MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS IPO - It's Done  (Read 24339 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lagereek

« Reply #150 on: May 24, 2012, 07:21 »
0
How many serious microstockers are in a position to offer themselves up for artist exclusivity these days? It was different in 2005, but today I have stuff all over the place, some of it with two-year lock-in deals. DT alone ties you up for six months, doesn't it?

Yeah, six moths at DT. Come to think of it youre right. Almost a physical impossibility to get all the stuff together for any form of exclusivity. Funny, never thought about it from that angle.


wut

« Reply #151 on: May 24, 2012, 09:36 »
0
Which site has a 2 year deal? I don't contribute do many sites anyway and espeacially not to the shady ones. I have a file on DP though, but I didn't know they're such a scam (scum?) Site since yesterday when someone opened that thread

RacePhoto

« Reply #152 on: May 24, 2012, 11:49 »
0
How many serious microstockers are in a position to offer themselves up for artist exclusivity these days? It was different in 2005, but today I have stuff all over the place, some of it with two-year lock-in deals. DT alone ties you up for six months, doesn't it?

ME but that's because I've been reducing agencies, one by one and down to SS and IS (their step-children) and Alamy.

RF Photo exclusive would be fine with me. I have audio and video elsewhere and while it's not making me rich (or even buying lunch at Taco Bell) I like the places like Pond 5 that are selling it.

So yes, you are right, even someone limited, would have a problem becoming agency exclusive. Image exclusive, I'd find no problem. Alamy takes news editorial RM that Micro refuses. Heck, it's getting to the point where eight of my top ten sellers on SS were refused by IS. What's to lose?

Doesn't matter, all the agency conjecture and what's the future. We aren't included in the IPO because we aren't big inside traders. The dopes that bought Facebook are suckers and now they are bitter? Please give me a break. It was hyped and over valued, the people who wanted to get the exclusive early buy and screw the rest of us with their inside deals, got a little of their own. Now they want to sue Facebook? Stupid!

As long as SS keeps making money and selling my images, I don't care who owns it or what they do. If it means less sales or lower commissions, then I will care.

« Reply #153 on: May 24, 2012, 14:26 »
0
How many serious microstockers are in a position to offer themselves up for artist exclusivity these days? It was different in 2005, but today I have stuff all over the place, some of it with two-year lock-in deals. DT alone ties you up for six months, doesn't it?
There's some sites that I joined over 5 years ago that I've completely forgotten about.  I sometimes have an email and I go and look and see that I uploaded a few photos.  Going totally exclusive would be a nightmare and I really wouldn't want to do it, even if it was easy.  Sites should only ask for image exclusivity.  I don't want to feel like an employee again.  I just can't see SS making the mistake of asking for total exclusivity.  If they do, I know they're heading in the wrong direction and my confidence in them will evaporate.

« Reply #154 on: May 24, 2012, 16:57 »
0
Which site has a 2 year deal? I don't contribute do many sites anyway and espeacially not to the shady ones. I have a file on DP though, but I didn't know they're such a scam (scum?) Site since yesterday when someone opened that thread
It's not a micro, but it does handle RF work.
It's not only the difficulty of taking work down from sites we know we have subscribed to, there is also the problem of partner sites that agencies contribute to without our knowledge. I have a feeling some of the micros' terms about pulling work from partner sites are rather vague ... "make reasonable efforts" etc. etc. ... so it's pretty much impossible to know how long it would take to escape from everything.

« Reply #155 on: March 21, 2013, 11:57 »
0
I know full design studios that only have a subscription to SS and that is it. They would and could easily spend about 10 times more on stock images, but they don't need to, because they got most of their demand covered with their subscription. SS has lured the customers in on a simple "as is" kind of business model. Now it is time to make the real money. They are sitting on a gold mine. I predict that if SS opens the opportunity for exclusive content in a premium subscription package they just doubled their revenue in a year or two's time. And further more. I will bet a that this will happen. Anybody want to bet?

Best Y


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

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


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

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

Jon Oringer: There is a customer for every price point as long as the value proposition is there. The question is, which are the most important customers to target? And at what time?  We are concentrating on our current subscription model as well as footage at this time.'


Along comes Offset.

http://thenextweb.com/media/2013/03/20/shutterstock-announces-plans-to-launch-offset-a-new-high-end-marketplace-for-stock-photos/


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle