Microstock Group - A meeting place for microstock photographers

I turned mine on and so did a lot of others from that thread. I figure why punish SXP when other sites impose subscriptions on us.

I opt out subscription  at same time as most of guys here, at any moment i didnt want to change my decision, funny part is that my earnings are double for last 3 month, despite big slow down in first month opt out.

Techno,

I explained my reasoning for opting back in at the time.  I never had a problem with subscriptions per se.  The concern I, and many had, was the potential commission percentage we were receiving at Shutterstock.  This concern was based on Yuri's post, which itself was based on someone he knows in the industry. 

Once I got past that concern, I saw no reason to eliminate sub sales.  Sub sales can be very profitable, especially at a site like Shutterstock which pays well as you move up in rank.  They are also profitable at Dreamstime, where sub sales push images up in Level and raise subsequent credit sales by quite a bit.

So are things going well?  Overall, I think so.  I'm doing well these days, and others are expressing that their earnings continue to grow.  Obviously Fotolia coming out with a very low subscription cost puts us all at risk, as it de-values the entire industry.  So in the short term, a lot of us are concerned.  But the majority of the agencies seem to respect their contributors, and strive to raise prices across the board for all involved.

You bring up valid points Epixx. 

I'm not ready to believe there is a subscription price war going on yet, particularly when all agencies have been raising credit prices rather noticeably.  Yes it is true more agencies are adopting subscription plans.  But really, the only major player not to add one yet is Bigstock, and honestly I don't see their actions causing shock waves across the industry.  Everyone of note who was going to add subs, has already added subs.  What's done is done.

Fotolia is the first to come out and try to under-cut the subscription prices by a large margin.  Until I see someone counter with their own cut, I don't see any war.  I just see Fotolia making a one time move for customers.

I would not be shocked to see this backfire for Fotolia.  There is clearly a stigma when someone tries to sell something worth a lot for a very cheap price.  The first reaction from a savvy customer is not, "Oh boy what a deal."  Rather the first reaction is more likely, "What's the catch?"

In this case, the very cheap price may reflect negatively on customers' perceptions of the product.  After all, "They wouldn't be selling it for so cheap if it was any good."  Fotolia may have outsmarted themselves this time, and too bad for them if it turns out that way.

Look at it from another perspective.  iStock raised prices considerably, yet contributors continue to get sales and iStock remains the industry leader.  Did customers run for the exits?  Perhaps some did.  But they must have been replaced by other customers who believed the iStock product "must be better, because they are charging more for it than those other guys."  Perception is very important to customers.  A deal which looks too good to be true probably is. 

I think Yaymicro is brilliant in their pricing.  They are charging close to iStock credit prices, and their subs plan is fairly expensive and limited to medium size images or smaller.  It creates a perception of quality.  Coupled with their slick design and interface, Yaymicro stands to gain.  They are the only small site right now which gives me hope, because they seem to be making all of the right decisions.  Including pricing.

A concern we probably share is that while subscription commissions have risen noticeably the last 4 years, they have not risen nearly as fast as credit commissions. So our growth is muted because subs are growing as a percentage of sales everywhere. 

Dan,
I consider the introduction of subs from most agencies (IS possibly excluded) as a price war in itself. If it wasn't, they would charge more, at least in theory.

It would be interesting to know which of those agencies actually make a profit?

Rinder, I see a lot of your posts saying what everyone is doing wrong. I'm more interested in hearing your solution.

I have gone from 25 cents to 38 cents per download with SS and that is still the only significant subscription site.  Pay per download sites have risen their prices beyond my expectations.  This is the opposite of what the doom and gloom people have been saying is happening.

Fotolia might of screwed us with subscriptions but they are giving the buyers a really bad deal as well.  They can only download up to 'L' size.  123rf charge the buyers less and they can download full size.  They also give us a much higher commission.  Perhaps that is why they have a green arrow in the poll results this month?  Fotolia wont be able to screw us and the buyers.  They will have to sort this out or see their customers and suppliers go elsewhere.