MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Click Images on August 22, 2013, 14:12
-
Just saw this posted on Shutterbuzz:
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-facebook (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-facebook)
It will be interesting to see how many more DLs that leads to. I would think that many small businesses would just pirate images (some not knowing that you need to pay for images).
-
Could be good! Gives less excuse to pirating images and FB may take an interest if it loses them revenue
-
This sounds interesting. Unlike the Google drive deal we will get a normal license fee, even if it is a tiny subscription royalty. Much better than getting 12 dollars and then having files transferred to 400 million people...
-
So what stops the image once bought for a tiny royalty, then being redistributed on facebook a million times over?
This is just legalised redistribution of our work on facebook. Think about it currently there are a lot of copyright infringements already some of which are on facebook, this is a clever way to legalise them.
If these images are being sold as singles why arnt we getting SODS?
-
On the SS thread it says they'll show up in the SOD area.
-
/
-
Wonder if that's why I got a $2.48 SOD yesterday.
-
/
-
Wonder if that's why I got a $2.48 SOD yesterday.
Doubt it, from the press release it sounds like royalties will probably be close to what you get for subs. Probably below a dollar for most/all.
If that's the case then this is gonna suck big time unless the volume is there.
-
Wonder if that's why I got a $2.48 SOD yesterday.
Doubt it, from the press release it sounds like royalties will probably be close to what you get for subs. Probably below a dollar for most/all.
This is what I am saying, we are getting paid a pittance, and then our work is just going to be mass redistributed
These images should be going for SOD rates, not 25 cents.
-
Wonder if that's why I got a $2.48 SOD yesterday.
Doubt it, from the press release it sounds like royalties will probably be close to what you get for subs. Probably below a dollar for most/all.
If that's the case then this is gonna suck big time unless the volume is there.
This actually could kill symbiostock or our attempts because small business use facebook and if the images are available on there why are they going to use our symbiosite when they can download them for pennies. This is giving me a serious reason to quit Shutterstock.
-
/
-
The images themselves are never downloaded by customers — they’re incorporated into ads via the Facebook interface.
they don't get the image, just a tiny thumbnail to use on fb, as part of the ad interface. frankly, this is what is worth my .33 commission! I am happy about it, and because it's not iS, I don't have a "how will they stuff this up/screw us over" fear.
-
From the SS Blog:
How much will I get paid for each download, and where can I track my earnings?
Royalties for each download are based on a contributor’s earnings tier and will be the same as or more than those for subscription downloads, with usage rights that are more limited than those in our standard royalty-free license. Your royalties will appear on your Shutterstock earnings summary in the ‘Single & Other Downloads’ column.
***
So it'll either be the same as what we get for subs or higher.
*edited to add link*
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-facebook (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-facebook)
-
The images themselves are never downloaded by customers — they’re incorporated into ads via the Facebook interface.
they don't get the image, just a tiny thumbnail to use on fb, as part of the ad interface. frankly, this is what is worth my .33 commission! I am happy about it, and because it's not iS, I don't have a "how will they stuff this up/screw us over" fear.
Thanks for pointing that out, i can calm down now
-
Did people actually read what SS has to say about it? It will be thumbnails, and you get paid more than subs. I think its a good thing.
-
Wonder if that's why I got a $2.48 SOD yesterday.
Doubt it, from the press release it sounds like royalties will probably be close to what you get for subs. Probably below a dollar for most/all.
So what, its a thumbnail.
-
Did people actually read what SS has to say about it? It will be thumbnails, and you get paid more than subs. I think its a good thing.
Yes, i agree i messed up. I should have read it more carefully.
-
/
-
I agree, sub price at least for a thumbnail sounds like a good deal. Let's hope there are lots of them.
-
/
-
That SOD probably wasn't from that.
Did they say when this was going to take effect or start?
-
the collaboration was announced/launched Aug 22.
-
I don't think it is in effect yet. I logged in my facebook and tried to insert an image, did not see the option to download stock images. I only got two options: load from computer or link from web.
-
I just looked at their Twitter feed and it seems like it's in place already.
@flashon I think you have to be an advertiser on Facebook to get that option.
-
This sounds like a good deal. We get the same or more than a sub dl, and the customer never actually downloads the image...the thumbnail appears in their ad thru the Facebook interface. And for some reason they don't have to pay for the image, even though we get paid. So that could encourage lots of usage.
-
Is someone here a Facebook advertiser, and can go and see the prices and how it works?
I think it is a smart move, getting in contact with a new group of customers via a well established platform.
Now all these small businesses will get to know shutterstock, and some might grow larger, and also they will spread the word to their customers and such knowledge of shutterstock will flow into a new network.
Smart move Shutterstock, much better than the google deal!
-
...
Smart move Shutterstock, much better than the google deal!
Professionals deal with professionals ;D 8)
-
Way better deal for us than the getty/google deal. We'll get paid for each use and people don't actually access the files, guess FB will pay SS and they collect for the "free" photos as part of their ad revenues. This is why SS is earning money and iStock is having a tough time. It sounds like a really workable way to take advantage of revenue opportunities.
I don't imagine many people buy photos to use on FB (I've collected from infringers who took work from my site for their FB pages, but don't see people actively seeking out stock for FB so this taps into a market that wasn't really there before). Since the uses are limited to thumbnails via the FB interface, it could lead people who want to use the image for other advertising over to SS to license photos they like for other non-FB marketing and advertising. Could be a win-win.
-
Wonder if that's why I got a $2.48 SOD yesterday.
Doubt it, from the press release it sounds like royalties will probably be close to what you get for subs. Probably below a dollar for most/all.
This is what I am saying, we are getting paid a pittance, and then our work is just going to be mass redistributed
These images should be going for SOD rates, not 25 cents.
SOD rates are a % of the sale price with no lower limits.
Why do you need to mention no lower limits, whilst there are also no upper limits? A SOD is a % of the sales price, period. You give a negative ring to everything by only mentioning parts of the truth. The lowest SOD I ever got was 80 cents, the highest so far reported was 231 dollar. That image had to be sold for at least 690 dollar considering the highest commission is 30%.
-
I think it is a great deal! Thanks SS. I am the first one when it comes to criticize a company, but this is a win-win. Finally we get (paid) access to the social networks.
-
This looks like a good deal and I want to say a big Thumbs Up to SS ...
(Quote)
Images used in ads will be limited to digital sizes — often appearing as thumbnails — and unlike .. standard royalty-free license, use of the images is limited to Facebook. The images themselves are never downloaded by customers — they’re incorporated into ads via the Facebook interface. Ads can be targeted based on “likes” or based on viewer demographic data such as age, gender and other factors. Facebook users have control over which ads they see.
(Unquote)
Time will show how this bears out but it clearly appears to be synergistic sales activity - FB is prime social media with lots of users and advertisers - and contributor interest seems to have been kept in mind. SS core model is subscription based and this is positively aligned, so cant complain there.
Cheers SS! :)
-
I am truly excited about this deal, and I just read this from the SS forum:
News 12 Westchester's Tara Rosenblum did a great feature on Shutterstock the other day. Here is the video:
[url]http://westchester.news12.com/news/picture-perfect-success-shutterstock-1.5924006[/url] ([url]http://westchester.news12.com/news/picture-perfect-success-shutterstock-1.5924006[/url])
Each year Oringer holds a high stakes hack-a-thon where his 262 employees have 24 hours to brainstorm the company's next big idea. A company spokesperson says a big idea was born at this year's hack-a-thon, but for now, they're keeping it top secret.
My $$ are on the up, my latest batch seems to pick up sales already, I think might get a BME this month. I have to say, I am actually really excited and motivated again to submit to Shutterstock.
I have stopped uploading to all my agencies (except SS and 123) and replaced them with Symbiostock. So I am rid of all the low sellers, spend a lot less time uploading, get a lot more return for my time spent, plus I have a lot less headaches and frustrations. Win-win-win...
Microstock became a lot more fun again.
-
I wonder how long it will take for those advertisers to start using that service and how long it'll take for contributors to start seeing activity with this.
I haven't uploaded anything to there or anywhere since the last part of July since sale were/and still are stagnate for me. If it does take off I might be half tempted to upload again.
-
I wonder how long it will take for those advertisers to start using that service and how long it'll take for contributors to start seeing activity with this.
I haven't uploaded anything to there or anywhere since the last part of July since sale were/and still are stagnate for me. If it does take off I might be half tempted to upload again.
only way to know looks like you will see an increase in the number of SOD's since that is where they are to show up.
-
I wonder how long it will take for those advertisers to start using that service and how long it'll take for contributors to start seeing activity with this.
I have a Facebook ad account and just tested it. The option for stock photos is not available yet, at least on my end.
-
Huge potential. Smart thinking and could be seriously bad news for the rest of the big 4.
Like.
-
I love the fact that the sizes are really small as well
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8294845/sssize.JPG)
-
Talk about most of us having all our apples in one bushel (Basket)! Shutter already makes 40% to 50% of my total income- just have to live with that fact...
-
Yes its not shutterstocks fault that they are streets ahead of the competition and moving further ahead - in the long run not a healthy state of affairs the others need to up their games.
-
Seems to be good news, it will be interesting to see how many come in and what royalty will actually be. It is no different than having a designer buy an image to display in a banner add. The thumbnail size displayed is very small.
Lets hope that after waiting for the final results, we can congratulate SS for pushing this new idea.
-
It's not there just yet. Here is the screenshot when I tried to create an Ad from my FB business page, supposedly there is one more tab at the top.
-
Anyone know if this is live yet? Had a .95 SOD sale yesterday, which is an amount I don't think I've seen before.
I'm really eager to see if this becomes big. I think there's real potential here.
It's so rare that an agency gives us something to get excited about. SS seems to be the only one rolling out things that have the potential to be very good for us, as opposed to virtually every other agency bombarding us with changes that punish us for all the work we've done building their businesses.
-
Facebook advertisers will begin seeing the option to use Shutterstock images gradually over the next few weeks.
Have been looking for an answer to "When does this start?"
Found it here:
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/08/facebook/ (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/08/facebook/)
-
Facebook advertisers will begin seeing the option to use Shutterstock images gradually over the next few weeks.
Have been looking for an answer to "When does this start?"
Found it here:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/08/facebook/[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/08/facebook/[/url])
Yeah, I keep seeing the "over the next few weeks" quote in every article or blog post on the subject.
To me, that means they're phasing it in so that some people may be seeing it now, and some may not for another week or two. I think that's typically how a big site like Facebook rolls out new features. Which means that we could start seeing strange SODs showing up any time now... and which made me wonder if yesterday's $.95 SOD was my first one. Anyone else?
-
I ve had 80 cent SODs before
-
Had an .89 cent sale this morning. Haven't had that before.
-
Anyone know if this is live yet? Had a .95 SOD sale yesterday, which is an amount I don't think I've seen before.
I had a $0.95 SOD yesterday too. I've also had a few $3 SOD's over the last couple of days too.
-
Note how we've now been successfully conditioned to accept absolutely any amount in payment for a sale. There are no more rules, price schedules, spelled-out royalty terms. Payments to contributors are arbitrary, token amounts. We compare them the way people at an airport gate might compare what they paid for a ticket. I got 82 cents! Woo hoo! I wonder what it was for?
We don't even know what a 'sale' is, anymore. When Alamy gives an image to a customer and they use it for 3 months, then the 'sale' is cancelled - what was that transaction, exactly?
-
I've been getting $.95 SODs for months.
-
I got a SOD for $0.64. New amount for me.
-
Note how we've now been successfully conditioned to accept absolutely any amount in payment for a sale. There are no more rules, price schedules, spelled-out royalty terms. Payments to contributors are arbitrary, token amounts. We compare them the way people at an airport gate might compare what they paid for a ticket. I got 82 cents! Woo hoo! I wonder what it was for?
We don't even know what a 'sale' is, anymore. When Alamy gives an image to a customer and they use it for 3 months, then the 'sale' is cancelled - what was that transaction, exactly?
At least the difference on SS is that most of the 'surprises' are nice ones. Just clicked through to find another 4 SOD's, each at $13.08, had landed. Last week a couple of $114 SOD's put a smile on my face.
I know what you mean though. It would be nice to know exactly what license has sold and for what amount.
-
has anyone had and FB related sales yet?
-
has anyone had and FB related sales yet?
I don't think so because there is still no ability to do so at Facebook ads, take a look:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8294845/FB.JPG)
-
http://mashable.com/2013/09/10/facebook-ad-bigger/ (http://mashable.com/2013/09/10/facebook-ad-bigger/)
-
.
-
All Sales are GOOD SALES if you ask me.
Bring on all the Facebook sales they can
I love it
Cha Ching!
-
[deleted]
-
"Facebook Partners With Shutterstock to Offer 25 Million FREE Stock Photos to Advertisers"
[url]http://blog.hubspot.com/facebook-shutterstock-advertising-partnership-nj[/url] ([url]http://blog.hubspot.com/facebook-shutterstock-advertising-partnership-nj[/url])
We get paid per usage, so whats the problem?
-
"Facebook Partners With Shutterstock to Offer 25 Million FREE Stock Photos to Advertisers"
[url]http://blog.hubspot.com/facebook-shutterstock-advertising-partnership-nj[/url] ([url]http://blog.hubspot.com/facebook-shutterstock-advertising-partnership-nj[/url])
We get paid per usage, so whats the problem?
So, Facebook is paying SS and the advertisers are paying Fb, but in return get access to the images?
Seems clear enough.
-
I know, why are you telling me?
-
I know, why are you telling me?
There was a question mark.
I was trying to confirm if my understanding of the business model was correct.
-
.
-
I know, why are you telling me?
There was a question mark.
I was trying to confirm if my understanding of the business model was correct.
A question mark to ask what the problem was, because we get paid. I dont see the problem.
Is the question mark applicable to the part of the sentence before the comma or after the comma? I dont know, I am not a native speaker.
I just dont understand why he needs to post that blog, when it has been clear from the get go we get paid per download or per usage. Seems like a feeble attempt to make a good deal from SS look like a bad deal from IS.
-
I know, why are you telling me?
There was a question mark.
I was trying to confirm if my understanding of the business model was correct.
A question mark to ask what the problem was, because we get paid. I dont see the problem.
Is the question mark applicable to the part of the sentence before the comma or after the comma? I dont know, I am not a native speaker.
The whole sentence, "So, Facebook is paying SS and the advertisers are paying Fb, but in return get access to the images?"
The question mark was asking if I had understood properly what the business model was.
-
I was bit taken aback the other day to see a facebook ad for a local real estate company featuring my house!
The image is one I sell as stock and has never been on Facebook in my account (i.e. it's not one of those ads that pulls from your own images). I haven't seen anything on SS that I can identify as a sale to FB.
Here's the screenshot
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/FB-ad-house.png (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/FB-ad-house.png)
And this is the image it is using
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=77565013 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=77565013)
It'd be nice to know how these show up (and it is of course possible this was an image purchased elsewhere in the "normal" way)
-
I was bit taken aback the other day to see a facebook ad for a local real estate company featuring my house!
The image is one I sell as stock and has never been on Facebook in my account (i.e. it's not one of those ads that pulls from your own images). I haven't seen anything on SS that I can identify as a sale to FB.
Here's the screenshot
[url]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/FB-ad-house.png[/url] ([url]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/FB-ad-house.png[/url])
And this is the image it is using
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=77565013[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=77565013[/url])
It'd be nice to know how these show up (and it is of course possible this was an image purchased elsewhere in the "normal" way)
I think most likely in this case that the advertiser simply bought it as a conventional stock image. I don't think the FB scheme is fully operational yet anyway.
You have a very nice house btw!
-
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.
-
.
-
It seems they had missed that I am a contributor and now they are checking what size my images are sold.
-
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.
+1
-
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.
I did not get anywhere asking for specifics regarding display size, Scott dodged my direct request for facebook display size specs.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/changes-to-the-tos-at-shutterstock/msg346341/#msg346341 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/changes-to-the-tos-at-shutterstock/msg346341/#msg346341)
Gbalex
Re: Changes made to the END USER LICENSE
Does this mean that you have effectively done away with display size limitations altogether? To date the micros do not have a great track record of protecting our assets from theft and increasing viewable size limitations will compound the problem 100 fold.
Could you please detail the specific display specifications for each media device that our content will be displayed on as well as the specs for each social media outlet.
As submitters it is important for us to understand SS's & BS's encompassing display, usage & royalty terms in regard to Facebook, Creativemornings, Skyward and any other companies we are not aware of at this time.
Will we be receiving standard royalties for our assets which are licensed to these new SS & BS accounts? If not what royalty terms can we expect to receive for our files?
Snip
scottbraut
Reply #174 on: September 25, 2013, 21:57
Hi gbalex,
Thanks for your question as well.
In our license, we have both approved uses and restrictions. The context of how the image is used is subject to a common sense understanding of what's reasonable for a particular use. We prohibit displaying an image as a standalone file on the Web and require either technical or written restrictions on the part of the user intended to prevent the use of the image by third parties. Usage is not allowed without a license and we aggressively pursue copyright infringements. It is important to note that some of our competitors do not put a restriction on file sizes (this varies) and that the 800x600 pixel limitation was a legacy restriction that was inhibiting sales and overdue for a revision.
With respect to Facebook, Skyword and CreativeMornings, these are different opportunities being offered through different brands.
In the Facebook relationship, Shutterstock contributors are getting paid subscription rates (or greater) for a license that is limited to use on Facebook at digital sizes. That license is more limited in scope than what is offered through our normal subscription model. The audience is 1 million local businesses who are advertising on the Facebook platform, with potential to reach 18 million businesses who have pages on the platform. This relationship greatly expands the market for your images. The original FAQ regarding our Facebook collaboration is here.
-
What difference does the size make? The deal isn't going to change. It's a total giveaway, no different from Google Drive - worse, actually, since it includes the entire store. Instead of a flat $12, we'll get 35 cents per image. Big deal.
The big question is: how much is SS really making on this deal? Does anyone seriously believe that the only payment SS is getting from FB is a dollar per image? Isn't it just a bit likely that there was also a pretty sizable "fee" representing the real money in this deal, of which contributors get not a penny?
These images aren't going to be used in church newsletters. FB is a HUGE new advertising market and FB intends to make enormous amounts of money from it. And SS is well aware of that.
Does anyone want to bet that SS's next shareholder report doesn't talk about a very lucrative deal with FB?
-
I am confused, I thought size does matter. Its not as if they get full res images for that price. I have different sizes on symbistock, priced accordingly
-
I am confused, I thought size does matter. Its not as if they get full res images for that price. I have different sizes on symbistock, priced accordingly
That's not SS's model.
In any case, what does " limited to digital sizes" actually mean?
-
I am confused, I thought size does matter. Its not as if they get full res images for that price. I have different sizes on symbistock, priced accordingly
That's not SS's model.
In any case, what does " limited to digital sizes" actually mean?
I know its not SS model. I am actually on SS. There have been complaints that SS sells full res for same price. Now they sell small size for same royalty and still there are complaints. That has me confused, is all.
-
Ron, I'm just saying that contributors have been screwed so badly in this deal that details like size don't matter.
-
Ron, I'm just saying that contributors have been screwed so badly in this deal that details like size don't matter.
the sizes issue still needs explanation but this deal has nothing to do with the GI one, they (GI) have "sold" an one time license for 12$ (contributor share) that can be used forever, not a small sized FB picture that will run an ad here and there
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Also, in terms of royalties, here's the appropriate section of our FAQ.
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-facebook (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-facebook)
Do I earn a royalty each time my image is licensed?
Yes. Each license grants a single Facebook advertiser the right to use an image. If the advertiser chooses a different image for an existing or new campaign, an additional royalty will be generated for the new usage. Advertisers may also split a single campaign into multiple simultaneous “A/B tests” that use different images. Each separate image use generates its own royalty. For example, if a Facebook advertiser tests six ad versions with six different images, all six images will generate a unique royalty to contributors.
Best,
Scott
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
It does sound like a good deal. If it works, I could think of some new simple illustrations to fit into those tiny ads.
-
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.
-
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
Hi Ron,
As policy -- for confidentiality, competitive, and other reasons -- we do not publicly disclose the specific financial terms of any one licensing or partner relationship. As a business, across all of the different types of sales opportunities at Shutterstock, we pay out approximately 30%. In general, we structure partnerships with the objective of providing contributors with a higher volume of opportunity at royalty rates that are consistent with Shutterstock's contributor earnings schedule (http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml).
Best,
Scott
-
...
-
Ok, everybody got that? Any more questions?
LOL
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I removed my port from IS precisely because of deals like the Google Drive. If I find out SS is pulling similar stunts I will pull my port faster than you can say "they are dead to me"
-
I think Scott's answer makes sense IMHO as they need to carefully walk the line between contributor transparency and protecting the confidential nature of the deals they make since they would not want another site to try to undercut their deal by offering more favorable terms - quite likely at contributor's expense.
It would be helpful of course to know how exactly much we're getting per download since that's the bottom line, but that wasn't the question asked. Scott, can you tell us that please?
-
What difference does a "royalty percentage" make, if FB pays the big money in the form of up-front "fees" which are never disclosed, and of which we get nothing?
If I sell my car for $100 - plus an additional payment of $1000 to 'make the deal' - what amount would the state expect me to pay sales tax on?
-
they would not want another site to try to undercut their deal by offering more favorable terms
When tendering for a contract companies will often simply say something like: "we will give you want you want for 20% less than the lowest tender". They do not need to know what the lowest bid is. They can always gradually increase prices later as the competition withers.
Certainly stock photographers, like the people who used to build, design and maintain expensive websites, are losing out as former client companies increasingly relocate to the social media. The agents can make it up on the markets.