Have you noticed that Bigstock has changed its pricing page after introducing subscriptions? Moreover, they have even changed it on two occasions.
This is how the order page looks like since they've introduced subscriptions:



http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:K46e763arnwJ:www.bigstockphoto.com/subscribe/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
One can really get the impression that the Bigstock managers decided to imitate Depositphotos. Well, of course it's true that all the microstock websites look pretty much alike, but what we see here is the case of explicit imitation:



It's obvious that Depositphotos introduced this design of the order page earlier, and it can be clearly seen from this review I�ve found on the web: http://inspiredm.com/depositphotos-review/
These pages look so similar, don't they?

Furthermore, the Bigstock guys have even copied the Depositphotos� subscription plans (apparently they think that Depositphotos really managed to build an effective pricing strategy, which is appropriate for their target audience). So in this situation we can just wonder why Bigstock cannot pay the same royalties; really, why then do they pay us only 27 cents for a download by subscription?
We�ve once accused Depositphotos of predatory pricing, but I have to admit that in fact they pay more than Bigstock.
P.S.: While I was writing this post, Bigstock has changed the order page again. This is how it looks at the moment:

It's only today that I got aware of the changes that Shutterstock had implemented in the buyer's account. Now looks pretty much like Depositphotos'.



It's obvious that Depositphotos is now under great attention of the managers of large microstocks who started copying their innovations (for instance, a month ago, Fotolia announced a free subscription giving 25 images).



Also, one can come across Dreamstime's banners that visibly resemble Depositphotos' ones.



If top-ranked microstocks imitate newcomers, they should be concerned of losing a big share.

Not that it's bad in relation to the other microstocks, but I wouldn't like my earnings at Shuterstock to be impacted in a bad way.

Anyway, I really enjoy watching microstocks copying each other's ideas trying to hold their ground. Seems like somebody's got lack of creative thinking...
Sure, it's pretty easy to duplicate the features of new fast-growing microstocks since it can be always shown like a newcomer imitates a dinosaur. But we know for sure who owns the ideas. I'm not saying that DP invented a wheel when they started their growth in the industry. But we're not talking about using the scheme that is as old as the industry itself, but about simply copying fresh ideas.

If I were a manager of any large microstock who'd stolen features and ideas from the others, I'd pay bigger attention to the creative staff instead of switching it among agencies. There's no harm in looking anew just like Depositphotos does.