MicrostockGroup

I've just read this post. I think it's impossible.

I entered a post on StockXpert's own forum asking for admin clarification on this. It can't be correct. If they were charging the buyers more credits but paying comissions as a flat 30 cents that would be completely unreasonable.

No other subscription site does this - do they? I've never been a buyer, so I'd never know if something like this was happening...

Steve-oh answered on the StockXpert forums - subscribers pay the same price for any size image. The buyer must have been mistaken in saying he paid 5x more under his subscription plan.

I guess this is why we might see more and more traditional buyers moving to the subscription model:

With new price structure:
For the same price of 20 XL images, buyers can now buy a $200 subscription and get 750 any size images.

Even worse, for the price of 14 XXL images, buyers can now buy a $200 subscription and get access to 750 XXL images

I know it's a bit extreme but that's just to illustrate the obvious problem.
I think the gap is way to tempting and something should be done, like either restrict sub to smaller sizes up to L, or charge more sub credits for  larger sizes.
 

I downsize to min size at DT, SS ,123 and opt out at StockXpert. It's still better to shoot myself in the foot than in the head.

Another post in the StockXpert forum from the user 776500.

http://www.stockxpert.com/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=11342&p=3

He states that he has bought a subscription which gives him what he calls 25 "subscription credits" per day. If he downloads XS, he uses 1 "credit". If he downloads XL he uses 5 "credits".  If he doesn't use them he assumes they vanish.

So, although he pays the same for the whole subscription package no matter what size he downloads, he does pay more (as a portion of his total subscription payment) for individual images if he downloads XL.

So, if he takes all his downloads as XL, which he probably does, he can have 150 a month, or maybe he'll take 100 if he doesn't work at the weekend.

If he takes 150, StockXpert pay 150 X 30 cents = $45 = 22.5% commission for us.
If he takes 100, StockXpert pay 100 X 30 cents = $30 = 15% commission for us.
If he only needs say 30 for a project, it's still cheaper to buy a subscription, and StockXpert pay out even less...

Is that correct Steve-oh?

That's the way I always assumed it worked. I guess I'm in the minority. Man, I can see how everyone's gonna jump all over this!

The only thing that bothers me about StockXpert's subscription implementation is that they haven't been as up front about things as they could/should be. Here's how I see things:

What we are told: Subscribers can download up to 25 images per day. Sellers are paid a 30c commission for each subscription sale. On the surface this seems to split things something like this: 530 images downloaded per month per subscription (25 images/day * 21.25 days/month), $160 paid in commissions, $40 gross profit for StockXpert.

What really happens: Subscribers can only download 25 images/day if they select XS size, which (almost) nobody does. Given the current credit system, subscribers download their maximum per day, but in combinations of image sizes so that the credit total is 25 (e.g. 1*XXL + 1*XL, 2*XL + 1*L, ...).  My recent sales indicate that most subscriber sales are L size, and that XL, M and S sales are about equal in volume. This could mean that a typical subscriber downloads 5 images per day (1*XL + 2*L + 1*M + 1*S), and that StockXpert sells 106 images per month per subscriber, paying $32 in commissions while earning $168 in profit. Sure, it's a little more lop-sided than it first appears, but they're taking the business risk, not us.

I wonder how many buyers renew their subscriptions at StockXpert once they discover they can download more files for the same price elsewhere?

I always assumed it worked the same way as Shutterstock's - any size can be downloaded up to 750 per month, unless you take their uprezzed version, for which they charge two "credits". We still get one credit, but they after all have done the work, if you can call it that, of uprezzing on their server.

Is that still the way SS works?

...But of course you know that never happens, nobody uses their quota (sub downloads are almost dead on weekend).  So I imagine the gross profit for StockXpert being closer to $150 for a $200 month sub package.

EDIT:
Never mind I just saw you excluded week-end   But I still think that most subscribers won't even get close to 530 images downloads.

Okay, maybe I'm wrong. If I am, StockXpert's cut is much smaller than I think it is, and they're not making much money from subscribers.

Very doubtful.  They have pretty much the same submission model as SS, which could be making about a 80% cut from what I read on this forum...

Let's not be naive ;-)  If most of micros are so desperate to do the submission model plunge, it's because they know there is big money to be done there!

They would certainly not do it for a 20% cut, LOL.

Edit - saw your reply on the StockXpert forum Steve.  Thanks for clarifying.