pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock 'Offset' - a new high end marketplace for stock photos  (Read 35509 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #101 on: March 28, 2013, 18:00 »
0
Thanks, Scott and Poncke. Sorry I missed the pricing, now I see it's in the press release. At those prices, the overlap with microstock will be negligible.

Poncke

« Reply #102 on: March 28, 2013, 18:10 »
0
......snip

 For advertising agencies, for example, our images in our "core" collections are also sold for up to $400 through prenegotiated agreements.   

Offset images are simply a different collection sold to buyers looking for a specific kind of image.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Highest payout is the 120$ SOD. That means a 30% royalty for contributors. Thats not bad compared to all other agencies. Good to know.

« Reply #103 on: March 28, 2013, 18:12 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:58 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #104 on: March 28, 2013, 18:17 »
0
Anything that gets away from the 25 cent a dl model thatis devaluing our work is great.  Hopefully the royalty rate will be higher than the shutterstock model.

<heavy sigh> Not this old nonsense being trotted out again.

If you really do earn "25c a download" at SS then I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for your invitation to Offset.

RT


« Reply #105 on: March 28, 2013, 18:21 »
+19
Hi Scott,

You're in the business to make money, I can appreciate that, as much as I can appreciate you're not going to make any non-factual committed statements, but it is decent of you to come to a unmoderated forum (to an extent) and engage the people here.

My point is I think it's a shame that you're launching Offset, selling images at $250 & $500 (and even without knowing what the commissions are I'm going to hazard a guess it's going to be a lot more than the 38c SS pay) funded by the money you've made from Shutterstock contributors without the ability for them to participate.

To be honest if I were in your position I'd like to think I'd be trying to do something to pay back the folks that made Shutterstock the success it is.

« Reply #106 on: March 28, 2013, 18:33 »
+10


Why are agencies like that starting like some secret societies i don't understand ?

Why are contributors images that made SS  considered not capable for at least small % initial filling of gallery I also don't understand ?

0.001 % of images request from ss contributors would be a nice start... but when a price is raising there is obviously some believe that we are not good enough and incapable so new forces has to be brought in to start such project.

Some of best photos I saw in my life were priced 0.38 and I sure saw lot of crap selling and sold for 500$.

Just my opinion

« Reply #107 on: March 28, 2013, 18:44 »
+4
Looks like a good thing to me.  Anything that gets away from the 25 cent a dl model thatis devaluing our work is great.  Hopefully the royalty rate will be higher than the shutterstock model.


At the present, a good portion of us here cant even participate so im not sure why the royalty rate even matters. I personally think the answer to the question "why come here and announce Offset when we cant participate" is because they know that buyers also participate here. Thats the bottom line, not contributors.

« Reply #108 on: March 28, 2013, 19:01 »
+3
Secrecy is a great marketing tool, it builds up interest. Saying the images are not from the current photographers means the customers will see new files they dont know.

So if you want offest to be successful and sell well, I think this is a good strategy to get started. I am sure once they have enough customers they will include their "home base".

I am really looking forward to seeing what they offer. I think it is great that more choice is coming for customers and contributors. It is also interesting that they will offer a mix of exclusive and independent files. Again, this will give the artist more choice.

« Reply #109 on: March 28, 2013, 19:01 »
+4


Why are agencies like that starting like some secret societies i don't understand ?

Why are contributors images that made SS  considered not capable for at least small % initial filling of gallery I also don't understand ?

0.001 % of images request from ss contributors would be a nice start... but when a price is raising there is obviously some believe that we are not good enough and incapable so new forces has to be brought in to start such project.

Some of best photos I saw in my life were priced 0.38 and I sure saw lot of crap selling and sold for 500$.

Just my opinion

Couldn't agree more.

These 'secret squirrel clubs' have become awfully popular just recently ... and from the very people who previously boasted about the all-inclusive nature of their organisations. Funny how, given enough time, it all turns full-circle!

« Reply #110 on: March 28, 2013, 19:24 »
+4
Looks like a good thing to me.  Anything that gets away from the 25 cent a dl model thatis devaluing our work is great.  Hopefully the royalty rate will be higher than the shutterstock model.


At the present, a good portion of us here cant even participate so im not sure why the royalty rate even matters. I personally think the answer to the question "why come here and announce Offset when we cant participate" is because they know that buyers also participate here. Thats the bottom line, not contributors.

This is one buyer who is evaluating agencies based on their actions and I am in the position to continue to influence other large volume buyers as well! 

EmberMike

« Reply #111 on: March 28, 2013, 20:45 »
0
Edit: Nevermind, I see my question was already answered.

« Reply #112 on: March 28, 2013, 23:05 »
+15
"Currently the process is highly selective and by invitation only".

Looks like the party has started and we're not on the guest list.  Are we really surprised about that? I think we all need to remember that these agencies are not our friends, and most of us are quite expendable to them, no matter how much $$ we have made them in the past.

That's ok, they are even more expendable to us.  Personally, I am looking forward to the day when we have an integrated platform where we can all sell our files as a co-op and keep 90% of our profits.  When that day comes, these agencies will be out of business in 6 months time.

« Reply #113 on: March 29, 2013, 01:23 »
+1
Am I correct to assume Offset would be the place to offer images considered too artsy by SS?

Not exactly.  It's in the FAQ, but we're looking for images that meet a few criteria:

  • They're "authentic." I.e., they're aspirational, but the lighting and situations look perfectly real and naturalistic.
  • They tell a story and they're immersive. In other words, images that as either a single image or a group of images tell a story that you want to spend time with.  Some of the best images from National Geographic, for example, are images that you can spend time with and pore over.  They have an intensity that focuses your interest, even as a single image.
  • They've got contemporary art direction and style.  Food images, for example, will be carefully styled for catalog use or use in gourmet magazines.
  • They've got high production values.

Searching through the collection right now, you can pick a single keyword and get all aspects of a particular topic.  If it's food, for example, it can be from the farm, to preparation, to the plated meal, to sustainable agriculture. 

The idea is to do more than simply showcase amazing images - it's to curate a collection of high-quality images that work together to be really engaging and immersive.  That's one reason that we're not just relying on existing, traditional stock to build the collection.   Curation is much more than editing and we're giving image buyers the ability to tell beautiful stories.

Hope that helps! 

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Thank you for your explanation Scott! It certainly helps. So far in my experience (I shoot mostly nature and wildlife), those kind of images have never sold well in stock agencies comparing to the straightforward kind of images.
It's great storytelling images now have found a home, I hope Offset will be successful!

« Reply #114 on: March 29, 2013, 01:24 »
0
Personally, I'm all for the more exclusive agencies that make it harder to contribute to. My highest paying agency isn't a crowd source agency, it's a traditional agency I was invited to join. You won't find a single page on their site about how to contribute.

Like it or not, stock photography has a stigma among a lot of ad agency people - microstock has even more of a stigma. I see this as an attempt to capture that crowd of people who really don't prefer microstock but are at least ok with more traditional club like agencies.

Poncke

« Reply #115 on: March 29, 2013, 01:36 »
0
Isnt there 1X.com which sells the same hi end stuff?

stocked

« Reply #116 on: March 29, 2013, 04:12 »
0
Has the question to the contributor percentage been answered? I couldn't find the answer! Even I can't participate for me this is the most crucial question are they are really willing to change something ore they are going just to make another contributor-rip-off!


« Reply #117 on: March 29, 2013, 04:33 »
+6
Would be nice if we could upload as usual to SS with the option to send it to Offset if the reviewer thought that it was suitable.

« Reply #118 on: March 29, 2013, 06:13 »
+1
Would be nice if we could upload as usual to SS with the option to send it to Offset if the reviewer thought that it was suitable.

I would have thought this was the critical component to the business plan. Microstock made short work of traditional agencies with far more experienced contributing photographers with much more money for production.

The top 10% of microstock imagery (not necessarily by sales) has  to be escalated out of the system to a premium service or we will just do what we have always done . . . look at what these "experts" have produced and remake it. If the premium service won't take the work, it goes back to the $1 shops that will stock it.

The only reason why SS could succeed where Getty failed would be because they command sufficient power from within the industry to escalate suitable images out of the microstock system with an exclusivity agreement.



« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 06:20 by alistaircotton »

« Reply #119 on: March 29, 2013, 07:03 »
+4
Hello all,

Thanks for all of the feedback.  I've already answered some questions in my earlier posts with respect to how we're selecting images for the collection - authentic images with high quality standards, but those that also have a storytelling and narrative quality to them, as well as exceptional art direction and style.   National Geographic is an example of one of our early contributors.

I'd say that any speculation that you're not invited is very premature. ;)  In fact, I believe I've said quite the opposite - it's a little ways off, but the goal is to open up submissions in the future.   

Ultimately, this is another opportunity for you and all artists, which is a great thing.  I'm here to keep you informed as things develop and show you the respect you deserve for your questions and interests.

For this initial beta phase, we're carefully shaping the collection so that unlike other agencies and collections - the exceptional quality and characteristics named above will be very clear to customers and contributors alike.  Shutterstock releases new products in iterative steps and phased approaches - it's never "everything all at once and done" with us - we grow our products, improve, grow, improve, expand the audience, etc...   That's part of our core philosophy and what makes Shutterstock different than many other agencies.  Occasionally, we release bigger products, like our new Spectrum search tool, mobile applications, etc..., but we're continuously iterating on them.

Regarding royalties...we dont yet offer public submissions so were not officially disclosing our royalty structure, but for estimation purposes, you can expect it to be similar to our core business. Shutterstock pays somewhere in the vicinity of 30%. 


Best Regards,


Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

 

 


« Reply #120 on: March 29, 2013, 10:03 »
0
I guess I'll first have to see the images before I decide whether I

"in the long term, future when you might, possibly, contemplate thinking about attempting to apply, for the matter to be considered for my involvement at a level to be decided at a date yet to be discussed"

as RT put it so nicely. ;D

« Reply #121 on: March 29, 2013, 10:10 »
0
30% for non exclusive content, I presume?

« Reply #122 on: March 29, 2013, 10:18 »
0
  • They're "authentic." I.e., they're aspirational, but the lighting and situations look perfectly real and naturalistic.
  • They tell a story and they're immersive. In other words, images that as either a single image or a group of images tell a story that you want to spend time with.  Some of the best images from National Geographic, for example, are images that you can spend time with and pore over.  They have an intensity that focuses your interest, even as a single image.
  • They've got contemporary art direction and style.  Food images, for example, will be carefully styled for catalog use or use in gourmet magazines.
  • They've got high production values.



Gotcha! So, things like this...

http://www.mystockvectors.com/Fruits_Vegetables_g90-Peanut_Butter_Royalty_Free_Vector_Illustration_p2780.html

« Reply #123 on: March 29, 2013, 10:37 »
+5
30% for non exclusive content, I presume?

We'll release royalty details when there's a public submission process, but yes, the collection is non-exclusive.  We have some artists giving us exclusive content, but we're not requiring exclusivity.

In general, Shutterstock has a strong philosophy of wanting our relationship with contributors to be driven by delivering sales and new opportunities, while affording contributors freedom and the ability to make their own decisions about their strategy and business.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 10:39 by scottbraut »

« Reply #124 on: March 29, 2013, 10:42 »
0
Very interesting approach for the high end market. It certainly gives the artist more freedom, I agree.

You certainly like to set yourself a challenge. :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2692 Views
Last post October 16, 2012, 11:19
by gostwyck
9 Replies
2969 Views
Last post July 11, 2013, 01:21
by picture5469
7 Replies
8021 Views
Last post April 15, 2015, 21:47
by onepointfour
20 Replies
5405 Views
Last post December 02, 2015, 12:10
by Monty-m-gue
0 Replies
1090 Views
Last post October 06, 2016, 06:00
by Stock Performer

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results