MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: aspp on March 21, 2013, 04:04
-
Shutterstock announces 'Offset' - a new high end marketplace for stock photos (http://thenextweb.com/media/2013/03/20/shutterstock-announces-plans-to-launch-offset-a-new-high-end-marketplace-for-stock-photos/)
New York-based stock photography marketplace Shutterstock has announced plans to launch a new service, dubbed Offset, which will offer premium, high-end stock photos and illustrations through a new marketplace.
request an invitation (http://www.offset.com/)
-
Wooh!
I was not expecting that!
I wonder if it will be an entirely separate entity, or whether there'll be another review tier at SS to offer to 'escalate' great images into the Offset collection.
At the moment the impression they give is of the extreme 'creme de la creme', but I wonder if they'll open the door a little wider as time passes. It would be nice to have a chance to aim for inclusion once we know the standard.
-
hope it is some kind of RM license based..
-
They say its RF in the video. Hope its not a closed club that none of us can get in to and they let some of us microstockers in.
Good to see that they're trying a new market, they've done so well with microstock, I did wonder why they haven't tried taking on Getty before. Perhaps they needed the funding from the IPO?
-
Sounds very interesting anybody got more details? I think they could only ask higher prices if the pictures are exclusive. It would be nice if we could make some exclusive pictures but not be tied down as exclusive artists/photographers .
-
Sounds like a competitor to IS Vetta collection and Getty. Maybe even competing with the new agency from Bruce L (Stocksy)
I am submitting images to a RF/RM agency (not Alamy) who seem to do well, hi quality images, without people.
Market is changing, new opportunities.
-
Interesting! stocksy isn´t even on the market yet and already there is competition. Although it will be Getty and corbis and other traditional houses that will suffer.
Shutterstock reacts really, really fast to changes in the marketplace. You must give them that.
I guess Sean Locke now has an appropriate outlet for his content....it should also make some high end istock exclusives think about going indie once the site is established and earning money.
-
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.
-
true, hard to pull all this together in a month, but they must be smiling at the way iStock has aided them.
-
Is it real? You can sign in using your SS ID and password....anyone try yet? I'm not so sure about giving that info unless I'm 100% sure this is indeed a SS site.
-
Really interesting. I've been building a food photo portfolio that I did not start submitting yet so I think I will wait a few weeks to have details (exclusive images?) before submitting them to other agencies
-
Is it real? You can sign in using your SS ID and password....anyone try yet? I'm not so sure about giving that info unless I'm 100% sure this is indeed a SS site.
The domain is owned by Shutterstock according to the whois info (http://whois.domaintools.com/offset.com).
-
Is it real? You can sign in using your SS ID and password....anyone try yet? I'm not so sure about giving that info unless I'm 100% sure this is indeed a SS site.
The domain is owned by Shutterstock according to the whois info ([url]http://whois.domaintools.com/offset.com[/url]).
Thanks!
-
Watch the video - it's definitely Jon.
I tried logging in using my SS ID and Password - but it won't allow me to login.
-
Interesting! stocksy isn´t even on the market yet and already there is competition. Although it will be Getty and corbis and other traditional houses that will suffer.
Shutterstock reacts really, really fast to changes in the marketplace. You must give them that.
I guess Sean Locke now has an appropriate outlet for his content....it should also make some high end istock exclusives think about going indie once the site is established and earning money.
Clever name __ it emphasises the strictly high-end commercial market it is aimed at. It is obviously targeted directly at Getty and Corbis and has probably been planned for some time.
What will be really interesting will be the terms for photographers and how they are sourced. Getty's Achilles' heel is probably the somewhat adverserial relationship that they have with their contributors. If SS Offset can offer better terms and then deliver on sales then it might not take much more than that to prise Getty's big names away from them.
This is a huge step in Oringer's long-term ambition to become the biggest supplier of digital content. Getty (and Corbis) should be worried but most likely they'll be too arrogant to react effectively ... until it is too late.
-
.
-
Where is the gostwyck from a couple days ago, maybe they won't pay the photographer $13 so it's ok?
SS Offset is nothing to do with microstock. It is aimed at a completely different market for both buyers and content providers.
-
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.
Thats what I think, they are not stupid to look everyone shooting at their part of the market and they were waiting the moment they are strong enough not only to protect their model anymore but to make an attacking business move.
-
What`s the contributor percerntage?
-
Interesting that the web page - to the extent I can see it at all - shows 4 perfectly bland microstock photos.
I'll add this to my growing list of exclusive clubs I'm supposed to be dying to join.
Every marketing 'guru' wants to differentiate (split) the perceived marketplace as finely as possible and offer a big 'range of products'. It's what these guys do, and it's how we get nonsense like 'Windows Home Premium' and 'Starter Edition'. At the same time SS is trying to create a high end with this new concept, they're pushing down the low end with BigStock. In the short run I'd look for them to have more success with the latter than with the former.
-
They are very probably give us the same exploiting 20% deal as Getty so I'm not too excited. But still good to see some development in the stockmarket to higher prices.
-
OMG, 20%? no way! Not for exclusive content.
If they want to attract good artists, they have to compete with stocksy´s 50% rate. I cannot imagine anyone offering good content for less than 40%. Or at least some kind of sliding scale from 35-50%.
-
What`s the contributor percerntage?
Details are overrated. ;D
I'm starting to think this is building up to a big April Fool's joke. All these sites popping up that are supposed to be the best, but don't say much about themselves.
My hype machine is starting to run on empty.
-
It's about time that they've taken this step.
Despite having some fantastic imagery, I have to admit that 95% of all uploaded content is mediocre.
There HAS to be a place for high end images and they are filling this void in the RF "microstock" sector.
If they'd let me in - I'm more than happy to submit my more elaborate illustrations to them rather than SS.
I'm sure they have enough financial punch to lift this thing off the ground.
-
OMG, 20%? no way! Not for exclusive content.
If they want to attract good artists, they have to compete with stocksy´s 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?
-
.
-
Invite Only.
The only effect I can see this having on me is to reduce some of the competition for the "bottom feeders." :P
-
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.
-
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.
-
OMG, 20%? no way! Not for exclusive content.
If they want to attract good artists, they have to compete with stocksy´s 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.
-
.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2007/12/shutterstock.html)
'Question:
What´s 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 can´t 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.
-
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.
-
I doubt they will be sending out mass invites to micro stock shooters. The thing micro lacks is quality direction. Nothing looks authentic.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
After seeing it, first thing I've thought has been "Istockpro".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hyperbole just doesn't seem to be their style. WHY?
-
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...
-
Anyone got a response already?
-
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 "
-
"unique images"
I guess that answers that question then. Must be image exclusivity.
-
"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!!!
-
Well yes of course you can :) But I don't imagine they were thinking of your nose when they wrote that. ;D
-
is SS "afraid" of Stocksy? when have they started to think of this project? looking forward to see what will happen in the next weeks
-
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 "
Same email here
-
They have no reason to be afraid of anyone. I think the customers are lucky that offset and stocksy are coming to the market in the same year. They will be offered more choices. There hasn't been anything or anyone new in the upscale market for years.
What is ironic though is that getty is introducing it's 360 site, which sounds like an "all images are equal-all you can eat buffet" like shutterstock.
It's a good year for the customer.
-
The photos in the video look amazing. If shutterstock can make us decent money with $0.25-0.33-0.36 downloads, I imagine you can make a true stock photo income with their new site.
The only way to insure consistent high pricing is to make the site photo-exclusive. I have a lot of photos I've held back from alamy thinking to find an more boutique outlet, but knew I needed a huge backlog of images.
I was actually about to apply to a traditional site that sells only food and architecture/garden, now that I have enough to make a large initial submission, so I'm thinking that I'd like to try them at offset instead. I hope I have a chance to apply there. It's definitely a very different feel than shutterstock and it looks like it will be a very high bar to admission but certainly worth pursuing. I was kicking myself that I've held back my better work for so long hoping to place it elsewhere, but maybe this is the place to try. They certainly know how to market photos and I've always found them to be good people to deal with so I find the news very exciting.
-
This was discussed yesterday on SS and there is talk of certain size images which will limit the who's who of the site.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129352&start=0 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129352&start=0)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Photographers
categories
news
Contact
Todd Antony
Kaz Arahama
Roberto Badin
Samuel Bristow
Jesse Burke
Lane Coder
Julian Dufort
Sophie Ebrard
Don Freeman
David Harriman
Cig Harvey
Alex Hoerner
Max Kim-Bee
Flynn Larsen
John Lawton
Larry Letters
Gerhard Linnekogel
Maura McEvoy
Bill Miles
Travis Rathbone
Peter Ross
Joe Schmelzer
Danny Zapalac
http://i2iphoto.com/ptf/Maura-McEvoy/interiors (http://i2iphoto.com/ptf/Maura-McEvoy/interiors)
Click on photographers or categories and select whoever you want to see.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I breezed through here today and didn't notice where anyone else caught it here is the link to the news.
http://thenextweb.com/media/2013/03/20/shutterstock-announces-plans-to-launch-offset-a-new-high-end-marketplace-for-stock-photos/ (http://thenextweb.com/media/2013/03/20/shutterstock-announces-plans-to-launch-offset-a-new-high-end-marketplace-for-stock-photos/)
And see what it says on the bottom for those like I and others who tried to login and couldn't.
According to Shutterstock’s event invitation, a preview of the service will be available on March 27th. The site appears to be slated for a public launch within the next few months.
If it has been discussed I missed but just in case here it is.
-
A really great move by SS! I was hoping for something like that.
High quality stock channels opens doors for creativity for anyone who has enough inspiration to not simply copy Yuris style.. Hopefully other Agencies start projects like this too. The implications of exploring this new Market segment (which is not necesarrily microstock) are broad...
-
@ruxpriencdiam
I read that thread on SS. What I could not figure out is where anyone is getting the idea that those people are also all going to be putting their stock archives with Offset? Those of them that even do stock. That list of photographers is just a list of people who, like Maura McEvoy, are also represented by i2i for commissions - and who therefore have portfolios (representing examples of their styles) at the i2i site.
The size of images, the sort of camera you have got, is not going to be a primary factor in determining whether someone is in or out. It is going to be about the substance of their amazing work.
This was discussed yesterday on SS and there is talk of certain size images which will limit the who's who of the site.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129352&start=0[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129352&start=0[/url])
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Photographers
categories
news
Contact
Todd Antony
Kaz Arahama
Roberto Badin
Samuel Bristow
Jesse Burke
Lane Coder
Julian Dufort
Sophie Ebrard
Don Freeman
David Harriman
Cig Harvey
Alex Hoerner
Max Kim-Bee
Flynn Larsen
John Lawton
Larry Letters
Gerhard Linnekogel
Maura McEvoy
Bill Miles
Travis Rathbone
Peter Ross
Joe Schmelzer
Danny Zapalac
[url]http://i2iphoto.com/ptf/Maura-McEvoy/interiors[/url] ([url]http://i2iphoto.com/ptf/Maura-McEvoy/interiors[/url])
Click on photographers or categories and select whoever you want to see.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I breezed through here today and didn't notice where anyone else caught it here is the link to the news.
[url]http://thenextweb.com/media/2013/03/20/shutterstock-announces-plans-to-launch-offset-a-new-high-end-marketplace-for-stock-photos/[/url] ([url]http://thenextweb.com/media/2013/03/20/shutterstock-announces-plans-to-launch-offset-a-new-high-end-marketplace-for-stock-photos/[/url])
And see what it says on the bottom for those like I and others who tried to login and couldn't.
According to Shutterstock’s event invitation, a preview of the service will be available on March 27th. The site appears to be slated for a public launch within the next few months.
If it has been discussed I missed but just in case here it is.
-
Camera requirements are a holdover from the old days of traditional stock photo business models - but they are not necessarily invalid. You gotta remember that some of these agencies cater to a group of buyers who are in the market for images that can be blown up into very large prints and the standard for that kind of printing is well into the medium format world, even large format. If you're that type of customer, you wont' even bother with micro - there's no guarantee that any file you like was shot with a good enough system for your use. Why do you think Yuri shot with medium format? Because he probably understood that issue and did his own direct marketing making it known - that's what I would have done ;) Also keep in mind that even if the customer is going to commission the shoot, it will most likely be shot with a medium format camera, unless you're doing something that requires high speed bursts, etc... medium format isn't used for action.
I'm at one agency right now, traditional, that will not accept anything less than 12 megapixels.
-
I am with an agency that excepts nothing less then 50mb uncompressed, which comes down to about 18mp. All I am shooting is panoramas and stitched images for them. Love it.
-
The irony with micro - small images for web use - check. But the web is getting high res too ;) 4K internet is coming after it bombards TV standards.
-
The D800 is a great camera. :)
-
Interesting that they seem to be featuring Maura McEvoy. She was an interior stylist when I was a photo assistant long ago. She seems to have made the transition nicely.
-
Ponke, that agency's requirement is surprising since not all MPs are created equally.
Nikon's flagship D4 at 16.2 MP wouldn't make it?!
I am with an agency that excepts nothing less then 50mb uncompressed, which comes down to about 18mp. All I am shooting is panoramas and stitched images for them. Love it.
-
Ponke, that agency's requirement is surprising since not all MPs are created equally.
Nikon's flagship D4 at 16.2 MP wouldn't make it?!
I am with an agency that excepts nothing less then 50mb uncompressed, which comes down to about 18mp. All I am shooting is panoramas and stitched images for them. Love it.
Correct. Its not the only agency that asks for 50mb uncompressed. And its 8 bit uncompressed, so you need a 100mb 16bit tif file to start with. Thats why I am shooting panoramas and stitched images to get to that number. You can do stairstep interpolating as well, but only if the image is sharp enough to do that.
-
As expected and written, the market has found it's deepest level. Now anyone is starting new ideas for higher prices.
This next wave will kill the RM-agencys.
-
I guess SS wants to cover the remaining part of the market - buyers that still snub the micros... which I don't see a problem with, however my opinion is that there is so much absolutely amazing work on micros these days that this "high-end" agencies would work purely on psychological basis. It's kinda like people who pay thousands for designer clothes and bags, but there is nothing really special about them except for the brand name, and they are often inferior to other things you can find for 1/100 of the price, but I guess these people feel good spending money on "names". The reality is that with Shutterstock very fast and highly relevant search you can find your amazing magazine cover or spread in minutes, of the highest quality and artistic value, and they'll give you the license you want (I've had those lovely sales and many magazine covers). So really, this would be to sell to people with not enough common sense... ;)
-
I guess SS wants to cover the remaining part of the market - buyers that still snub the micros... which I don't see a problem with, however my opinion is that there is so much absolutely amazing work on micros these days that this "high-end" agencies would work purely on psychological basis. It's kinda like people who pay thousands for designer clothes and bags, but there is nothing really special about them except for the brand name, and they are often inferior to other things you can find for 1/100 of the price, but I guess these people feel good spending money on "names". The reality is that with Shutterstock very fast and highly relevant search you can find your amazing magazine cover or spread in minutes, of the highest quality and artistic value, and they'll give you the license you want (I've had those lovely sales and many magazine covers). So really, this would be to sell to people with not enough common sense... ;)
I agree generally....buuuuut:
1. In the past I had several times the problem to find content requested by a someone. Once you look at the sites with the eyes of a Ad agency they suddenly look like a desert. All looks the same.
2. Once a sales possibility is open, people my fill it. Nowadays the most profitable channel is Microstock (I guess), so all the content goes there. If sites like Stocksy or Offset manage to bring money all this content may go to those highend sites. And new content will be produced for these sites which may have never been produced for pure micros.
However, I could be all wrong, so I just sit back for now and enjoy the microstock market daily soap opera...
-
I agree generally....buuuuut:
1. In the past I had several times the problem to find content requested by a someone. Once you look at the sites with the eyes of a Ad agency they suddenly look like a desert. All looks the same.
2. Once a sales possibility is open, people my fill it. Nowadays the most profitable channel is Microstock (I guess), so all the content goes there. If sites like Stocksy or Offset manage to bring money all this content may go to those highend sites. And new content will be produced for these sites which may have never been produced for pure micros.
However, I could be all wrong, so I just sit back for now and enjoy the microstock market daily soap opera...
I don't know the details about Stocksy or Offset, but it seems to me that those would be image-exclusive establishments, and also very picky about photographers, more like "closed clubs". They are basically doing what Getty was always doing, and then microstock came and blew them out of the water because microstock is open pretty much to everyone. And about image exclusivity - I tried that for a while with some agencies, and it sucks! Even if you're locking just part of your portfolio with one agency, and the agency doesn't do well, you images just sit and age and it's wasted work. For an agency to start bringing really good returns they have to be something really special these days, revolutionary even, and so far I haven't seen anything of the kind. There are lots of collections out there that are calling themselves "premium" already, and the competition is stiff, and their sales are not really that impressive. Their content by the way also looks "the same", just different "same" - lens flares, retro film effects, blurs, weird crops... these things seem to be "in" right now, but will they be "in" in 5 years? I have images from 2005 that are still selling regularly, nothing "special" about them, and that's why:)
-
Guess it's all speculation at the moment, but would it not make sense for the new venture to scoop the best 10% of images off the top of their existing SS contributions?
Linked to some kind of exclusivity deal for chosen images the results would effectively stop premium content going to SS downstream competitors. That way the new agency would be as much about entering a new market and giving it to Getty as it would be about restricting SS competitors.
-
Preview available tomorrow.
-
Got this email this morning.
(http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz187/rimglow/Offset_zps0e7ad9bd.jpg)
-
Got this email this morning.
([url]http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz187/rimglow/Offset_zps0e7ad9bd.jpg[/url])
Isn't that the standard-email everyone got?
-
Probably.
-
The huge problem with non-exclusivity models is that people only have pricing to compete with, and once that happens, you will see you're earnings fall. Never compete on price.
-
Got this email this morning.
([url]http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz187/rimglow/Offset_zps0e7ad9bd.jpg[/url])
ditto. Have a feeling it's a 'Thanks, but no thanks'...?
-
The huge problem with non-exclusivity models is that people only have pricing to compete with, and once that happens, you will see you're earnings fall. Never compete on price.
Totally not true. There are so many other things agencies can compete with (and are competing with), for example:
1. Speed and relevance of their search engine - very important
2. Site usability for customers
3. Site usability for content providers - for example, ease of uploads/categorization
4. Marketing strategies
5. Royalty percentage for content providers - the better percentage the more good content
6. Review times and review quality
7. Simplicity of pricing
8. Customer support quality, for both content providers and customers
9. ... I am sure there is more, but it's dinner time ;)
So really... price is only one variable, you can have an agency that aces all of the above and charges more and it will win hands down every time against cheaper but crappier competitors.
-
Great list Elena!
-
Fantastic list Elena!
There are so many products and services out there that people pay a lot more money for and they still thrive inspite of much cheaper competition - the iPod still has 70% of the mp3 player market, the iPhone and other expensive smartphones, luxury cars, expensive tv´s, clothes - hell in the eighties I bought Jeans full of holes from a designer label...etc...
-
^^^ You are indeed wise Elena! Great post.
-
What timezone are they? I thought there was an announcement/preview tonight at 19:00
-
What timezone are they? I thought there was an announcement/preview tonight at 19:00
Yes preview event was apparently held last night at a New York gallery, don't ya know. Tech Crunch has an article (http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/27/shutterstock-launches-offset-a-new-brand-for-its-curated-collection-of-licensable-images/) but apart from that this thing seems to be mostly off the radar. I guess that Shutterstock is not trying to make too much of a big deal about it for the moment.
-
^^^ You are indeed wise Elena! Great post.
Thanks ;D
-
Hello everyone,
The official announcement of Offset (http://www.offset.com) is now live.
The official press release can be found here. (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shutterstock-introduces-offset-a-new-brand-featuring-a-curated-collection-of-extraordinary-licensable-images-200487901.html)
An initial contributor FAQ can be found here (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/introducing-offset).
A TechCrunch article can be found here (http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/27/shutterstock-launches-offset-a-new-brand-for-its-curated-collection-of-licensable-images/).
You can "like" us on Facebook and see pictures from the preview event last night
here (http://www.facebook.com/offsetimages?fref=ts).
...and you can follow us on Twitter here (https://twitter.com/offsetimages).
There will also be a blog post coming detailing last night's gallery show.
I hope it goes without saying that in the "big picture" (no pun intended) we're more committed to our "core" contributors than ever before and we're also focused on creating additional opportunities for you. For the time being, this new brand has a specific point-of-view and participation is by invite only. In the future, we expect that every contributor will have the opportunity to be considered for inclusion in the Offset collection as we continue to maintain the outstanding quality that we have in our core collection.
The site and collection both already look amazing and we can't wait to share Offset with you in the coming months.
Please check the FAQ (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/introducing-offset) for more details.
Best Regards,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
-
Interesting! Thanks for the info Scott.
-
Hello everyone,
The official announcement of Offset ([url]http://www.offset.com[/url]) is now live.
The official press release can be found here. ([url]http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shutterstock-introduces-offset-a-new-brand-featuring-a-curated-collection-of-extraordinary-licensable-images-200487901.html[/url])
An initial contributor FAQ can be found here ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/introducing-offset[/url]).
A TechCrunch article can be found here here ([url]http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/27/shutterstock-launches-offset-a-new-brand-for-its-curated-collection-of-licensable-images/[/url]).
There will also be a blog post coming detailing last night's event.
I hope it goes without saying that in the "big picture" (no pun intended) we're more committed to our "core" contributors than ever before and we're also focused on creating additional opportunities for you. For the time being, this new brand has a specific point-of-view and participation is by invite only. In the future, we expect that every contributor will have the opportunity to be considered for inclusion in the Offset collection as we continue to maintain the outstanding quality that we have in our core collection.
The site and collection both already look amazing and we can't wait to share Offset with you in the coming months.
Please check the FAQ ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/introducing-offset[/url]) for more details.
Best Regards,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Thank you for the announcement here on MSG! I am looking forward to (hopefully) contribute and wish you the best for your project in any case....
-
Thanks! Also - I just added the Twitter (https://twitter.com/offsetimages) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/offsetimages) links above if you'd like to follow Offset news via social media.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
-
Exciting to see new collections like this - great logo.
-
LOL, yet no one can see anything as you can only see he site on invitation only. Why the announcement here to the live site, which no one has access to? ;)
-
LOL, yet no one can see anything as you can only see he site on invitation only. Why the announcement here to the live site, which no one has access to? ;)
Hello,
The rollout is going to be a progressive one. As an agile tech company, we often release new products and features in an incremental fashion, gathering continuous feedback from customers and contributors and making improvements along the way. We also often test changes and new features, rather than doing huge redesigns or big reveals. In terms of Offset, we want to make sure contributors are respectfully kept aware of what we're doing even as we release the site privately to groups of customers and the existing contributors during a private beta phase.
I'd be happy to answer questions as I can in the meanwhile.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
-
Am I correct to assume Offset would be the place to offer images considered too artsy by SS?
-
Gotcha, thanks Scott.
-
An initial contributor FAQ can be found here ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/introducing-offset[/url]).
"Offset images are independently sourced and do not come from Shutterstock contributors."
That statement speaks volumes!
I hope it goes without saying that in the "big picture" (no pun intended) we're more committed to our "core" contributors than ever before and we're also focused on creating additional opportunities for you. For the time being, this new brand has a specific point-of-view and participation is by invite only. In the future, we expect that every contributor will have the opportunity to be considered for inclusion in the Offset collection as we continue to maintain the outstanding quality that we have in our core collection.
Quite a noncommittal comment, but are you saying that Shutterstock contributors will be able to put images into the Offset collection, and that the comment in the press release was incorrect?
-
I hope it goes without saying that in the "big picture" (no pun intended) we're more committed to our "core" contributors than ever before and we're also focused on creating additional opportunities for you.
Thanks Scott. Offset sounds more high-end than the highest-end! Looking forward to seeing the collection very much, and thanks for continuing to think of us all as the future unfolds.
Good luck with the new venture.
-
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
-
Quite a noncommittal comment, but are you saying that Shutterstock contributors will be able to put images into the Offset collection, and that the comment in the press release was incorrect?
I think the difference is in the short-term vs. the long-term. In the short-term, we're really focused on curation and shaping the collection based on my comments immediately above. In the long-term -- and once everyone understands what this collection is really about -- we're definitely open to the idea of opening it up to existing stock photographers and contributors and our goal is to give everyone the opportunity to participate. But that's a little ways off, so we'd ask for a little patience as we shape the collection.
-
Scott, one hundred points out of ten for engaging here, that's much appreciated even by those of us not active with Shutterstock, watching the industry moving in a new direction. I have a question I hope you would care to answer.
Many of us in microstock try to compete on quality, serving the bargain hunters. It seems to me that with new high-end agencies coming up such as Offset, Stocksy and whatever else may be coming down the pipeline, these new agencies are new competition for quality microstockers. Judging by Stocksy pricing, at smaller sizes - bread and butter in microstock - the prices are not greatly higher than at say iStock. We don't know Offset pricing yet, but in order to compete I don't expect them to be vastly different from those of Stocksy.
What would you say to address this concern, that your exclusive new offering is going to be competing with the very best in your microstock house?
-
FFNix pricing is 250 dollar for small and 500 for large images.
-
Hello,
Pricing for Offset is going to be $250 for a small file and $500 for a large file, at around 3MB and 50MB, respectively.
Without commenting on other collections, Offset content is of a unique caliber and we want pricing to be respectful (and reflective) of the quality of the work, while at the same time making the images accessible to buyers who are looking for quality images that tell a story. Photographers and illustrators are giving us many of their best images. Many of those images come from assignment photographers who have never sold stock, or collections that were previously sold as rights-managed. Some images are being given to us exclusively, though we're not requiring exclusivity.
That's also not a comment on Shutterstock images - which are also of excellent and amazing quality (our blogs should be evidence that we're continuously in love and impressed). 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
-
I think the difference is in the short-term vs. the long-term. In the short-term, we're really focused on curation and shaping the collection based on my comments immediately above. In the long-term -- and once everyone understands what this collection is really about -- we're definitely open to the idea of opening it up to existing stock photographers and contributors and our goal is to give everyone the opportunity to participate. But that's a little ways off, so we'd ask for a little patience as we shape the collection.
"long term.........open to the idea of opening it up to existing contributors" - phew for a moment I thought you were going to come back with another noncommittal statement :P
I'm not quite sure why you're promoting this new site amongst the very people that made you (Shutterstock) rich when they cannot contribute or benefit from it (except of course in the long term, future when you might, possibly, contemplate thinking about letting them attempt to apply, for the matter to be considered for their involvement at a level to be decided at a date yet to be discussed)
On another slightly off topic note, who's going to be running Shutterstock whilst you guys are curating and shaping this new enterprise?
-
Hi RT,
I'm sorry if it sounds non-committal, I just try to comment very factually on the present and not give you personal opinions or predict the future. That's true of all of my communications in these forums. I've already stated that our goal is to open up submissions more broadly.
Offset has its own team within Shutterstock. A few of us, like myself, work on multiple areas of the business, but we have many individuals who are 100% independently dedicated to making our individual brands and collections a success.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
-
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.
-
......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.
-
.
-
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.
-
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 & $500 (and even without knowing what the commissions are I'm going to hazard a guess it's going to be a lot more than the 38c SS pay) funded by the money you've made from Shutterstock contributors without the ability for them to participate.
To be honest if I were in your position I'd like to think I'd be trying to do something to pay back the folks that made Shutterstock the success it is.
-
Why are agencies like that starting like some secret societies i don't understand ?
Why are contributors images that made SS considered not capable for at least small % initial filling of gallery I also don't understand ?
0.001 % of images request from ss contributors would be a nice start... but when a price is raising there is obviously some believe that we are not good enough and incapable so new forces has to be brought in to start such project.
Some of best photos I saw in my life were priced 0.38 and I sure saw lot of crap selling and sold for 500$.
Just my opinion
-
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.
-
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 don´t 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.
-
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!
-
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!
-
Edit: Nevermind, I see my question was already answered.
-
"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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Isnt there 1X.com which sells the same hi end stuff?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 don’t yet offer public submissions so we’re 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
-
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
-
30% for non exclusive content, I presume?
-
- 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 (http://www.mystockvectors.com/Fruits_Vegetables_g90-Peanut_Butter_Royalty_Free_Vector_Illustration_p2780.html)
-
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
-
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. :)
-
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. :)
Hello,
I should probably point out, too, that if a buyer wants to purchase an exclusive, we reach out to the contributor to arrange for that.
Best,
Scott
-
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. :)
Hello,
I should probably point out, too, that if a buyer wants to purchase an exclusive, we arrange to make that happen.
Best,
Scott
You hope to arrange to make that happen ;-) its the photographer who decides. Or do you mean, we throw so much money at it that the photographer cant say no. 8)
Edit: I see the comment from Scott was edited while I was posting.
-
Yes, sorry - I replied quickly and then was in the process of refining - that's what I meant. ;) In practice, we reach out to the contributor to let them know what's being requested, check on distribution, etc...
- Scott
-
Scott,
First let me thank you for coming here and talking to us in a non-arrogant and non-condescending way. You have already set yourself apart from your nearest competitor just by doing that. ;)
I think what some of us are all trying to tell you is that we would love to see Offset succeed and would be more than willing to do what we can to help you achieve this goal IF we can be a part of that success with you.
I'm sure you know the business better than I do, but I can tell you that on the few occasions when I have bought files, there is no way I would have even considered paying $250 for an image if I had the slightest inkling it could have ever been bought on another site for $5.
If I were you, I might consider taking fotografer's advice very soon and at least make a public attempt to single out a few of the uploads you get every day for possible future inclusion in the Offset collection. The longer you keep Offset as Off-limits to the people who supply the content that pays your bills, the more you are going to piss them Off.
-
I don't agree that it would be a good idea to take out the best of those submitted to SS for Offset. You only need to look at what happened with Vetta - one from a series would be accepted, the others would go to IS as normal, and you'd have very similar images at very different prices. The buyers didn't like it. Also IS exclusives are not allowed to send rejections to other agencies, so they have no option other that to leave it in the IS standard collection, or E+.
It would work even less well at SS, because, unlike with IS exclusives, indies have the option to place their files elsewhere. With the existing way Offset is planned to work, if you send something to Offset and it's not accepted, you can send it to other macro agencies.
If someone is willing to pay up to $500 for an image, how happy would they be to find others from the same series selling as subs?
-
Well getty does exactly that and somehow it seems to work. Getty has very high list prices on their website, but you can find the exact same content already with 25% discount at Punchstock. But you also find many of the exact same images on Thinkstock and buy them with a subscription.
From what I understand, is that the license on getty itself is different and contains many rights that you would usually need to buy an extended license for. So just because a file is listed at 250 dollars it could still be cheaper than on the micro site because it has broader usage rights.
The other thing is of course that they sometimes give amazing discounts..even undercutting the micros.
At that price range the price on the website is open to a lot more negotiation than a price that is set at 5 dollars.
It will be interesting to see how SS handles this and what usage rights the license will grant.
I would also like to thank you Scott for coming here in person and being so professional. It is such a relief to be treated in a normal business way and not with the arrogance, emotion and disdain I have encountered elsewhere for daring to ask too many questions. I think that alone will make many artist switch to independence.
I know many excellent artists who will never allow their files to be sold for 25 cents or lower micro rates. If Offset is a success you will be swamped with great choices. Both stocksy and offset are coming at the right time and the market is more than big enough for both of them and maybe others.
-
Scott, will SS consider a RM collection within Offset in the future?
-
Different licensing is a good point. I have used that same argument myself to justify sending some of the same pics to Alamy and the micros, but then Alamy is rarely selling for $500.
However, I think it is one of the many things that turned people away from IS, both buyers and contributors. So far, SS hasn't done very much to damage themselves, let's hope it continues that way.
-
I feel like we're all being used in some sort of 'branding' exercise - a big public display of how the riff-raff will definitely not be allowed in to this shiny new gated community... with attached golf course designed by Tiger Woods...
-
Yes, sorry - I replied quickly and then was in the process of refining - that's what I meant. ;) In practice, we reach out to the contributor to let them know what's being requested, check on distribution, etc...
- Scott
Just wanted to add my voice in thanking you for coming here to share info and answer questions. Brave ;D and greatly appreciated.
-
Scott, thanks for coming here to try to keep us informed. It all sounds good but unless I get to play in the sandbox eventually I can't get too excited. I like hearing words about valueing the photographers and so on, but 30% isn't all that great. You also might want to take a look at what bigstock is doing to demotivate contributors these days.
-
Scott, will SS consider a RM collection within Offset in the future?
Hello,
I try not to speculate on the future, but one of the unique attributes of Offset is that we're offering images that are of the same quality as assignment photography and RM, but with the flexibility and customer friendliness of an RF license.
Designers have much different needs than they did 5-10 years ago, in terms of speed, ease-of-use, platforms and audience, etc..., and rights-managed licensing is time-consuming and filled with a lot of friction. As a photographer and former photo buyer myself, I used to spend days, weeks and months setting up assignments, calling agencies and negotiating for rights, nervously waiting for high-res as deadlines approached, etc...
When you multiply that by the number of images being consumed today and the overall pace of consumption at a global scale, we believe that there's a better path for everyone involved - one that makes it very easy to license high-quality images.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
-
You also might want to take a look at what bigstock is doing to demotivate contributors these days.
A big +1 for this.
-
You also might want to take a look at what bigstock is doing to demotivate contributors these days.
A big +1 for this.
Bigstock isn't a problem for me any more. I removed my portfolio weeks ago. >:(
-
You also might want to take a look at what bigstock is doing to demotivate contributors these days.
A big +1 for this.
Bigstock isn't a problem for me any more. I removed my portfolio weeks ago. >:(
We're getting off topic. Start your own thread.
-
...If I were you, I might consider taking fotografer's advice very soon and at least make a public attempt to single out a few of the uploads you get every day for possible future inclusion in the Offset collection. The longer you keep Offset as Off-limits to the people who supply the content that pays your bills, the more you are going to piss them Off.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I didn't get the impression that Offset was closed to current SS contributors. My understanding is that if you feel you've got a portfolio of non-SS work that might be of the standard Offset would require, there's a chance for you to be included in Offset. It's probably just a matter of getting that work in front of the right person.
Has anyone actually tried to get into Offset? And I don't mean by just signing up with an email address at the site. Has anyone tried contacting someone directly and inquired about submitting their non-SS work for consideration?
-
You also might want to take a look at what bigstock is doing to demotivate contributors these days.
A big +1 for this.
Bigstock isn't a problem for me any more. I removed my portfolio weeks ago. >:(
We're getting off topic. Start your own thread.
Well yes but... you know what I just realized? This forum is less and less about microstock all the time. And I'm reading it less as a result.
Right now there are about 6 threads going on Symbiostock and a couple on exclusive new clubs like Stocksy and Offset, which mean nothing to me. Here in this thread we have an actual SS rep, but please don't bring up BS, it's not polite.
It's not my forum, it can be whatever it's creator wants. I'm just seeing this change as evidence of the decline of 'microstock'. The agencies want to do things new with the 1% and put rest of us on the subscription bus to Fargo ND. So be it. Just my sour mood today, I guess.
-
I hope MSG will continue to allow the threads on Symbiostock, Stocksy, Offset, PictureEngine, FAA, Alamy and any new opportunities that come along.
As you say, microstock as we knew it seems to be declining, people want to know what else they can do.
Why not keep everything in one place?
-
'm just seeing this change as evidence of the decline of 'microstock'.
It isn't decline, but a gradual evolution. The scrap-bookers, hobby bloggers, church newsletters etc need less cheap (good enough but perhaps not great) content today because they are increasingly getting it for free and have, anyhow, relocated to the social media. Even many companies and official organizations have semi abandoned their websites in favor of FB. Having a website is no longer the big deal that it once was. That and the state of the economy. It's a very different market even compared to 3 or 4 years ago.
The trend for 'authentic' imagery is partly a reaction to the financial crisis. It is about advertising and PR wanting imagery which communicates a perception of trust. It is also about a move towards quality. No surprise given the widely held perception that the crisis was caused by companies which could not be trusted. Instead of all the negativity (this thread and the Stocksy threads) it is much more interesting and constructive to focus on the trends :)
-
Well yes but... you know what I just realized? This forum is less and less about microstock all the time. And I'm reading it less as a result.
Right now there are about 6 threads going on Symbiostock and a couple on exclusive new clubs like Stocksy and Offset, which mean nothing to me. Here in this thread we have an actual SS rep, but please don't bring up BS, it's not polite.
It's not my forum, it can be whatever it's creator wants. I'm just seeing this change as evidence of the decline of 'microstock'. The agencies want to do things new with the 1% and put rest of us on the subscription bus to Fargo ND. So be it. Just my sour mood today, I guess.
You can "ignore" select forums if you want to by going to your profile summary and the middle tab (actions?) lets you put a checkmark by any you don't want to see. Block Symbiostock and all it's child boards and the Stocksy forum (under the low earners). I didn't notice an Offset board yet so you're out of luck on that one.
-
So is there some way of getting around the releases? Or do you have to have all the releases?
Some of those images beyond a doubt need property releases and more!
There are interiors, furniture, paintings and all kinds of copyrighted materials in some of the images as well as models?
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8254/8604156224_810f57cd2f.jpg)
-
The funny thing is, those images are supposed to be aspirational, and in one way they are, but not in the way that's intended. I don't in the least aspire to owning those products or living that lifestyle. The only thing I would want is that photographer's talent :)
Having things is boring, it's only doing things that is interesting!
-
'm just seeing this change as evidence of the decline of 'microstock'.
It isn't decline, but a gradual evolution. The scrap-bookers, hobby bloggers, church newsletters etc need less cheap (good enough but perhaps not great) content today because they are increasingly getting it for free and have, anyhow, relocated to the social media. Even many companies and official organizations have semi abandoned their websites in favor of FB. Having a website is no longer the big deal that it once was. That and the state of the economy. It's a very different market even compared to 3 or 4 years ago.
The trend for 'authentic' imagery is partly a reaction to the financial crisis. It is about advertising and PR wanting imagery which communicates a perception of trust. It is also about a move towards quality. No surprise given the widely held perception that the crisis was caused by companies which could not be trusted. Instead of all the negativity (this thread and the Stocksy threads) it is much more interesting and constructive to focus on the trends :)
Well said. I don't see any sign of decline in microstock either. It's just that some agencies are doing well and others are suffering because of their poor decisions and the way they've treated their customers and contributors. SS shares have more than doubled in price in the 6 months since the IPO. Clearly the greater market doesn't see microstock as being 'in decline' either.
I can understand IS exclusives (and recently ex-exclusives) thinking that the world is ending but that's only one agency and it was the IS management that truly did make their business 'unsustainable'. If they hadn't chased away all their customers with ridiculous price rises whilst also hammering their contributors too, then I'm sure that they'd be doing just fine too.
-
You can "ignore" select forums if you want to by going to your profile summary and the middle tab (actions?) lets you put a checkmark by any you don't want to see. Block Symbiostock and all it's child boards and the Stocksy forum (under the low earners). I didn't notice an Offset board yet so you're out of luck on that one.
Thanks for that tip - I definitely need to get all those Symbiostock threads out of my face.
-
'm just seeing this change as evidence of the decline of 'microstock'.
It isn't decline, but a gradual evolution. The scrap-bookers, hobby bloggers, church newsletters etc need less cheap (good enough but perhaps not great) content today because they are increasingly getting it for free and have, anyhow, relocated to the social media. Even many companies and official organizations have semi abandoned their websites in favor of FB. Having a website is no longer the big deal that it once was. That and the state of the economy. It's a very different market even compared to 3 or 4 years ago.
The trend for 'authentic' imagery is partly a reaction to the financial crisis. It is about advertising and PR wanting imagery which communicates a perception of trust. It is also about a move towards quality. No surprise given the widely held perception that the crisis was caused by companies which could not be trusted. Instead of all the negativity (this thread and the Stocksy threads) it is much more interesting and constructive to focus on the trends :)
Good post and I agree with many of your observations. I do find it ironic that stock companies who have proven through their actions that they are not to be trusted are depending on the vision, resources and hard work of trustworthy photographers to supply images which evoke trust. The incongruity of expectations and actions in regard to suppliers does make Stocksy's mission statement that much more attractive.
-
I can understand IS exclusives (and recently ex-exclusives) thinking that the world is ending...
You have to give people more credit than your narrow view of exclusives or ex-exclusives. My world wasn't ending, it was pretty obvious to me the buyers were leaving istock as well as other non istock content flooding the site that decreased my downloads. The good times are over and they were good while they lasted because i took full advantage of that situation when it was available to me.
It just sounds like you think we are all poor naive tools with that type of statement. You might have your own reasons for staying independent, but please don't lump me and others in that one dimensional category you see the exclusives in.
-
I can understand IS exclusives (and recently ex-exclusives) thinking that the world is ending...
You have to give people more credit than your narrow view of exclusives or ex-exclusives. My world wasn't ending, it was pretty obvious to me the buyers were leaving istock as well as other non istock content flooding the site that decreased my downloads. The good times are over and they were good while they lasted because i took full advantage of that situation when it was available to me.
It just sounds like you think we are all poor naive tools with that type of statement. You might have your own reasons for staying independent, but please don't lump me and others in that one dimensional category you see the exclusives in.
Good post, you have expressed my feelings exactly.
-
News from Seeking Alpha;
"Shares of Shutterstock (SSTK +4.1%) rally with reports on the company's new Offset brand creating a bit of a buzz. Offset hopes to be a must-have for glossy editorial magazines and high-end advertising agencies after it comes out of beta."
http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/933561?source=email_rt_mc_readmore (http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/933561?source=email_rt_mc_readmore)
-
Thanks for all these informations about Offset, I'm really happy to see coming a new quality photo site, more open than the Stocksy sect.
-
What is minimum pic resolution for this offset!?
-
Forgive me if this will sound a bit negative. I do appreciate Scott posting info and clarifications here, however, the description of "Offset" images implicitly suggests that images I submit to Shutterstock are of "lower quality", "don't tell a story", not "authentic" enough and so on. I shoot with Nikon D3X and painstakingly process all my images to the highest quality standards. I work from raw and produce 70 MB tiffs. And, while I do have some isolated objects and other simple images in my portfolio, many of my images do tell a story and look natural and authentic. I am sure many other professional photographers who submit their best work to Shutterstock must feel the same way.
Scott, you implicitly suggest that "RM" work and "assignment" work is for some reason superior to what is selling currently on micro agencies. It was true 5-7 years ago; but now your content is completely different. You are already selling former RM and assignment work and equivalents of. I am puzzled why you would consider creating this collection now - why take a step backwards?? I really don't understand your statements about "higher quality" - but I do agree with your implications that people don't quite understand what this collection is about - I don't. Why some photographers are "more equal than others"? National Geographic content is superb, but so is content from some of your better contributors. Shutterstock should know better than anyone that it was new technology that brought images prices down, not "inferiority" of the micro content. Taking a bunch of images that haven't been sold on micros before and calling them "superior" will not fool anyone, including your buyers, but it is creating negative feelings among your contributors.
-
Thanks for all these informations about Offset, I'm really happy to see coming a new quality photo site, more open than the Stocksy sect.
Are you sure it will be more open? At the moment it is by invitation only.
-
Forgive me if this will sound a bit negative. I do appreciate Scott posting info and clarifications here, however, the description of "Offset" images implicitly suggests that images I submit to Shutterstock are of "lower quality", "don't tell a story", not "authentic" enough and so on. I shoot with Nikon D3X and painstakingly process all my images to the highest quality standards. I work from raw and produce 70 MB tiffs. And, while I do have some isolated objects and other simple images in my portfolio, many of my images do tell a story and look natural and authentic. I am sure many other professional photographers who submit their best work to Shutterstock must feel the same way.
Scott, you implicitly suggest that "RM" work and "assignment" work is for some reason superior to what is selling currently on micro agencies. It was true 5-7 years ago; but now your content is completely different. You are already selling former RM and assignment work and equivalents of. I am puzzled why you would consider creating this collection now - why take a step backwards?? I really don't understand your statements about "higher quality" - but I do agree with your implications that people don't quite understand what this collection is about - I don't. Why some photographers are "more equal than others"? National Geographic content is superb, but so is content from some of your better contributors. Shutterstock should know better than anyone that it was new technology that brought images prices down, not "inferiority" of the micro content. Taking a bunch of images that haven't been sold on micros before and calling them "superior" will not fool anyone, including your buyers, but it is creating negative feelings among your contributors.
+1
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/04/09/finding-extraordinary-shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-talks-offset/ (http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/04/09/finding-extraordinary-shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-talks-offset/)
'TNW: You’ve partnered with some high-profile photographers to make the collection rather unique. How long has Offset been in development for?
We’ve been thinking about this for nine years, but it took about a year of work before it was ready to show the world. That was because we didn’t want to use the images that are in Shutterstock. We wanted to go out and find new collections.
We approached people with collections that have never been sold as stock before, for instance. We wanted to do something new and different. We didn’t want to have just another collection that cost a little bit more; that’s what you would expect from a stock photo agency. We wanted to go beyond that.
By approaching National Geographic and some special photographers that have never sold stock-images before – that was how we were able to create the Offset collection.'
-
Elena, I love your post!
However, i think Shutterstock knows perfectly well that they have tons of fantastic content and excellent Photographers. But offset is a new product they are introducing to the market. How else do you expect them to advertise for the product?
By bringing in "never before seen" content and adding National geographic etc...they are just creating the necessary buzz to get customers interested.
They are entering the high price game, it has to be advertised with appropriate marketing language.
-
Forgive me if this will sound a bit negative. I do appreciate Scott posting info and clarifications here, however, the description of "Offset" images implicitly suggests that images I submit to Shutterstock are of "lower quality", "don't tell a story", not "authentic" enough and so on. I shoot with Nikon D3X and painstakingly process all my images to the highest quality standards. I work from raw and produce 70 MB tiffs. And, while I do have some isolated objects and other simple images in my portfolio, many of my images do tell a story and look natural and authentic. I am sure many other professional photographers who submit their best work to Shutterstock must feel the same way.
Scott, you implicitly suggest that "RM" work and "assignment" work is for some reason superior to what is selling currently on micro agencies. It was true 5-7 years ago; but now your content is completely different. You are already selling former RM and assignment work and equivalents of. I am puzzled why you would consider creating this collection now - why take a step backwards?? I really don't understand your statements about "higher quality" - but I do agree with your implications that people don't quite understand what this collection is about - I don't. Why some photographers are "more equal than others"? National Geographic content is superb, but so is content from some of your better contributors. Shutterstock should know better than anyone that it was new technology that brought images prices down, not "inferiority" of the micro content. Taking a bunch of images that haven't been sold on micros before and calling them "superior" will not fool anyone, including your buyers, but it is creating negative feelings among your contributors.
To be honest Elena, I think you're slightly missing the point of 'Offset'.
We're talking art Darling and who can possibly put a price on true and unique art?
With offset SS are just trying to get themselves a share of the lucrative 'art' market. That's why they have to use the latest poncy words like 'curated' to describe their suddenly valuable new 'collection'. It might be meaningless nonsense to you and me and to most others __ but there is a market for it and high profits to be made.
-
Well, I may not be producing "art", but I do think there has to be something in between 38 cents and $500.
-
... Why some photographers are "more equal than others"? National Geographic content is superb, but so is content from some of your better contributors. ...
Elena with all due respect and with no intentions to step on your toes but I think you need to grow a thicker skin.
It's "just" Scott saying something about some agency and you appear to be quite offended by it.
You know that your content is good because you have quite some experience under your belt now and your income speaks for yourself!
At the start, I was all over the idea of "Offset" but the more we get to know about it, I can see that Offset is not going to be a good match for me. As it has been pointed out and something which is very obvious is that Offset will target a different audience.
This does not necessarily mean that the content will be generally of superior quality it's a matter of how the potential customers are confronted with "different" content.
If Shutterstock let all contributors into Offset - well then it won't be any different than SS in the first place and there wouldn't be a need for Offset.
I don't have a problem that "better" or "superior" content will be available at Offset (beauty still lies in the eye of the beholder...!) although I believe that I create the best and most beautiful pictures ever made. There will always be people who beg to differ and some of those people have the means to pop out an agency and have the "freedom" to pick whatever content they see fit.
I mean where is the limit? If I'm supposed to be allowed to submit to Offset, then what? Then I'm entitled to submitting to Getty directly or Corbis? All these agencies have their vision and strategy to achieve their specific goal. That has usually never anything to do with our content.
One word: politics.
I hope I didn't end up on your sh!t list because of what I wrote but I think we're all a bit strung out in the microstock business (especially the ones making a living from it). But it is what it is. All we can do is submit to agencies that actually want and sell our stuff. That's good enough for me.
:)
-
... Why some photographers are "more equal than others"? National Geographic content is superb, but so is content from some of your better contributors. ...
Elena with all due respect and with no intentions to step on your toes but I think you need to grow a thicker skin.
It's "just" Scott saying something about some agency and you appear to be quite offended by it.
You know that your content is good because you have quite some experience under your belt now and your income speaks for yourself!
Click_Click - Actually, I am not offended at all, and trust me my skin is thicker that rhino's after all this years submitting content and dealing with too many agencies:)
<Edit>: removed my comments about "lying" since they could be misinterpreted. I was talking about this kind of marketing in general philosophical point of view, not anything or anyone in particular.
-
Well, I may not be producing "art", but I do think there has to be something in between 38 cents and $500.
What a ridiculous statement. You are comparing the royalty paid on a minimum of a one-month subscription on SS with the potential total selling price of an image to the customer on Offset (if, of course, it ever sells) and also not taking into account the volume of each. They are not the same thing, not even close, and it is absurd to pretend that they are.
You can say what you like about Alamy, etc and the supposed 'benefits' of higher prices but the truth is that Alamy generates considerably less than one-tenth the revenue-per-image than SS does.
-
Forgive me if this will sound a bit negative. I do appreciate Scott posting info and clarifications here, however, the description of "Offset" images implicitly suggests that images I submit to Shutterstock are of "lower quality", "don't tell a story", not "authentic" enough and so on. I shoot with Nikon D3X and painstakingly process all my images to the highest quality standards. I work from raw and produce 70 MB tiffs. And, while I do have some isolated objects and other simple images in my portfolio, many of my images do tell a story and look natural and authentic. I am sure many other professional photographers who submit their best work to Shutterstock must feel the same way.
Scott, you implicitly suggest that "RM" work and "assignment" work is for some reason superior to what is selling currently on micro agencies. It was true 5-7 years ago; but now your content is completely different. You are already selling former RM and assignment work and equivalents of. I am puzzled why you would consider creating this collection now - why take a step backwards?? I really don't understand your statements about "higher quality" - but I do agree with your implications that people don't quite understand what this collection is about - I don't. Why some photographers are "more equal than others"? National Geographic content is superb, but so is content from some of your better contributors. Shutterstock should know better than anyone that it was new technology that brought images prices down, not "inferiority" of the micro content. Taking a bunch of images that haven't been sold on micros before and calling them "superior" will not fool anyone, including your buyers, but it is creating negative feelings among your contributors.
To be honest Elena, I think you're slightly missing the point of 'Offset'.
We're talking art Darling and who can possibly put a price on true and unique art?
With offset SS are just trying to get themselves a share of the lucrative 'art' market. That's why they have to use the latest poncy words like 'curated' to describe their suddenly valuable new 'collection'. It might be meaningless nonsense to you and me and to most others __ but there is a market for it and high profits to be made.
I agree of course. It's just the whole thing doesn't feel (smell?) right...:) (see my post above about lying:)) People don't like being tricked, eventually they catch up with that. Common sense will prevail, right?... right?... :-)
-
Click_Click - Actually, I am not offended at all, and trust me my skin is thicker that rhino's after all this years submitting content and dealing with too many agencies:) What makes me sad though is when things don't make plain common sense. I understand the marketing campaign here, but in essence it is kinda... umm... lying:) I am a firm believer that nothing good comes out of lying in the end. Saying that the content is "extra special" when similar content can be found at much lower price point... well I guess it may work on some people, but that also makes me sad - people should be able to make judgments for themselves without other people telling them what's good and what's not. (Yes I know most people don't:))
I understand exactly where you are coming from. In 2003 when I started this microstock "thing" I was looking at images from Getty and thought: "Why do I sell my stuff at 25 cents a pop when even lousier content is sold for thousands at Getty?"
That's why I said that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. While I thought that some Getty content is flat out cr@p, it didn't stop them licensing this cr@p for thousands of $$$. So what do I do about it?
I had no reputation, no experience and a point and shoot camera to start off with. Slowly but steady I managed to get into "better" agencies over time and I do get a better return.
And talking about lying... Look at what iStock did over years and years. They lied and lied and deceived and back-stabbed anything and anyone that wasn't circulating on the upper management level. Yet, they are a multi-million dollar operation. Who cares if they lie? Sure in the long run it may very well be a stupid business practice but to be honest, I think I haven't met one honest salesperson in my life.
Try to buy a car - they lie.
Try to by a flat screen TV - the sales people tell you stories about what this thing can do and they don't even have a clue themselves what they are talking about.
I'm not implying that Scott is lying!
I think that words can always be misunderstood or misinterpreted although no harm was intended.
SS decided to show their faces on this forum and I take this as privilege for us contributors.
SS is a big company and this practice is not too common.
I think when the time is right you might very well get an invitation from them. So time will tell how this all pans out.
As long as Jon has the "pants" on, I'm fairly confident that we (SS contributors) won't get screwed.
Without SS I wouldn't be where I am today, for me, it counts for something.
-
SS decided to show their faces on this forum and I take this as privilege for us contributors.
SS is a big company and this practice is not too common.
I think when the time is right you might very well get an invitation from them. So time will tell how this all pans out.
As long as Jon has the "pants" on, I'm fairly confident that we (SS contributors) won't get screwed.
Without SS I wouldn't be where I am today, for me, it counts for something.
I truly appreciate all of the above as well - Shutterstock has been and is a great agency for me, and I admired (and still do) their openness and inclusiveness. That's why this "closed" and "by invitation only" Offset deal sounds alarming to me - it's like SS has people now with traditional stock industry experience who still don't understand how come micro can sell for so low - "these images must be crap, so we need to introduce something better with better quality and "regular" pricing".
-
SS decided to show their faces on this forum and I take this as privilege for us contributors.
SS is a big company and this practice is not too common.
I think when the time is right you might very well get an invitation from them. So time will tell how this all pans out.
As long as Jon has the "pants" on, I'm fairly confident that we (SS contributors) won't get screwed.
Without SS I wouldn't be where I am today, for me, it counts for something.
I truly appreciate all of the above as well - Shutterstock has been and is a great agency for me, and I admired (and still do) their openness and inclusiveness. That's why this "closed" and "by invitation only" Offset deal sounds alarming to me - it's like SS has people now with traditional stock industry experience who still don't understand how come micro can sell for so low - "these images must be crap, so we need to introduce something better with better quality and "regular" pricing".
"Closed" and "invitation" isnt microstock. offset isnt microstock. Why cant a successful microstock company create another option for some contributors to get higher returns for their content? I believe they fully understand why micro can sell for so low because their cheaper pricing brought all the buyers to their site.
I like to believe that by starting offset, its SS way of admitting its guilt for playing a major role (imo) in the current cheap prices for great content. It was bound to happen anyway if SS didn't do it. There is a flaw to this crowd sourced model which itself is another topic all together but sorry to digress. Contributors with decent portfolios must have gotten a lot of downloads early on amongst a sea full of mediocre images. As word spreads out that you get decent returns on images, more and more contributors joins which just increases the overall quality of SS portfolio. Better quality brings more buyers which leads to more downloads. Of course Getty helped SS to where it is today just by seeing where the breaking point of their greed was.
Even tho it is by invitation and closed now, i believe they will let a lot of contributors in due time. They owe at least that much to the contributors. Offset is their "vetta" because they know the content that they have been getting is of superior quality and worth more than subscription prices.
I would like to think that the buyer that pays $50 for my image appreciates it more than the 75 others that can buy it for a lot less. I feel that value gets lost in these subscription mentality of the buyers.
-
Think about this from a buyer's perspective. Offset is a new BRAND.
Would you pay more for a Ferrari if you knew it was made in the exact same manner as a low end high volume production car? I don't know anyone who would.
There's a reason why the smarter photographers in micro created a label specifically for their micro stock work. Banding.
-
Yes it's all about branding. Every marketing guru wants to create a hierarchy of products at different price points. If you have a new company with a good product, and you add a marketing guy, he'll tell you how you need to have "good", "better" and "best" versions. If the product doesn't naturally mesh with that concept, he'll create those levels artificially; that's why we have "Windows Home Premium".
While Offset may still be pie in the sky, BigStock is depressingly real. Among contributors, there have to be winners and losers. Many of us will not see the Promised Land but will instead be used to fill the shelves at the BigStock Outlet Mall.
-
Would you pay more for a Ferrari if you knew it was made in the exact same manner as a low end high volume production car?
I would never pay for a Ferrari. Period. Paying that much for a car is insane:) And... in many ways, it is actually made in a worse manner than low end high volume production car... ;)
-
Click_Click - Actually, I am not offended at all, and trust me my skin is thicker that rhino's after all this years submitting content and dealing with too many agencies:) What makes me sad though is when things don't make plain common sense. I understand the marketing campaign here, but in essence it is kinda... umm... lying:) I am a firm believer that nothing good comes out of lying in the end. Saying that the content is "extra special" when similar content can be found at much lower price point... well I guess it may work on some people, but that also makes me sad - people should be able to make judgments for themselves without other people telling them what's good and what's not. (Yes I know most people don't:))
I understand exactly where you are coming from. In 2003 when I started this microstock "thing" I was looking at images from Getty and thought: "Why do I sell my stuff at 25 cents a pop when even lousier content is sold for thousands at Getty?"
That's why I said that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. While I thought that some Getty content is flat out cr@p, it didn't stop them licensing this cr@p for thousands of $$$. So what do I do about it?
I had no reputation, no experience and a point and shoot camera to start off with. Slowly but steady I managed to get into "better" agencies over time and I do get a better return.
And talking about lying... Look at what iStock did over years and years. They lied and lied and deceived and back-stabbed anything and anyone that wasn't circulating on the upper management level. Yet, they are a multi-million dollar operation. Who cares if they lie? Sure in the long run it may very well be a stupid business practice but to be honest, I think I haven't met one honest salesperson in my life.
Try to buy a car - they lie.
Try to by a flat screen TV - the sales people tell you stories about what this thing can do and they don't even have a clue themselves what they are talking about.
I'm not implying that Scott is lying!
I think that words can always be misunderstood or misinterpreted although no harm was intended.
SS decided to show their faces on this forum and I take this as privilege for us contributors.
SS is a big company and this practice is not too common.
I think when the time is right you might very well get an invitation from them. So time will tell how this all pans out.
As long as Jon has the "pants" on, I'm fairly confident that we (SS contributors) won't get screwed.
Without SS I wouldn't be where I am today, for me, it counts for something.
What a great and honest post click_click....worth more than my little "heart".
Elena: don`t be discouraged. Offset opens a path to give more value to your work, no matter if you are invited in this very moment. I do not think you should feel downgraded as of by now. Everybody knows you are at the high end level and I am sure it will be valued soon...
-
I thought art was already in the term stock art?
-
at least we can be more confident that shutterstock will not be taken over by Getty now.
-
Well, I may not be producing "art", but I do think there has to be something in between 38 cents and $500.
What a ridiculous statement. You are comparing the royalty paid on a minimum of a one-month subscription on SS with the potential total selling price of an image to the customer on Offset (if, of course, it ever sells) and also not taking into account the volume of each. They are not the same thing, not even close, and it is absurd to pretend that they are.
You can say what you like about Alamy, etc and the supposed 'benefits' of higher prices but the truth is that Alamy generates considerably less than one-tenth the revenue-per-image than SS does.
Not sure what this is all about. Didn't you just say that there is money to be made by charging more? And why bring Alamy into it?
And haven't I said repeatedly that many images are better on micro sites, but not all?
Maybe you need to sleep more.
-
Thanks for all these informations about Offset, I'm really happy to see coming a new quality photo site, more open than the Stocksy sect.
Are you sure it will be more open? At the moment it is by invitation only.
they seem somewhat similarly positioned....interesting to see where this goes and where the 'curated' collections push the market
-
I hope it goes without saying that in the "big picture" (no pun intended) we're more committed to our "core" contributors than ever before and we're also focused on creating additional opportunities for you. For the time being, this new brand has a specific point-of-view and participation is by invite only. In the future, we expect that every contributor will have the opportunity to be considered for inclusion in the Offset collection as we continue to maintain the outstanding quality that we have in our core collection.
.....
Best Regards,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Would it be possible in the future to combine Shutterstock review process with Offset. For a chosen group of contributors reviewers would be able to pick some of the images submitted to Shutterstock and move them over to Offset. For years I have always submitted my fresh content to Shutterstock in the first place, so that would also allow me to supply exclusive content.
Just out of curiosity ... how many of the lucky few that currently contribute to Offset were Shutterstock contributors ? It looks like you are looking mainly for people outside of micro.
-
Would you pay more for a Ferrari if you knew it was made in the exact same manner as a low end high volume production car?
I would never pay for a Ferrari. Period. Paying that much for a car is insane:) And... in many ways, it is actually made in a worse manner than low end high volume production car... ;)
An excellent analogy, a Ferrari isn't a car. a Ferrari is a piece of art that also happends to be car. Someone who buys a ferrari uses his emotions and heart, not his brain.
-
Thanks for all these informations about Offset, I'm really happy to see coming a new quality photo site, more open than the Stocksy sect.
Are you sure it will be more open? At the moment it is by invitation only.
they seem somewhat similarly positioned....interesting to see where this goes and where the 'curated' collections push the market
Don't hold your breath. Absolutely nowhere is my guess. SS themselves have just proved that the major money is made from marketing images cheaply and efficiently to the masses. Unfortunately you also need the major money to do the marketing.