Author Topic: Shutterstock select vs. Shutterstock. (Read 12792 times)

topol · « **on:** December 05, 2018, 11:20 »

The first link is straight from the contributor pushed as an example on shutter's front page as a 'select provider', so I'm taking the liberty to assume it represents the collection.

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1007931943-office-beautiful-accountant-works-on-laptop-smiles

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-13949591-business-people-working-over-computer-modern-start

Can someone explain to me what justifies the first costing twice as the second? Just curious. Do they seriously expect the customers not to say "wait, what? why should I pay double for this?". Imho if anything the second clip is better stock and has more production value and nuance, but that's just imho... and that "HD included", is it just me, or isn't that bit too much of a cheap trick? Again, will customer not shake their heads on reading that? Even my mom can find some freebie tool to downsize vids.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** December 05, 2018, 11:31 »

Ye gads, that first guy has 15,000 videos, all beautiful, all amazing locations. This is why I never look at other people's portfolios. Disheartening.

odesigns · « **Reply #2 on:** December 05, 2018, 11:41 »

Probably because that first clip is exclusive to ShutterStock Select and was shot on some high-end camera/gear.

Now, does that make it worth 2x as much? In ShutterStock's eyes, yes. In a buyer's, probably not.

But I bet some high-end clients who have a hot line to a ShutterStock Select "concierge" to search and find clips for them will not think twice about paying those prices.

It's basically all perceived quality.

I think this will be a trend at agencies: exclusive clips with higher price points. I don't think the four top agencies like the same clips selling elsewhere for widely differing prices.

I'll be changing the way I operate in 2019 due to this.

Not Today · « **Reply #3 on:** December 05, 2018, 11:46 »

That's weird, Aila Images is supposed to be Shutterstock Select also, maybe they have to offer files on exclusivity to get higher prices.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/select-aila-images-stock-footage

Shelma1 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 05, 2018, 12:45 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 05, 2018, 11:31

Ye gads, that first guy has 15,000 videos, all beautiful, all amazing locations. This is why I never look at other people's portfolios. Disheartening.

One of their select contributors rents out his RED camera. Maybe find out how much he's charging? Just an idea.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #5 on:** December 05, 2018, 13:58 »

It’s more the finding of those locations. That’s the hard part.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 05, 2018, 14:50 »

But these people are "Select" because they use a RED camera, not because they have nice locations. Honestly, I think a lot of other people's footage is nicer, but they don't use the RED camera that has Shutterstock so starry-eyed.

topol · « **Reply #7 on:** December 05, 2018, 14:52 »

Quote from: ODesigns on December 05, 2018, 11:41

Probably because that first clip is exclusive to ShutterStock Select and was shot on some high-end camera/gear.

Now, does that make it worth 2x as much? In ShutterStock's eyes, yes. In a buyer's, probably not.

But I bet some high-end clients who have a hot line to a ShutterStock Select "concierge" to search and find clips for them will not think twice about paying those prices.

It's basically all perceived quality.

I think this will be a trend at agencies: exclusive clips with higher price points. I don't think the four top agencies like the same clips selling elsewhere for widely differing prices.

I'll be changing the way I operate in 2019 due to this.

I'v been customer/ licence buyer of stock / microstock for many years as an art director, with many colleagues doing the same next to me. The times when I was checking what equipment that photo/footage was made with or that coming up in discussion with anybody, anytime, is exactly zero. I never ever heard anybody having that concern, even remotely. People were furiously searching for an image / clip with a certain mood and attributes with the clock ticking. Most of us didn't even realize in the midst of the rush that these pictures actually belong to contributors.

+I don't really understand what's the point of exclusivity when what the customers will perceive as "basically the same thing" is all over the net on a dozen other sites for less. I remember Oringer saying this is why there is no point in shutterstock offering exclusivity, and he was right. Wasn't this the reason why microstock spread and the reasoning for implementing subscription everywhere later? Once a site has done the cheap deal, you have to offer it too or you are done. There is no mythical mass of customers who have very special needs, because if there were microstock wouldn't have destroyed other stock, and it did. This is dead on arrival.

topol · « **Reply #8 on:** December 05, 2018, 14:55 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 05, 2018, 13:58

It’s more the finding of those locations. That’s the hard part.

The guy probably have been using leftovers from paid-for jobs for years directly to amass this library.

topol · « **Reply #9 on:** December 05, 2018, 15:00 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on December 05, 2018, 12:45

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 05, 2018, 11:31
Ye gads, that first guy has 15,000 videos, all beautiful, all amazing locations. This is why I never look at other people's portfolios. Disheartening.

One of their select contributors rents out his RED camera. Maybe find out how much he's charging? Just an idea.

I tentatively started doping some stock footage but only by hacking my 5D mkIII with magic lantern. The workflow is cumbersome, but image quality is absolutely gorgeous especially if know your lightning. I wonder how many of the customers would tell that was made with an 1200% cheaper camera, my strong guess is: none.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 05, 2018, 15:02 »

Quote from: topol on December 05, 2018, 14:55

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 05, 2018, 13:58
It’s more the finding of those locations. That’s the hard part.

The guy probably have been using leftovers from paid-for jobs for years directly to amass this library.

Hire some some models, book a location, rent a RED camera for a day, shoot 8 hours of footage, chop it into 30-second bites. One day gives you 960 clips. A month of that gives you tens of thousands. (If you're not picky.)

topol · « **Reply #11 on:** December 05, 2018, 15:24 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on December 05, 2018, 15:02

Quote from: topol on December 05, 2018, 14:55
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 05, 2018, 13:58
It’s more the finding of those locations. That’s the hard part.

The guy probably have been using leftovers from paid-for jobs for years directly to amass this library.

Hire some some models, book a location, rent a RED camera for a day, shoot 8 hours of footage, chop it into 30-second bites. One day gives you 960 clips. A month of that gives you tens of thousands. (If you're not picky.)

8 hours of work doesn't even remotely gets you 8 hours of finished apt footage. You won't even nearly have 8 hours of raw footage. That's like thinking if you shoot 250 images of a bunch of models you'll have 250 images worthy of upload.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 05, 2018, 15:38 »

Hey, they're in love with the RED camera. All I'm saying is rent one and compete. Or not.

topol · « **Reply #13 on:** December 05, 2018, 15:57 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on December 05, 2018, 15:38

Hey, they're in love with the RED camera. All I'm saying is rent one and compete. Or not.

Yes I understand, but wasn't "selling fewer at a higher price point" the thing that got slaughtered by microstock?

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #14 on:** December 05, 2018, 17:15 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 05, 2018, 11:31

Ye gads, that first guy has 15,000 videos, all beautiful, all amazing locations. This is why I never look at other people's portfolios. Disheartening.

Yeah but I say the same when I look at your photos.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #15 on:** December 05, 2018, 17:23 »

Ah, well that made me feel better, lol. Thanks

qwerty · « **Reply #16 on:** December 06, 2018, 03:48 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 05, 2018, 11:31

Ye gads, that first guy has 15,000 videos, all beautiful, all amazing locations. This is why I never look at other people's portfolios. Disheartening.

Geeze, where does that put us mere mortals ?

KevinM · « **Reply #17 on:** December 06, 2018, 12:00 »

The quality of your gear reflects not just your pocketbook but also your love for a truly great image. Both can change over time. I've been happy with a Sony FS7 for years, but lately when I see Red images I do linger and feel an impulse to step up to the next level. There is an undeniable gorgeous quality to the camera, its detail and dynamic range. Buyers may not search for "Red" but they may unknowingly choose footage shot on Red simply because they love the look. Sure, a great DP can get great images out of any camera, but you can consistently get better images out of a Red. I'm feeling the pull of the beauty, may have to buy one.

Can one justify buying a Red as a business expense for shooting stock? I actually think it's a fair gamble. Everything else being equal, if one's image quality is a bit better than competing shots due to using a Red rather than an FS7, I could see that bringing in another couple thousand a year in additional sales, and over the years paying for itself. Plus I think the quality that comes from Red gets you more "looks" from picky high-end buyers who will only use top quality shots. And then there's just the job satisfaction that keeps you motivated and producing. I love my FS7 for documentary and corporate work, but when I've shot on Red it's been like, "Dam*, this is sexy."

markstout · « **Reply #18 on:** December 06, 2018, 12:01 »

I have a concern with Shutterstock Select and it is a big one. Right now they are saying GEAR UP. Get a RED, and the other gear on the gear list to the tune of $300,000 or more. Rent helicopters at $1000 per hour, plus the pilot (no drones please) and start submitting that quality of images into our regular collection and you MIGHT become the next photographer to get cherry picked to be in our Shutterstock Select collection. THEN THEY WILL DO THE SAME THING TO THE SELECT VIDEOS THAT THEY DID WITH THE REST OF THE VIDEO AND START SELLING THE CLIPS FOR $1.50. They did the same thing to us with video telling us all to gear up and start shooting video and make higher commissions on sales than with stills in a big huge webinar. And they betrayed us.

I believe what SS is up to with Select is an effort to con more of us into gearing up to produce that level of work on that level of gear which is all going into the cheap collection until you become a select contributor as a dishonest method to increase the overall quality of their video library without really paying us fairly once again. That has been operating basis of Shutterstock all along... promise a big pie in the sky, and then take it away once you reach it.

I would like nothing more than to be shooting on that level of gear, and that level of production, but micro stock isn't likely to provide the return on investment necessary to fund the cost of production.

topol · « **Reply #19 on:** December 06, 2018, 13:25 »

Quote from: KevinM on December 06, 2018, 12:00

The quality of your gear reflects not just your pocketbook but also your love for a truly great image. Both can change over time. I've been happy with a Sony FS7 for years, but lately when I see Red images I do linger and feel an impulse to step up to the next level. There is an undeniable gorgeous quality to the camera, its detail and dynamic range. Buyers may not search for "Red" but they may unknowingly choose footage shot on Red simply because they love the look. Sure, a great DP can get great images out of any camera, but you can consistently get better images out of a Red. I'm feeling the pull of the beauty, may have to buy one.

Can one justify buying a Red as a business expense for shooting stock? I actually think it's a fair gamble. Everything else being equal, if one's image quality is a bit better than competing shots due to using a Red rather than an FS7, I could see that bringing in another couple thousand a year in additional sales, and over the years paying for itself. Plus I think the quality that comes from Red gets you more "looks" from picky high-end buyers who will only use top quality shots. And then there's just the job satisfaction that keeps you motivated and producing. I love my FS7 for documentary and corporate work, but when I've shot on Red it's been like, "Dam*, this is sexy."

Look at the examples, that's what customers see, a below-youtube quality vid. Wait it's not even that, they click further browsing by thumbnail quality - that is their search / selection process. That's why they have to write camera models into the description, because otherwise nobody would even know, and this makes the whole thing look kinda desperate to be honest... there is nothing there that justifies the higher price for the customers.

Going by how my bosses related to these things, if you told them "maan I shot this on a 16K redepicgodzilla monstro" they would probably say "who the f**k cares" / "what is red epic" + the first one. To them it's button on the search menu that drops in the same things for higher price, so they likely just tell their employees to turn it off before they accidentally buy from that (actual experience from working at agencies).

topol · « **Reply #20 on:** December 06, 2018, 13:35 »

Quote from: markstout on December 06, 2018, 12:01

I have a concern with Shutterstock Select and it is a big one. Right now they are saying GEAR UP. Get a RED, and the other gear on the gear list to the tune of $300,000 or more. Rent helicopters at $1000 per hour, plus the pilot (no drones please) and start submitting that quality of images into our regular collection and you MIGHT become the next photographer to get cherry picked to be in our Shutterstock Select collection. THEN THEY WILL DO THE SAME THING TO THE SELECT VIDEOS THAT THEY DID WITH THE REST OF THE VIDEO AND START SELLING THE CLIPS FOR $1.50. They did the same thing to us with video telling us all to gear up and start shooting video and make higher commissions on sales than with stills in a big huge webinar. And they betrayed us.

I believe what SS is up to with Select is an effort to con more of us into gearing up to produce that level of work on that level of gear which is all going into the cheap collection until you become a select contributor as a dishonest method to increase the overall quality of their video library without really paying us fairly once again. That has been operating basis of Shutterstock all along... promise a big pie in the sky, and then take it away once you reach it.

I would like nothing more than to be shooting on that level of gear, and that level of production, but micro stock isn't likely to provide the return on investment necessary to fund the cost of production.

True, although I think they did research and already knew beforehand that they have many contributors at hand who have the equipment/clips, and that their "base" for the collection. First-step of the catch is imho that they talk you into submitting your high-cost fancy clip into the higher price point licence scheme, and you can watch history repeat itself: it sells almost nothing, because microstock wins again over macro- and midstock - duh.

Similar as stocksy or alamy: you can watch your stuff doing nuffin' at a higher price point or have some trickle or maybe a torrent at the low price point.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #21 on:** December 06, 2018, 13:59 »

FWIW, here's the press release on this new collection

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/introducing-shutterstock-select-premium-footage-filmed-by-industry-experts-300756876.html

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #22 on:** December 07, 2018, 09:49 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on December 06, 2018, 13:59

FWIW, here's the press release on this new collection

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/introducing-shutterstock-select-premium-footage-filmed-by-industry-experts-300756876.html

And as I've supposed before "Exclusive Content" is why none of us have been included. Not that I would be, but friends who are very strong in video. Anyway, for all we know, they own some of this content as well.

Not Today · « **Reply #23 on:** December 07, 2018, 13:42 »

Just realised that's where SS got their newest idea:
https://www.pond5.com/select

That's probably the future of the Microstock industry, be 'select' ... or be square.

topol · « **Reply #24 on:** December 07, 2018, 15:16 »

It's loosely connected but still fits in here I think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VztZc_gLFko

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock select vs. Shutterstock. (Read 12792 times)

topol

Sean Locke Photography

odesigns

Not Today

Shelma1

Sean Locke Photography

Shelma1

topol

topol

topol

Shelma1

topol

Shelma1

topol

Uncle Pete

Sean Locke Photography

qwerty

KevinM

markstout

topol

topol

Jo Ann Snover

Uncle Pete

Not Today

topol

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors