Author Topic: What Does the Recent IS Subscription Announcement Mean for SS? (Read 8730 times)

GeoPappas · « **on:** April 04, 2008, 16:15 »

As many of you are aware, IS has announced that they will be offering subs. But there are the following changes to the standard subs package:

- Buyers will be purchasing an allotment of credits per day and month (and not downloads).

- Larger size images will cost more credits.

- They are offering an opt-out per portfolio OR per image.

- Submitters can possibly receive a larger royalty (depending on the number of credits allocated per day, and the number of images purchased). For example, if a buyer is allocated 10 credits per day and only buys 1 image, then the owner of that image will receive the royalties for all 10 credits.

SS has also made an announcement last month that they will be raising royalties in May.

The IS announcement will obviously affect SS (and all other agencies that offer subs packages). The question is how will this affect them and how will they react?

For example, will you guys (and gals) still keep your images on SS, since having images on SS might cannibalize IS subs sales (which will probably have higher royalties)?

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** April 04, 2008, 16:30 »

Deleted

CofkoCof · « **Reply #2 on:** April 04, 2008, 16:36 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on April 04, 2008, 16:15

For example, will you guys (and gals) still keep your images on SS, since having images on SS might cannibalize IS subs sales (which will probably have higher royalties)?

Its like that already, nothing will change there.

RT · « **Reply #3 on:** April 04, 2008, 16:37 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on April 04, 2008, 16:15

For example, will you guys (and gals) still keep your images on SS, since having images on SS might cannibalize IS subs sales (which will probably have higher royalties)?

Can't see your point here, if you have your images on SS and iS then you're covering all bases, I can't see any buyers buying subs at both places.

I have no doubt that SS will suffer if the iS subscription is as successful as everyone thinks, and some of SS's customers will no doubt transfer over to iS, so by having my images in both places it's a win win situation. Of course that is if iS keep it the way they are initially saying, but as we all know they are famous for 'drop of the hat' changes.

One thing I can see happening (myself included) is a lot of contributors pulling out of places like Crestock and Dreamstime who pay a pittance of a subscription fee without the quantity of sales to justify it and without a subscription opt out.

Because SS are sub only I, and I know many others downsize our images when uploading there, what really annoys me is seeing 25c and 30c commission on Crestock and Dreamstime for an XL sale, kudos to iStock for not doing that.

fotografer · « **Reply #4 on:** April 04, 2008, 16:38 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on April 04, 2008, 16:15

For example, will you guys (and gals) still keep your images on SS, since having images on SS might cannibalize IS subs sales (which will probably have higher royalties)?

Definitely, I don't think that it will affect SS too much as I think that most of their buyers will stay with them and IS will get their own buyers so we'll get the best of both worlds

GeoPappas · « **Reply #5 on:** April 04, 2008, 16:55 »

Maybe I didn't get my point across properly. I apologize. Let me try again:

IS has guaranteed a minimum payout of 0.96*(your current royalty rate) per credit for subs. This means that a non-exclusive submitter will receive the following (minimum) royalties for an image:

XSmall - 0.19
Small - 0.58
Medium - 0.96
Large - 1.92
XLarge - 2.88
XXLarge - 3.84

For an exclusive, the royalties will be even higher.

Meanwhile, SS is currently paying only 0.30/image no matter what the size.

Since royalties are much higher (per image) at IS, it seams to me that submitters might start pulling their images from SS.

Granted, there are some people that downsize their images for SS, but I think that a majority of submitters don't take the extra time to do that.

CofkoCof · « **Reply #6 on:** April 04, 2008, 17:01 »

You are either exclusive with IS or you submit to many sites. In the first case you don't care about SS in the second one you submit there cos any sale is better than no sale (and sales at SS are probably the best). Don't think there are many users that find your image at IS then go download it at SS.

hatman12 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 04, 2008, 18:45 »

I don't think this will affect SS much, and I don't think it will 'force their hand'.

For non-exclusives the new subscription scheme equates to 19c per credit spent. That compares with 30c per download at SS. Even if one assumes that all downloads at IS average out at 2 credits, that's 38c per download compared to pre-raise SS.

Not something that SS is going to sweat about.

The difference is that the numbers are potentially double at IS for exclusives, plus the fact that every sale gets the 'lottery ticket'.

rinderart · « **Reply #8 on:** April 04, 2008, 19:17 »

I dont see it as meaning to much.

DanP68 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 04, 2008, 20:50 »

It's still 1 month before we see the SS plan. Their preview said we would be "very pleased." We have no idea if they are adding more tiers, increasing percentages by a large margin across the board, or making larger sizes a higher credit cost. Let's wait and see.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #10 on:** April 05, 2008, 03:05 »

I believe if the subscription plan of IS really will be successful and draw a lot of new customers, we will gonna see a lot more people going exclusive with IS and SS might loose some very good photographers and images. SS has to considerably change something to keep photographers happy at the same time it could be that they see customers going over to IS.
I am certain other stock agencies will take note of what happens at IS.
For me my earnings however have to double at IS that it would make financial sense to go exclusive.
Certainly this sounds like the best subscription offer for the photographer I have heard of, ironically from the agency which pays out the lowest royalty

travelstock · « **Reply #11 on:** April 05, 2008, 03:35 »

The advantage IS currently has over other stock sites is the extent of exclusive material - while some comment has been made about the .19 royalties, in practice I'm finding that as a non-exclusive I'm now earning on average over $1 per download.

I went Silver last week, and so far the indications are that this has given a boost to downloads, but after some sustained uploading at SS, that site is still ahead.

I put uploads at DT on hold a couple of months ago to give me the option of exclusivity at IS, but will have to see how the next few months go. The shame about that is that the DL's at DT haven't stopped, if anything they've continued to increase.

Interesting few months ahead in any case!

rene · « **Reply #12 on:** April 05, 2008, 04:31 »

Quote from: RT on April 04, 2008, 16:37

One thing I can see happening (myself included) is a lot of contributors pulling out of places like Crestock and Dreamstime who pay a pittance of a subscription fee without the quantity of sales to justify it and without a subscription opt out.

Because SS are sub only I, and I know many others downsize our images when uploading there, what really annoys me is seeing 25c and 30c commission on Crestock and Dreamstime for an XL sale, kudos to iStock for not doing that.

Exactly my opinion

lisafx · « **Reply #13 on:** April 05, 2008, 09:30 »

This certainly does put some pressure on SS to come up with something very beneficial to contributors when they announce their new royalties in May...

shutterdrop · « **Reply #14 on:** April 08, 2008, 11:22 »

SS will have increase their payout rate over time or downloads to attract quality images.

The biggest and best respond by SS is to offer individual downloads in addition to subs. This would a big kick in earns for submitters and small agencies and companies who do not need hundreds of images.

jsnover · « **Reply #15 on:** April 08, 2008, 11:31 »

But SS used to offer per image sales and ended up dropping them because it just never took off.

When StockXpert introduced subscriptions, it was suggested that they just offer them for the smaller sizes - a variation on the muti-tier scheme of subscription "credits" that iStock is planning.

I think that if SS charged more units/credits for larger sizes and vectors, they'd do better than straight per image pricing.

Pixart · « **Reply #16 on:** April 08, 2008, 11:40 »

But they never offered them through the Shutterstock website, did they? Wasn't it always through another URL (that didn't get any traffic or advertising!). They need to offer it on their own website to keep buyers from drifting away in between subscriptions/peak seasons.

jsnover · « **Reply #17 on:** April 08, 2008, 17:38 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 08, 2008, 11:40

But they never offered them through the Shutterstock website, did they?

Correct. I think they operated one of them at the very beginning, but it was a separate site.

On site per image sales wouldn't solve the problem I have with the compensation, however, as huge sizes or a vector could still walk out the door for a 30 cent (or 40 cent) commission. I like the idea of being able to have all your content on a site, but the subscriptions not getting everything at one low price.

For one of my images that sells well everywhere and is a level 3 image at DT, of the last 6 sales, 5 have been subscription at 21, 25 or 30 cents each. Just bugs me.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #18 on:** April 08, 2008, 21:44 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 08, 2008, 11:40

But they never offered them through the Shutterstock website, did they? Wasn't it always through another URL (that didn't get any traffic or advertising!). They need to offer it on their own website to keep buyers from drifting away in between subscriptions/peak seasons.

On the topic announcing the closure of their per-photo sale site I told them they should just merge it with Shutterstock and it would be a hell of a lot more successful. But they shrugged it off. Lost potential right there. $:-\$

DanP68 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 08, 2008, 23:45 »

Quote from: jsnover on April 08, 2008, 17:38

For one of my images that sells well everywhere and is a level 3 image at DT, of the last 6 sales, 5 have been subscription at 21, 25 or 30 cents each. Just bugs me.

Jo Ann,

How are you doing in terms of Revenue per Download? I get annoyed with higher level, large images selling for subscription too. But honestly, when I add up the numbers at the end of the month, the revenue per download is a pretty respectable 81c to 89c every month.

Dan

jsnover · « **Reply #20 on:** April 09, 2008, 01:11 »

Earlier this year (Feb) it dropped to a very low 77cents, but last month it was back up to 94 cents.

My problems at DT started before the subscription stuff started when sales just dropped. It had been a very consistent number 3 in the earnings list for me, but not any more. Subscriptions just made things worse. I stopped uploading so I could clear the 6 month wait in case I decided to jump ship. I haven't, but DT is now out of my top producers list.

IOW, about $1 per download would be fine if the volume stayed up.

The problem I have with the pricing at DT is that the Levels system is supposed to reward the higher selling images with higher prices. With flat subscription commissions, they just act to undo the effect - what the Levels giveth, the subscription taketh away...

DanP68 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 09, 2008, 01:24 »

Agreed, but you have to admit 94c per DL is pretty good. The past 2 months I have been around $1.00 per DL at iStock post price increase, which is the only high producing site currently outperforming DT in revenue per DL.

Are you uploading to DT these days again, or are you still keeping your options open?

As much as IS exclusivity tempts me from time to time, I cannot see giving up earnings from SS and FT, let alone DT. Actually SS has been crushing IS earnings for my port the last 3 months, so for me there is no choice to be made as of yet.

Kudos to IS however for the price raise. I just got a $28-$29 EL sale at IS yesterday. That sure feels nice!

jsnover · « **Reply #22 on:** April 09, 2008, 02:03 »

Quote from: DanP68 on April 09, 2008, 01:24

Agreed, but you have to admit 94c per DL is pretty good. The past 2 months I have been around $1.00 per DL at iStock post price increase, which is the only high producing site currently outperforming DT in revenue per DL.

StockXpert, iStock and typically Fotolia are over $1 per download (Fotolia has been good for EL sales which helps boost the numbers). 94 cents isn't bad, but being 4th, 5th or 6th in the earnings list is.

The bottom line is monthly totals for the portfolio - over time. If DT could have gone from #3 to #2 in the earnings tally (while income was growing overall), I'd probably not have started getting so ticked about the specifics of their pricing schemes.

No, I am not uploading to DT at the moment.

3pod · « **Reply #23 on:** April 09, 2008, 04:08 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on April 04, 2008, 16:15

For example, will you guys (and gals) still keep your images on SS, since having images on SS might cannibalize IS subs sales (which will probably have higher royalties)?

I submit to some midstock sites. You could say that I'm killing my sales there by selling on IS. It's not like that. Each site has it's own customers and also there is a high probablility SS will respond to this with sine other plan.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What Does the Recent IS Subscription Announcement Mean for SS? (Read 8730 times)

GeoPappas

sharpshot

CofkoCof

RT

fotografer

GeoPappas

CofkoCof

hatman12

rinderart

DanP68

Freezingpictures

travelstock

rene

lisafx

shutterdrop

jsnover

Pixart

jsnover

Kngkyle

DanP68

jsnover

DanP68

jsnover

3pod

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors