MicrostockGroup

Too bad... you can't 

StockXpert ist the only site which allows it AFAIK.

I personally think except for the SS model all other subscription models damaging micro stock and what it does is nothing but  just lowering  the prices.I don't think it creates new buyers(just my  assumption)but especially low selling sites trying to attract existing buyers with low prices but I don't think it will do any good for anyone in the future.
one again thanks StockXpert for at least making it optional.

I just stop uploading there. Barely no sale and poor commissions!

$0.30 is not in fact free.  I can't see any difference between selling them on SS and 123rf.  I am pleased I uploaded my portfolio there.  They add a nice extra bit to my earnings each month.

Concerning 123, they do not "suddenly switch" to subscription model: this model is here since a long time (at least since I joined one and half year ago  ).

I've a mixed opinion concerning subscription model: it seems indeed unfair, but at the end, the only question is: does it hurt or increase the contributor's earnings?

I don't have a clear answer, but if I consider DRM and now StockXpert, it seems to me that at least it doesn't hurt my earnings. At StockXpert, I still sell more $2.50 XL than $0.30 subscriptions downloads!

The interest for the microstock agencies with subscription  is essentially to keep the buyer "exclusive" with them: if you pay a monthly subscription, you will probably not have another subscription with another agency and you will not purchase credit based images elsewhere (or very seldom).

I understand that micro sites have to compete with SS and that a subscription model may be necessary for them. The only exception being IS: they do not have to compete because they have so many exclusive photographers!

I do not agree with the idea that subscription model is fair at SS and not at other agencies only because the earnings are higher at SS: this is not a good reason from the agency point of view.

I have another opinion: the whole subscription model is fair only for "snapshot" photographers which will be able to make a few bucks even with a small and/or so-so portfolio. For "serious" photographers, the subscription model is unfair, whatever the agency. But it is SS which force other smaller agencies to have a subscription model in order to compete: the real problem may be SS, but as it is a very good earner for most contributors, nobody cares.

For me, SS was the top earner until a few month ago. Now StockXpert and IS are the top earners and sales at SS are down (because I do not upload a lot).

What about the future? IS just anouncing its new pricing structure... a huge 30-50% increase. StockXpert give me many $2.50 XL downloads and a few $5.00 XXL. DRM has changed its picture level scheme and many of my photos go up one level and I now have regular $2-3 downloads. Even BS increase the commission. I've just started contributing to some macrostock and midstock agencies as well as some "prints & goodies" agencies...

... it seems quite clear to me that the trend goes for a higher earnings per downloads on all agencies and that macro and micro business become closer and closer

... and SS still keeps its subscription only model.

What about leaving SS ?

Or better: uploading downsampled photos on SS and keeping the best photos and the full resolution for other agencies?

Just wondering... for now.

I don't think subs prices are a fair deal, therefore I never joined SS.  If subs were available only at small sizes or old files, I would not have much problem with it, but to me, no matter how much high volumes may make a good income, I feel underpaid in subs, and I don't like that.  That's my problem with CanStockPhoto and CS, as in both sites subs prevail.  It's a bit of a problem in 123RF, where they represent a significant part.  It's not a problem for me in DT or StockXpert (though this month subs became a bit more significant). 

Quite frankly, microstock prices are already very low, and I don't think ending the cheap subscription options would reduce sales.  Yes, a subscriber would download less images, but would still buy those he really needs.  Some sellers would lose those cents of the images dld'ed just for numbers, others would however receive more for a "true" download.  Even losing money (as I lose by not being at SS), I prefer it this way.

Regards,
Adelaide

Glad that I've found this conversation, it was good to read about all pros and cons of subscription from people who already tried this model.
Previously I was thinking to join SS once I got new camera with better image quality, but now after reading this thread and thinking about this for a while I decide that would either keep position of Adelaide and wouldn't register at SS at all or like stokfoto said I'll downsize everything to lowest possible resolution(but I'm guessing that if everyone would start to use this feature sooner or later SS would raise lowest acceptable resolution).

I do well on 123 and credit sales are much higher than sub sales, 3-1 some months. Also and occasional EL.  They will be my #2 this month by a wide margin, so I have no complaints. Easy uploads and steady income.

Also, turning off the .36 sub sales wouldn't buy you much as the cheapest credit sale is .37

Hi Pixart, and thanks for reply! Of course I could loose something not joining it but from other side I'm not sure if I would be feel well if I know that my works(even not artworks as I plan to upload them to Photoshelter even if they wouldn't be sold there at all) are sold for few cents, maybe with time when I shoot more photographs I'll change my point of view.
Also right now I don't think I have good chances to get any images listed there, my camera rarely produce noise free images so I would spend a lot of time cleaning them up to match SS's criteria, as from what I've read they are hate noise... And since my camera is 4MP I'd not be able to get rid of noise by downsamping.

I didn't know SS got enhanced licenses
right now I had biggest porfolio on DT and it's only 13 images  so I could only dream about even one sale  60$ per month would be good result for me right now and let me save money for new camera.
I have also started sending smaller files to them - but I have to ask myself it this may also hurt me.  Maybe the files are not big enough to attract enhanced license sales?

I'm not sure as from what I've read they got own audience and photographers like them right now, so probably this business model is working and would be left here for some time. From other side I'm not even registered with them and didn't know about licenses so there is big chance I'm wrong here as well.
Time will show I guess