MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock 'Offset' - a new high end marketplace for stock photos  (Read 35259 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2013, 10:06 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:59 by Audi 5000 »


WarrenPrice

« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2013, 10:12 »
0
Invite Only.

The only effect I can see this having on me is to reduce some of the competition for the "bottom feeders."  :P

« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2013, 10:13 »
+5
If they'd let me in - I'm more than happy to submit my more elaborate illustrations to them rather than SS.

Me too. I'll put top hats and monocles on all my illustrations to make them fancier.

« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2013, 10:14 »
0
I thought the video implied the content would be exclusive. The photographer didn't sound like she was going to supply just another high end agency.

At that price point exclusive images make sense. And you can't upload them to getty afterwards because they only take exclusive content. So where else can you go?

Maybe they will allow the artist to sell from their own site.

But we will see.

« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2013, 10:14 »
0
OMG, 20%? no way! Not for exclusive content.

If they want to attract good artists, they have to compete with stocksys 50% rate. I cannot imagine anyone offering good content for less than 40%. Or at least some kind of sliding scale from 35-50%.

Did it say it was exclusive content?
Nope, it's a bit of a mystery like Stocksy and Shutterstock has been saying for a while how bad exclusivity is so I doubt they'll do it.

It's very different when you are charging high-end prices though. It's an altogether different marketplace and one in which exclusivity of images is the norm.

« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2013, 10:17 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:59 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2013, 10:27 »
+11
Even if they don't want those of us in the great unwashed (i.e. not "brand name" photographers that an art director might recognize) in Offset, I think some sort of note addressed to SS's existing contributor base about this new offering would be a nice courtesy.

My guess is that even if there is some cachet and attention garnered from this new offering, the bulk of the bills will still be paid by those of us in the "low end" SS  market, so letting us know more about how we might be able to contribute to this high end collection - even if that's not something most of us manage - is important for them to do

« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2013, 11:22 »
-3
At this point, it's just a web page put up because some new SS marketing guy made a big deal at the Monday meeting about how they're lacking a "premium brand".   Now they start gauging the reaction and, maybe, putting together a real-world concept.

« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2013, 11:39 »
0
I wonder if they would also have a section where the photographers can make their own choices about price point and content. Personally I really don't like working with editors. They always take the wrong files.

I have my own ideas over what kind of portfolio and vision I am trying to offer the customer and if I am left alone, I create the best work.

So I hope they will add a business approach - if you sell well, you get more upload slots.


« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2013, 11:59 »
+2
I very much doubt SS has reacted, I bet they've been planning this for some time.  Now they have some money from the IPO, they can market this well.


I agree

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403372/index.htm?postversion=2007040409

'But technology seems to favor his new competitors. "Our advantage is efficiency," says Shutterstock's Oringer. "And if Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why we can't we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?" '


http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2007/12/shutterstock.html
'Question:

Whats your opinion on the midstock model? Is it possibly "already dead" (Alan Meckler) or is it the future (Bryan Zmijewski)?
Additionally, you said in April: "If Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why cant we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?"

Jon Oringer: There is a customer for every price point as long as the value proposition is there. The question is, which are the most important customers to target? And at what time?  We are concentrating on our current subscription model as well as footage at this time.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 12:03 by gbalex »

aspp

« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2013, 13:44 »
+1
At this point, it's just a web page put up because some new SS marketing guy made a big deal at the Monday meeting about how they're lacking a "premium brand".   Now they start gauging the reaction and, maybe, putting together a real-world concept.

They are clearly standing squarely behind it and banking their reputation on its success. In the video Ben Pfiefer says: "we want Offset to become the go-to place in the marketplace for high end imagery". No ifs or buts.

Very sensible to clearly separate this from Shutterstock. No confusing the buyers over the pricing. It's an impressive video. Maura McEvoy's work is great.

« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2013, 14:02 »
-1
I doubt they will be sending out mass invites to micro stock shooters. The thing micro lacks is quality direction. Nothing looks authentic.

« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2013, 14:34 »
0
It might be exclusive - which is fine too.

Although I wouldn't mind signing a contract that wouldn't allow the contributors to sell the same images anywhere at a lower price point.

« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2013, 14:42 »
0
It might be exclusive - which is fine too.

Although I wouldn't mind signing a contract that wouldn't allow the contributors to sell the same images anywhere at a lower price point.

That would be difficult, as you've got no control over the prices some of the macro sites sell at - their prices for the same image are very variable.

« Reply #39 on: March 21, 2013, 14:49 »
0
It might be exclusive - which is fine too.

Although I wouldn't mind signing a contract that wouldn't allow the contributors to sell the same images anywhere at a lower price point.

That would be difficult, as you've got no control over the prices some of the macro sites sell at - their prices for the same image are very variable.

I assume it's image exclusive.

However, Alamy, as much as many people do not agree with their pricing scale, has proven to sell micro RF also at macro RF prices. They work on a sliding scale depending on how smart the customer is I guess. From $2 to $330 (my commission) I've seen it all.

Most importantly the images should not be sold for scraps, available only to premium image buyers - period.

Even Getty shooters got super low commissions on high-end RM sales from time to time so it's not out of the ordinary.

But again, I expect it to be image exclusive.

« Reply #40 on: March 21, 2013, 15:23 »
0
After seeing it, first thing I've thought has been "Istockpro".

« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2013, 15:25 »
0
Oring said that they want cover more assets, in an agency for only invited artists, sort of high-end, I think that the prices are consequential. I aspect here great names, and great prices, for customers with money to spend for high quality images. Perhaps, simple, but ever the big things are simple.
edit: and also as click_click said images exclusive.


« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2013, 15:40 »
0
At this point, it's just a web page put up because some new SS marketing guy made a big deal at the Monday meeting about how they're lacking a "premium brand".   Now they start gauging the reaction and, maybe, putting together a real-world concept.

They are clearly standing squarely behind it and banking their reputation on its success. In the video Ben Pfiefer says: "we want Offset to become the go-to place in the marketplace for high end imagery". No ifs or buts.

Very sensible to clearly separate this from Shutterstock. No confusing the buyers over the pricing. It's an impressive video. Maura McEvoy's work is great.

Anyone can make a video.  Let's see some details. 

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #43 on: March 21, 2013, 15:51 »
0
Yeah, I don't understand it. Not quite hyperbole. But I keep thinking it is hyperbole.

At this point, it's just a web page put up because some new SS marketing guy made a big deal at the Monday meeting about how they're lacking a "premium brand".   Now they start gauging the reaction and, maybe, putting together a real-world concept.

They are clearly standing squarely behind it and banking their reputation on its success. In the video Ben Pfiefer says: "we want Offset to become the go-to place in the marketplace for high end imagery". No ifs or buts.

Very sensible to clearly separate this from Shutterstock. No confusing the buyers over the pricing. It's an impressive video. Maura McEvoy's work is great.

Anyone can make a video.  Let's see some details.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #44 on: March 21, 2013, 16:02 »
0
Hyperbole just doesn't seem to be their style.  WHY?

« Reply #45 on: March 21, 2013, 16:06 »
0
Anyone can make a video.  Let's see some details.
True but I dare to assume that Jon knows very well what he is doing with "this video".

I'm sure it's part of a campaign to first create a buzz and brand awareness. They use the homepage to measure the interestingness (is that even a word?) and go fishing for interested submitters who might also not be SS contributors yet but deserve a look at their content.

This might take a while until it's up and running (mostly gathering content I would think) but this is the first step...

stocked

« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2013, 08:14 »
0
Anyone got a response already?

« Reply #47 on: March 22, 2013, 08:25 »
0
I just got tis e-mail from offset.
 "Hi Paul, 
 We have received your request for Offset thank you!   
 We are continuously adding imagery from top artists around the world and are striving to build the most comprehensive collection of unique images available through simplified licensing.   
 We look forward to inviting you in soon. 
 
 The Offset Team "

rubyroo

« Reply #48 on: March 22, 2013, 08:28 »
0

 "unique images"

I guess that answers that question then.  Must be image exclusivity.

Veneratio

« Reply #49 on: March 22, 2013, 08:31 »
+1

 "unique images"

I guess that answers that question then.  Must be image exclusivity.

Unique does not indicate exclusivity. I can take a unique shot of my nose that no-one else has and then put it onto 20 agencies.

ETA; commercial value may be an issue though!!!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2677 Views
Last post October 16, 2012, 11:19
by gostwyck
9 Replies
2951 Views
Last post July 11, 2013, 01:21
by picture5469
7 Replies
7992 Views
Last post April 15, 2015, 21:47
by onepointfour
20 Replies
5367 Views
Last post December 02, 2015, 12:10
by Monty-m-gue
0 Replies
1066 Views
Last post October 06, 2016, 06:00
by Stock Performer

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results