads the artist gets paid for 100 downloads.
If the artist decides they want to go exclusive with iS or any other agency they remove their images from SS. They are no longer available for use in future FB ads.
Any downloads that predate the exclusivity agreement would not affect the exclusivity, you just can't keep offering them elsewhere. That's the situation as it stands now when you have images on other micros and want to deactivate them.
It seemed pretty clear that SS is just offering FB advertisers the ability to select and use an image in their library. They are not giving away any images to FB.

As I said, maybe someone from SS can chime in to clarify if this is right or not but it seems like it's a "pay for use each time" situation, not a pay-once and give away to millions like the Google Drive debacle.

scottbraut · « **Reply #83 on:** December 20, 2013, 17:39 »

Hi guys,

I haven't read every post in the thread, but to answer the size question: the license is limited to digital uses on Facebook. The current display sizes for Facebook ads are approximately 200 pixels (on the long dimension) for the right-hand rail ads and 600 pixels for news feed ads.

Best,

Scott

klsbear · « **Reply #85 on:** December 20, 2013, 17:45 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 20, 2013, 17:25

Quote from: bunhill on December 20, 2013, 16:02
Quote from: klsbear on December 20, 2013, 15:47
Quote from: Ron on December 20, 2013, 13:06
One thing they told me was that the images can not be unincorporated from the Facebook platform, this will be managed by Facebook. Whatever that means, but it sounds like the images are locked in.

And you keep on getting paid by Shutterstock for these usages ?

So does that mean that a Shutterstocker opted in to the FB deal can never go exclusive at iStock ?

2 more reasons why this 'deal' stinks.

I think this means the advertiser cannot utilize the image other than in their FB ad in that it cannot be unincorporated from that ad by the advertiser or FB for other uses, not that they have a private library of our images that we no longer control.

Scott - is this correct? Please confirm that you're not giving FB unlimited future uses of our images for the single fee.

Ron · « **Reply #86 on:** December 20, 2013, 17:53 »

Scott just confirmed the size and royalty structure. I dont think this is a bad deal, use is more constrained and we get paid normal royalties. I dont know what FB is paying, but I doubt they pay a lot more than normal subscription packages.

Scott can you confirm our percentage of the sales for Facebook images please? I think its only fair that we know, since it our intellectual property. Thank you

noodle · « **Reply #87 on:** December 20, 2013, 18:15 »

Quote from: Ron on December 20, 2013, 17:53

Scott can you confirm our percentage of the sales for Facebook images please? I think its only fair that we know, since it our intellectual property. Thank you

Well, good luck with that...

Curvabezier · « **Reply #88 on:** December 20, 2013, 19:28 »

It does sound like a good deal. If it works, I could think of some new simple illustrations to fit into those tiny ads.

ShadySue · « **Reply #89 on:** December 20, 2013, 19:39 »

Quote from: Ron on December 20, 2013, 17:53

Scott just confirmed the size and royalty structure. I dont think this is a bad deal, use is more constrained and we get paid normal royalties. I dont know what FB is paying, but I doubt they pay a lot more than normal subscription packages.

Scott can you confirm our percentage of the sales for Facebook images please? I think its only fair that we know, since it our intellectual property. Thank you

You can know the percentage of sales, but you'll probably never know how much SS got for the deal. Like the deal from the other place, they'll no doubt keep that to themselves.

Ron · « **Reply #91 on:** December 23, 2013, 11:21 »

stockastic · « **Reply #92 on:** December 23, 2013, 11:59 »

Ok, everybody got that? Any more questions?

LOL

Ron · « **Reply #93 on:** December 23, 2013, 12:05 »

I think the royalty is still not confirmed. I dont know what my rights are to know precisely what royalty I am being paid. Its my wholly owned content, I think I have the right know exactly what my cut is. I have asked in an email, which is not public.

ShadySue · « **Reply #94 on:** December 23, 2013, 12:11 »

He told you: your royalty is "around 30%". You don't even know the exact percentage you get for ordinary sub sales, as you get a flat rate, but the subscription varies from £127.42 - £149 per month.
I bet they won't reveal, even in a private email, how much they got for brokering the deal.

stockastic · « **Reply #95 on:** December 23, 2013, 12:13 »

Quote from: Ron on December 23, 2013, 12:05

I think the royalty is still not confirmed. I dont know what my rights are to know precisely what royalty I am being paid. Its my wholly owned content, I think I have the right know exactly what my cut is. I have asked in an email, which is not public.

But what does "royalty" mean in this case? Say I sell cars for people. I tell you I got $100 for yours, and my commission is 20%, so here's your $80. What I don't tell you is I also charged the buyer a "fee" of $10000 which lets him buy as many cars as he wants for $100. But that's not part of the so-called sale price, so I don't share it with you.

All you are going to get from SS is 100% pure CorporateSpeak.

pancaketom · « **Reply #96 on:** December 23, 2013, 12:18 »

I would hope that our take is proportional to the total take that SS gets from FB and they aren't doing funky accounting - like some huge payment for the deal plus a small fee per image and we get only a percentage of the small fee. Unfortunately the trend at sites has been to make it harder and harder to tell how much an image has actually sold for.

FB represents a large potential customer base, at least some of which probably would not be regular buyers from SS, so it is potentially new customers. I'd certainly rather see them get the sales than the PP. I'd rather get closer to OD or SOD sales prices than regular subs since the cost of advertising there is significant and if the advertisers aren't springing for a sub plan which they don't use all of the images.

Ron · « **Reply #97 on:** December 23, 2013, 12:51 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 23, 2013, 12:11

He told you: your royalty is "around 30%". You don't even know the exact percentage you get for ordinary sub sales, as you get a flat rate, but the subscription varies from £127.42 - £149 per month.
I bet they won't reveal, even in a private email, how much they got for brokering the deal.

I know all that and I am not asking what he got for the deal.

gbalex · « **Reply #98 on:** December 26, 2013, 13:40 »

Quote from: Ron on December 23, 2013, 12:05

I think the royalty is still not confirmed. I dont know what my rights are to know precisely what royalty I am being paid. Its my wholly owned content, I think I have the right know exactly what my cut is. I have asked in an email, which is not public.

Why anyone would give you a - for this post is beyond me. I agree 100%

We provide 100% of then manpower and resources needed to produce 100% of the content on SS and as legitimate business's we need to know exactly how much we will be paid for making our assets available on SS to drive SS's revenue and ours.

If SS decided to make our content available for 1 penny per download, I certainly will not be happy with 30% of that.

gostwyck · « **Reply #99 on:** December 26, 2013, 15:09 »

Quote from: gbalex on December 26, 2013, 13:40

Quote from: Ron on December 23, 2013, 12:05
I think the royalty is still not confirmed. I dont know what my rights are to know precisely what royalty I am being paid. Its my wholly owned content, I think I have the right know exactly what my cut is. I have asked in an email, which is not public.

Why anyone would give you a - for this post is beyond me. I agree 100%

We provide 100% of then manpower and resources needed to produce 100% of the content on SS and as legitimate business's we need to know exactly how much we will be paid for making our assets available on SS to drive SS's revenue and ours.

If SS decided to make our content available for 1 penny per download, I certainly will not be happy with 30% of that.

Basically you have to accept SS's concern about the sensitive commercial nature of the deals they are cutting (and therefore accept SS's ToS) ... or refuse them and remove your portfolio. Unfortunately the more they tell us as contributors, or indeed shareholders, the more they also tell their competitors. As a publicly quoted company we do at least get the financial information from the quarterly results. That's something we don't get from any other microstock agency.

To be honest I know a lot less about the percentage royalty I am being paid on many of my PP sales via Istock but I don't see Ron and yourself writing hundreds of posts complaining about that. Getty didn't even tell us (or Istock) that the Google Drive deal existed for example.

I'll bet that Getty are still seething that they missed out on the FB deal. If Getty had won the FB deal however I can pretty much guarantee that your royalty rate would have been a lot lower and you'd have had even less information about it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: SS partners with Facebook (Read 17813 times)

Ron

stockastic

luissantos84

klsbear

stockastic

bunhill

stockastic

klsbear

scottbraut

scottbraut

klsbear

Ron

noodle

Curvabezier

ShadySue

scottbraut

Ron

stockastic

Ron

ShadySue

stockastic

pancaketom

Ron

gbalex

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors