How does this bode for the typical,  not superstar contrib?  Will their sales just decline furthrr?

If some people get a better match for enterprise users they will probably get more SOD sales so others would probably get less.

Yes green bar

Are you talking about new sales today?  Those are Getty360.

A Premier Select collection pulled from the huge Shutterstock library would, relatively quickly, give them access to many more images that are also curated.

I think that's what I've been saying.  It sounds like a curated collection that will get a best match boost for enterprise (premier) customers.

I guess I was responding to TickStock's assertion that it goes against "nearly all of their marketing. If you've looked recently it's all about one collection, every image the same price, no favoritism in the search, no signature required, etc.."

That marketing is only what the general public sees. I'm guessing their marketing to large enterprises is quite different. In that case there *is* a signature required, there is some favoritism (Offset, Premier), there are additional services and products offered (free comp images, "custom license packages, additional indemnification, and help with researching the collection"). Help with researching the collection, in my experience, means a phone call with a human being who searches through images and sends over a bunch to the art director or art buyer for consideration. That's curation and favoritism in a way.

Premier Select might not end up being a completely separate higher-priced collection, but I don't know for sure. Maybe they'll discover large enterprise customers prefer images that aren't available to the general public, because they want some small assurance that the image they're licensing isn't appearing everywhere. I'm sure they'd test to see if the loss of regular Shutterstock sales would be offset (HA!) by additional Select sales.

I'm don't think SS has a hard and fast rule against a separate Shutterstock collection. They already have Offset. Why not Premier Select as well? Who knows?

They advertise Premier as having simple one price pricing for all images.  Offset isn't a SS collection, it's a different brand. The signature part of their advertising refers to iStock's signature collection, they are saying they only have one collection not a higher priced and a lower priced one.
The biggest reasons they won't have a separate collection (in a meaningful sense with different royalties or prices) on SS is that it would complicate their pricing and force them to change their enitre advertising approach both of which have been consistent for about a decade.  It would be a fundamental change, I don't see that happening or get that sense from the blog post.

Quote from: tickstock on March 18, 2015, 07:12

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on March 18, 2015, 05:51

I certainly hope they bring in a Vetta / Premier collection at SS. It did extremely well for me when iStock first brought it in at the $75 range. My earnings more than doubled with Vetta, it also motivated me to produce much

That would go against nearly all of their marketing.  If you've looked recently it's all about one collection, every image the same price, no favoritism in the search, no signature required, etc..  They aren't going to make a higher priced collection in Shutterstock anytime soon, it would be very inconsistent with their marketing.

At this point we don't know if they will be asking for image exclusivity, but they probably won't.  So, if they allow us to keep those images that get into Premier in the cheap seat collection too, the differentiator must be in the license.  Without any form of marketing hook like "exclusive" or "only found on SS" there would be nothing to offer certain clients other than a more robust license that meets the unique needs of big organizations/clients.  In my humble opinion it's one or the other or both.

Correct.

I certainly hope they bring in a Vetta / Premier collection at SS. It did extremely well for me when iStock first brought it in at the $75 range. My earnings more than doubled with Vetta, it also motivated me to produce much

That would go against nearly all of their marketing.  If you've looked recently it's all about one collection, every image the same price, no favoritism in the search, no signature required, etc..  They aren't going to make a higher priced collection in Shutterstock anytime soon, it would be very inconsistent with their marketing. 

Sounds to me like a curated collection that will show up first in the search for enterprise customers.  Everyone else's work will still show up, just after the good stuff.

Quote from: tickstock on March 17, 2015, 10:35

If they were meaningless then they would have already allowed 750dls per month instead of having a 25/day limit.  Buyers would rather have 750 dls they can use anytime during the month than 25/day.  I don't think anyone will disagree that as a buyer you would rather have the monthly plan than the daily one, right?

You are going around in a circle with this (and flogging a dead horse too).

If you were to advertise 750 dl/month lots of people would likely ask for half of that at half the price. Because it seems like a crazy big number. Where as, for most people, 25 per day sounds like more than they will need - but not massively so.

It's just two different ways of describing more or less the same thing.

There are lots of different buyers, some want to download as many as possible but it's not really possible with vacations, weekends, or other things that keep them too busy, it will be easier for them to get more images.  Some only need a couple images a day and are paying for the service for when they need them and won't change their buying habits at all.  Some need a lot of images one week and not so many the next, they might download 200 in a couple days now instead of being more choosy because of the 25/day limit.  Some buyers might see they have 400 downloads left at the end of the month and decide to download some more because they'll be wasting them if they don't.  My point is not that all buyers will download the max now, I don't think that will happen.  I think buyers on average will download a higher but relatively small amount more images, like 1 per day or something like that.

Back to the topic, I see this as nothing more than a line painted on the roadway. It won't even make a bump in the way we individually earn. It could make a larger difference to buyers, to remove limits. And in fact, as others have pointed out, these limits are nearly meaningless.

If they were meaningless then they would have already allowed 750dls per month instead of having a 25/day limit.  Buyers would rather have 750 dls they can use anytime during the month than 25/day.  I don't think anyone will disagree that as a buyer you would rather have the monthly plan than the daily one, right?

Quote from: tickstock on March 16, 2015, 11:07

I've asked this before but I don't think anyone answered so maybe you can:   I think most people agree that as a buyer you would rather have the flexibility to download 750 images at any time throughout the month rather than be limited by 25/day right?  If it won't result in buyers downloading any more images on average why would shutterstock keep the 25/day limit?  Is the argument that no buyers ever wanted flexibility?  Is the argument SS never realized buyers might want it?  Is the argument it doesn't really matter and SS is wasting time and energy changing?...

Since it's probably a zero-sum change for most people, gaining the freedom of the removed daily limit but most people not needing 25 images every day anyway. You'd have to ask Shutterstock why they didn't remove it before. Only they know the answer to that.

My point has been that this isn't the big deal you're making it out to be. If this even affects 5% of users I'd be amazed the number of people utilizing the removed daily limitation is even that high. Most people don't use 25 DLs per day. Most people don't come close to 750 DLs per month. That's how SS stays in business and stays highly profitable. This change gives an extremely small number of users who sometimes needed more than 25 images in a single day the freedom to get those images as long as they still stay within 750 total in the month. That's all. This is a largely inconsequential change for the vast majority of buyers and contributors.

My assumptions are that the average is about 400dls per month for subscribers, if that number moved to 440dls per month it would be a big deal.  I'm not talking about increases of hundreds just 30 to 40 per month.

Ah, I see. You want insider secrets to pass on to iS management. Unfortunately none of us is an insider.

If I wanted insider secrets about Shutterstock I probably wouldn't be asking an iStock exclusive for them now would I?

I think Jo Ann covered it pretty well. Read the thread.

So you think it just sounds good to buyers but they won't won't download more than 25 in a day or if they do they will download less on other days so it balances out?  Even if they see they have 300 downloads left at the end of the month that they can download they'll just leave them and not try to get a few extras in.   Personally I think I would download a few extras at the end of the month if I had hundreds of unused ones left.

I'm not sure what your point is in this thread. Every member has access to all the content...that's a copy statement about SS vs. iS, where you need to pay more to get access to exclusive content. It has nothing to do with how many sub dls you get per day.

Perhaps you'd really like to get people riled up against SS so they don't notice iS has lowered prices again, but you're grasping at straws. There's no news here. It's an offer/copy test.

The part I was pointing out was where they say every member has access to all the content and then say no daily limits.  You don't have to get riled up at all.  If you think this is no news then you can just move on.  Some people might be interested in this change, it seems like a big one to me.