MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Subscriptions taking off - How are your April sales?  (Read 5460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 30, 2013, 09:15 »
0
Subscriptions at BigStock have clearly started to gain in popularity based on my numbers.

Although there is half a day left in April, I'm finding my sales numbers to be somewhat interesting and I thought I'd share what I'm seeing.

Subscriptions officially launched in February I believe, and I saw sub sales increasing through March which was by BME at BS.

My April numbers show a 96% increase in files sold over March (previous BME) - Revenue was up 52% over March (previous BME).

Obviously, I'm selling more for less on the new sub model.

Now, since I am on "the Bridge", my sub sales are at $.38 each. If I understand correctly, after six months, my sub sales will go down to $.27 each. If I adjust my April sales number to reflect a $.27 sub sale, my revenue increase for April would drop to 32% over March.





« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2013, 10:09 »
0
BS is my lowest earner.

« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2013, 10:36 »
0
My single image sales at $0.50, $1.00 and $2.00 have smoothly been converted into subscription sales. In April 20% of my sales came from single image sales, the rest were subscriptions. "Additional way to download images..." - my ass behind  :o

This will be even worse once the six months grace period for participants of the Bridge program are over...

« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2013, 11:46 »
0
same here - as expected, # images sold is up, but revenue is down - I've stopped bothering to upload here

WarrenPrice

« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2013, 11:56 »
0
My BS sales have been steadily increasing over the past year.  Started before the subs announcement.  Nothing historic but enough to notice. 
Seeing some sub sales.  RPD at about 50 cents.  A few $1 sales but the $2 and $3 sales have ceased.

I wasn't included in the "Bridge" so subs are at the lowest level.  Wait and See?

 :-\

tab62

« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2013, 11:58 »
0
BME for me but take with a grain of salt since I am a major rookie in this game...

« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2013, 12:11 »
0
WMY there for me.  Subs only 27% of DLs but RPD only $0.67 compared to $1.80 in January.  Had more subs last month but they kind of dried up this month.  So far it doesn't seem to have affected sales at SS so that is good.

« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2013, 12:24 »
0
My april sales are....inexistent  :D Had a 0.50 sale or something like that. I had brilliant sales on almost all sites this month, but Bigstock is still at the bottom.

« Reply #8 on: April 30, 2013, 12:34 »
0
Subscriptions at BigStock have clearly started to gain in popularity based on my numbers.

Although there is half a day left in April, I'm finding my sales numbers to be somewhat interesting and I thought I'd share what I'm seeing.

Subscriptions officially launched in February I believe, and I saw sub sales increasing through March which was by BME at BS.

My April numbers show a 96% increase in files sold over March (previous BME) - Revenue was up 52% over March (previous BME).

Obviously, I'm selling more for less on the new sub model.

Now, since I am on "the Bridge", my sub sales are at $.38 each. If I understand correctly, after six months, my sub sales will go down to $.27 each. If I adjust my April sales number to reflect a $.27 sub sale, my revenue increase for April would drop to 32% over March.

That is correct you will get .27 after July, which is 3 months @ your old rate.

It will not take much for SS to convert current & large corporate customers to BS buyers over SS. And it is even more attractive to small buyers.

@SS A one year subscription will net buyers 25 images a day, every day for $2,388.00 or slightly over $.26 cents per image.

@BS A one year subscription will net buyers 50 images a day, every day for $2,879.00 or $.16 cents per image.

Why submitters are not more outraged by this blatant undercutting is alarming. The giant * sound is getting louder as we speak.

« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2013, 13:26 »
0
Subscriptions at BigStock have clearly started to gain in popularity based on my numbers.

Although there is half a day left in April, I'm finding my sales numbers to be somewhat interesting and I thought I'd share what I'm seeing.

Subscriptions officially launched in February I believe, and I saw sub sales increasing through March which was by BME at BS.

My April numbers show a 96% increase in files sold over March (previous BME) - Revenue was up 52% over March (previous BME).

Obviously, I'm selling more for less on the new sub model.

Now, since I am on "the Bridge", my sub sales are at $.38 each. If I understand correctly, after six months, my sub sales will go down to $.27 each. If I adjust my April sales number to reflect a $.27 sub sale, my revenue increase for April would drop to 32% over March.

That is correct you will get .27 after July, which is 3 months @ your old rate.

It will not take much for SS to convert current & large corporate customers to BS buyers over SS. And it is even more attractive to small buyers.

@SS A one year subscription will net buyers 25 images a day, every day for $2,388.00 or slightly over $.26 cents per image.

@BS A one year subscription will net buyers 50 images a day, every day for $2,879.00 or $.16 cents per image.

Why submitters are not more outraged by this blatant undercutting is alarming. The giant * sound is getting louder as we speak.

Ok, I knew this thread would probably end up going this direction. So, let me ask a question...

Why does everyone think that Shutterstock will intentionally move it's customers to BigStock. It simply doesn't make sense. While I understand the outage over the subscriptions and lower royalties, some of the reasoning (conspiracy theories) for this outrage seems flawed to me.



« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2013, 14:21 »
0
I had a BME  due to a lot of ELs that I had one day this month.  If you take away the ELs it was an average to good month.   RPD is down.

« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2013, 14:27 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:13 by Audi 5000 »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2013, 14:49 »
0
Subscriptions at BigStock have clearly started to gain in popularity based on my numbers.

Although there is half a day left in April, I'm finding my sales numbers to be somewhat interesting and I thought I'd share what I'm seeing.

Subscriptions officially launched in February I believe, and I saw sub sales increasing through March which was by BME at BS.

My April numbers show a 96% increase in files sold over March (previous BME) - Revenue was up 52% over March (previous BME).

Obviously, I'm selling more for less on the new sub model.

Now, since I am on "the Bridge", my sub sales are at $.38 each. If I understand correctly, after six months, my sub sales will go down to $.27 each. If I adjust my April sales number to reflect a $.27 sub sale, my revenue increase for April would drop to 32% over March.

That is correct you will get .27 after July, which is 3 months @ your old rate.

It will not take much for SS to convert current & large corporate customers to BS buyers over SS. And it is even more attractive to small buyers.

@SS A one year subscription will net buyers 25 images a day, every day for $2,388.00 or slightly over $.26 cents per image.

@BS A one year subscription will net buyers 50 images a day, every day for $2,879.00 or $.16 cents per image.

Why submitters are not more outraged by this blatant undercutting is alarming. The giant * sound is getting louder as we speak.

Ok, I knew this thread would probably end up going this direction. So, let me ask a question...

Why does everyone think that Shutterstock will intentionally move it's customers to BigStock. It simply doesn't make sense. While I understand the outage over the subscriptions and lower royalties, some of the reasoning (conspiracy theories) for this outrage seems flawed to me.

I won't take a stand on either side of this.  I do remember, however, having similar thoughts (as you) when the outrage started over iStock moving customers to Thinkstock.

Does this seem similar?  Who will buy images from Offset?  What purpose would SS serve if all the "good stuff" is moved to Offset?

Again, I will not take a stand on either side; just reminiscing.   :-\

« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2013, 14:50 »
0
Ok, I knew this thread would probably end up going this direction. So, let me ask a question...

Why does everyone think that Shutterstock will intentionally move it's customers to BigStock. It simply doesn't make sense. While I understand the outage over the subscriptions and lower royalties, some of the reasoning (conspiracy theories) for this outrage seems flawed to me.
It makes sense for them to move customers to Bigstock if they make more money doing so.  If they pay contributors a lower royalty rate it would make sense.  I guess you are saying they are paying the same or more to Bigstock contributors as they are to Shutterstock contributors?

Even if the profit margin was higher at BigStock, Shutterstock would never intentionally direct it's customers away from SS and push them to BS. That is just not logical at all.

If Shutterstock wanted to make more money, we all know how they would do that,  by cutting commisions at Shutterstock. BigStock is being run as it's own agency with it's own rules and it's own pricing and commission structure. It's clear to me that BigStock is targeting a different buyer.

Here is what is confusing... have you looked at the numbers?

A 12 month subscription that allows up to 50 downloads a day at BigStock costs $2879. Which, if the buyer downloaded 50 images every day for a year would cost the buyer $.16 per image, yet Bigstock will pay at least $.25 to the contributor for each sub download.

If we assume that each contributor only gets the minimum $.25 per sub download, BigStock is assuming that the subscriber will use no more than 30 or so images per day, otherwise they'll be losing money on each download.

 :o

« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2013, 14:58 »
0

 What purpose would SS serve if all the "good stuff" is moved to Offset?


Again, like BigStock, I think Offset will target a different/new set of buyers.

Shutterstock ain't no dummies.

I'm not really taking a "stand" on any of this either, I just enjoy the discussion and trying to figure it all out.

Most of us have the same images being offered across many different sites at many different prices. Why does one buyer purchase an image for $20 at one agency and another buyer purchases the same file with the same rights at another agency for $5?




« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2013, 15:03 »
+1
Why does one buyer purchase an image for $20 at one agency and another buyer purchases the same file with the same rights at another agency for $5?

The answer is because the buyer doesn't know any better.

Shutterstock is crazy smart. They can be the agency that sells the the image for $20, they can also be the agency that sells the image for $5.

Yes, I just quoted and replied to myself.



« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2013, 15:45 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:13 by Audi 5000 »

Poncke v2

« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2013, 17:08 »
+3
If the image on BS cost 16 cent then 123RF is no longer the low price leader;

365 days-1960
Price Per Image : 0,21

We are outraged about 123 leading the race to bottom pricing, but we should be even more outraged about BS.



gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2013, 17:13 »
+1
if an annual subscription is <$3K why do magazines or newspapers even pay to have photographers on staff? Not trying to do myself out of work, but that price is just way too cheap to have access to virtually unlimited XL downloads.

« Reply #19 on: April 30, 2013, 18:05 »
-2
If the image on BS cost 16 cent then 123RF is no longer the low price leader;

365 days-1960
Price Per Image : 0,21

We are outraged about 123 leading the race to bottom pricing, but we should be even more outraged about BS.
You can't be outraged unless you have removed your files. When people make posts like this, they should also state that whether or not they have done so.

« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2013, 18:14 »
+1
Ok, I knew this thread would probably end up going this direction. So, let me ask a question...

Why does everyone think that Shutterstock will intentionally move it's customers to BigStock. It simply doesn't make sense. While I understand the outage over the subscriptions and lower royalties, some of the reasoning (conspiracy theories) for this outrage seems flawed to me.

It makes sense for them to move customers to Bigstock if they make more money doing so.  If they pay contributors a lower royalty rate it would make sense.  I guess you are saying they are paying the same or more to Bigstock contributors as they are to Shutterstock contributors?


Even if the profit margin was higher at BigStock, Shutterstock would never intentionally direct it's customers away from SS and push them to BS. That is just not logical at all.

If Shutterstock wanted to make more money, we all know how they would do that,  by cutting commisions at Shutterstock. BigStock is being run as it's own agency with it's own rules and it's own pricing and commission structure. It's clear to me that BigStock is targeting a different buyer.

Here is what is confusing... have you looked at the numbers?

A 12 month subscription that allows up to 50 downloads a day at BigStock costs $2879. Which, if the buyer downloaded 50 images every day for a year would cost the buyer $.16 per image, yet Bigstock will pay at least $.25 to the contributor for each sub download.

If we assume that each contributor only gets the minimum $.25 per sub download, BigStock is assuming that the subscriber will use no more than 30 or so images per day, otherwise they'll be losing money on each download.

 :o

Look at the 20 download plan instead, it's the one closest to Shutterstock's plan out of 20 dls per day they break even with 17 images per day downloaded at 25 cents while Shutterstock's 25 dls per day plan at 38 cents breaks even at 17 images per day also.   This means Shutterstock breaks even with 68% or less of files being downloaded while Bigstock breaks even with 85% or less of the quota being used.  Shutterstock is on a path where all contributors eventually will reach 38 cents so to up their margins they could cut royalty rates or try to get buyers to move over to Bigstock.  The actual numbers are probably almost the same right now but going forward Shutterstock contributors will be more expensive to pay and Bigstock contributors will be cheaper.

My guess is right now the bigger focus is on switching buyers from credits to subscriptions within Bigstock, the cost of paying contributors is probably cut in half if they can do that.


Two good points, they kill two birds with one stone.

It would be easier to discount the validity of daveh900's logic in the absence of internet traffic trends over the last 1 to 3 months. Use the link below and use the compare site button on either link to plug in BigstockPhoto.com. BS's traffic is up by +88%, while SS is down -5%. 

In the end time will tell and in the meantime we really need to ask ourselves why would a business use one of its storefronts to drastically undercut the prices of it's largest storefront when they are both offering the same product?

http://www.quantcast.com/shutterstock.com#!traffic

http://www.quantcast.com/bigstockphoto.com#!traffic
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 18:17 by gbalex »

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2013, 18:57 »
+2

 we really need to ask ourselves why would a business use one of its storefronts to drastically undercut the prices of it's largest storefront when they are both offering the same product?


that is indeed the question.

« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2013, 19:35 »
0

 we really need to ask ourselves why would a business use one of its storefronts to drastically undercut the prices of it's largest storefront when they are both offering the same product?


that is indeed the question.

Maybe because they have too many employees with a lot of free time thinking of ways to generate more business for the company. Not sure about the final count of employees but they have over 400 in linked in...

« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2013, 19:44 »
0
don't get that many downloads at Bigstock, a couple of subs a couple of credits

BS is 10% of the earnings I get on shutterstock. which matches resonably well the the earning ratings on the right.


« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2013, 22:24 »
0
don't get that many downloads at Bigstock, a couple of subs a couple of credits

BS is 10% of the earnings I get on shutterstock. which matches resonably well the the earning ratings on the right.

The earnings on the right match my own.  But I have not uploaded to either site since the announcement, it seems counter productive to undercut myself.

The only reason companies undercut the pricing of competitors is to gain market share.  SS has proven by recent massive growth that they do not need to cut pricing to become and remain competitive. Their pricing is already very low.

If you look to the right with a Earnings rating of 83.6 SS is at the top of the Big 4 tier and SS has the greatest market margin to lose to pricing wars. They are fully aware of that fact.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 22:27 by gbalex »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
5629 Views
Last post April 28, 2007, 11:21
by le_cyclope
10 Replies
3406 Views
Last post May 31, 2007, 08:30
by dbvirago
9 Replies
1679 Views
Last post May 17, 2013, 08:10
by sgoodwin4813
5 Replies
1461 Views
Last post June 27, 2013, 04:59
by OM
27 Replies
6089 Views
Last post June 27, 2014, 16:14
by EmberMike

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results