pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime Subscription Plans Update  (Read 9071 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

red

« on: June 27, 2012, 06:36 »
0
Announced early this morn by Serban -

A quick update about our future plans. Following our past removal of the 10/day and weekly subscription plans as detailed here, we have seen an increase in credit sales and as one would expect, remaining subscription plans have become less attractive.

We remain committed to be the best image source for both contributors and buyers so we wanted to let you know that we intend to remove the level-based downloads from the existing subscription plans, in order to maintain a competitive market position for them. We will also lower their prices a little bit, in order to allow customers to recoup from changes mentioned above. The royalties we award remain in place, however, high-level files will no longer award 2-3 times the download value. Because the daily quota will stay the same, we expect buyers to download from more contributors than before, splitting this revenue towards more people. In the past months and many of you may have noticed this, customers have been complaining that the level-based quota was confusing and demanded past plans to be added back. We believe this change to ease their transition and allow us to have a fair balance between credits and subscriptions.

Considering the summer season is getting close, we hope to attract new customers with these changes as well as motivate existing ones to download more. There are more plans scheduled for a great fall and these downloads will continue to help us leverage the level-based system (a fact shown by the growing RPD).

Thank you.  - Achilles

I love this part (not!) -  We will also lower their prices a little bit. Yeeesh!
« Last Edit: June 27, 2012, 06:39 by cuppacoffee »


« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2012, 06:45 »
0
here we go again... :'(

« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2012, 06:49 »
0
No doubt all of this new confusion, in the end, means less money for contributors and more money for DT.  ::)

« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2012, 07:04 »
0
I doubt that it's that good for buyers if DT changes the rules of the game ten times a year.

« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2012, 07:34 »
0
No doubt all of this new confusion, in the end, means less money for contributors and more money for DT.  ::)

That's exactly what it means....another way to downgrade microstock.  Way to go Serban!!

« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2012, 07:38 »
0
Sh!t  >:(

« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2012, 07:42 »
0
can you provide a link to this?

« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2012, 07:58 »
0

« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2012, 08:08 »
0
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_31748


thank you!

very nice place to post this update!

Day dreaming
Dreams on a daily basis - Everything related to the site goes here (except questions about refusals; email them to support please)

Lagereek

« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2012, 08:10 »
0
I dont like subscriptions in any agency, exept SS, where it seems to work, etc. I think the DT strength lies in its RF sales, they always tend to get good sales there, for good money.

« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2012, 09:22 »
0
They could just ditch the levels and the subs and go back to paying us 50% for everything.

« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2012, 09:39 »
0
They could just ditch the levels and the subs and go back to paying us 50% for everything.

Cory as Serban's right arm ;D

« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2012, 10:00 »
0
They could just ditch the levels and the subs and go back to paying us 50% for everything.

Cory as Serban's right arm ;D

Don't give me too much power... I might be corrupted.  ;D

« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2012, 10:17 »
0
I doubt that it's that good for buyers if DT changes the rules of the game ten times a year.

This is one change the buyers would be foolish to complain about!  More downloads for less money...

« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2012, 11:00 »
0
I doubt that it's that good for buyers if DT changes the rules of the game ten times a year.

This is one change the buyers would be foolish to complain about!  More downloads for less money...

True. At least until next tweaking.

« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2012, 11:31 »
0
Given the relatively low volume of subscriptions at DT the main appeal of them is that it helps boost images to higher levels for credit sales. I'd rather DT were credits only, but as long as they have a low-volume of subs sales where one sub sale counts in the system to move images up a level, I can live with it.

The concern would be that the change in the subs plan increases the volume of subs sales at the expense of credit sales - i.e. no overall increase in business, just a shift to cheaper methods of buying. I don't care about a higher RPD if the site is losing volume and my monthly earnings drop - conversely, as the SS model shows, you can bring home the bacon to contributors with lower RPDs.

I guess it's good that DT is trying to fix things if they aren't working well, but they just seem to be endlessly tinkering with different ways to be at the bottom of the top tier heap.

« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2012, 11:34 »
0
It will be interesting to see if they are still at the bottom of the top-tier heap when we vote at month end if everyone crashed as dramatically as I did this month. 

« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2012, 11:47 »
0
after a BME I am having a terrible month in DT thats what I can say, so not that worried about another change

- 59% (downloads)
- 62% (earnings)
« Last Edit: June 27, 2012, 11:51 by luissantos84 »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #18 on: June 27, 2012, 13:34 »
0
Seems like a commission cut to me?

Payment for all subs will be the same in spite of Level -- in my case that is 35 cents (unless it is PP sale, which is less) no matter the size or how many sales the image has.

And, doesn't that encourage buyers of larger (more popular) images to buy Larger subscription packages?

Perhaps this will push images to higher Levels ... but for what purpose -- more subs?

« Reply #19 on: June 27, 2012, 13:58 »
0
Only the companies that buy subscription occasionally will download more images because they download  each of 25 images / day  incl. weekends (like my ex-empolyers) hoping that they might need them in future.
Regular subscriber will use only - let's assume 40 - 50% of their quota in average as they download only the images they really need.
And now smaller part of their quota because download won't be counted 2-3 times anymore.
It means that DT will keep more money. And this is what it is all about.

« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2012, 14:05 »
0
I won't waste any time even trying to figure this out.  The layers of obfuscation and indirection in pricing and "commissions" are now beyond my comprehension, which of course is exactly what DT wants.  Something to do with cutting prices and reducing commissions. Who knows.

I'm becoming convinced that only SS and Alamy are still worth submitting to.

« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2012, 14:46 »
0
I won't waste any time even trying to figure this out.  The layers of obfuscation and indirection in pricing and "commissions" are now beyond my comprehension, which of course is exactly what DT wants.  Something to do with cutting prices and reducing commissions. Who knows.

I'm becoming convinced that only SS and Alamy are still worth submitting to.

:D

« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2012, 15:33 »
0
I won't waste any time even trying to figure this out.  The layers of obfuscation and indirection in pricing and "commissions" are now beyond my comprehension, which of course is exactly what DT wants.  Something to do with cutting prices and reducing commissions. Who knows.

I'm becoming convinced that only SS and Alamy are still worth submitting to.

Me, too.

« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2012, 18:14 »
0
Seems like a commission cut to me?

Payment for all subs will be the same in spite of Level -- in my case that is 35 cents (unless it is PP sale, which is less) no matter the size or how many sales the image has.

And, doesn't that encourage buyers of larger (more popular) images to buy Larger subscription packages?

Perhaps this will push images to higher Levels ... but for what purpose -- more subs?

I can't see that - if anything this reduces the number of subs required for a given number of images.  I don't see any case where this spreads MORE revenue around - unless it somehow gets a lot of new buyers on board.  That seems unlikely, and of no benefit to non-exclusives if those buyers come from other sites...  Given the pricing of a monthly sub package, at least this seems unlikely to push many from credits into subs.  I can't say I did better after the last pricing go 'round, so I'm not too excited about seeing my subs pay less too.  If the last change had added 15% to my revenue I wouldn't mind so much losing 5-10% now...

« Reply #24 on: June 27, 2012, 20:15 »
0
Seems like a commission cut to me?

Payment for all subs will be the same in spite of Level -- in my case that is 35 cents (unless it is PP sale, which is less) no matter the size or how many sales the image has.

And, doesn't that encourage buyers of larger (more popular) images to buy Larger subscription packages?

Perhaps this will push images to higher Levels ... but for what purpose -- more subs?

I can't see that - if anything this reduces the number of subs required for a given number of images.  I don't see any case where this spreads MORE revenue around - unless it somehow gets a lot of new buyers on board.  That seems unlikely, and of no benefit to non-exclusives if those buyers come from other sites...  Given the pricing of a monthly sub package, at least this seems unlikely to push many from credits into subs.  I can't say I did better after the last pricing go 'round, so I'm not too excited about seeing my subs pay less too.  If the last change had added 15% to my revenue I wouldn't mind so much losing 5-10% now...

glad to see somebody having nice earnings in DT, looking forward to see June stats here in MSG

lisafx

« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2012, 22:50 »
0
I think the sales drop off that many are reporting is probably a result of buyers leaving DT after the price increases.  So even though we are getting higher RPD, our overall money is down. 

I see this as an attempt to recover those lost customers and attract others, and get the volume of sales back up.  I am not delighted to be losing money on my higher ranked images, and I have quite a few of them.  But my bottom line at the end of the month is the most important thing to me.  If this move increases volume enough to raise my bottom line, then I won't have a problem with it. 

And at least they announced it in advance and didn't just spring it on us as some other sites seem to be doing lately. 

« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2012, 12:13 »
0
horrible month on DT so far...everything's down except for my uploads...I hope they can recuperate the lost ground with wiser policies...

« Reply #27 on: June 29, 2012, 12:37 »
0
Maybe they should rethink this similars policy now that subs buyers are going to be buying so many more images...

I guess I should suggest that over on DT, not that they ever listen to me.

It just looks like a price drop for buyers and for us. At least it doesn't come with a commission % cut too, although if this moves subs buyers from SS to DT it won't benefit me any (unless I get enough regular credit sales of images that are higher level because of subs sales - doubtful). If it moves them from thinkstock, that is great.

« Reply #28 on: June 29, 2012, 18:23 »
0
Maybe they should rethink this similars policy now that subs buyers are going to be buying so many more images...

I guess I should suggest that over on DT, not that they ever listen to me.

It just looks like a price drop for buyers and for us. At least it doesn't come with a commission % cut too, although if this moves subs buyers from SS to DT it won't benefit me any (unless I get enough regular credit sales of images that are higher level because of subs sales - doubtful). If it moves them from thinkstock, that is great.

It does come with a commission % cut more or less.  You will now get a less percentage of an image because they dumped the tire system.  No more 70 cent subs, just 30 or 35 cent subs.  DT simply caved in to the other agencies' pricing and realized a quick revenue scheme.  Those in here that say this won't be a big deal then why did DT make that move?  Revenue, margins.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2012, 18:27 by Mantis »

« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2012, 19:31 »
0
Maybe they should rethink this similars policy now that subs buyers are going to be buying so many more images...

I guess I should suggest that over on DT, not that they ever listen to me.

It just looks like a price drop for buyers and for us. At least it doesn't come with a commission % cut too, although if this moves subs buyers from SS to DT it won't benefit me any (unless I get enough regular credit sales of images that are higher level because of subs sales - doubtful). If it moves them from thinkstock, that is great.

It does come with a commission % cut more or less.  You will now get a less percentage of an image because they dumped the tire system.  No more 70 cent subs, just 30 or 35 cent subs.  DT simply caved in to the other agencies' pricing and realized a quick revenue scheme.  Those in here that say this won't be a big deal then why did DT make that move?  Revenue, margins.

The reason I say it is a price cut (for buyers and us) and not a commission % cut is that before a sub sale "cost" from 1 to 3 credits and we got 1 to 3X our subs commission (usually). Now the price has been dropped across the board to 1 sub credit. Had level 3 images still cost 3 subs credits but we only got the .35 that would have been a % drop too.

I didn't say I liked it or that I thought it was a good idea.

grafix04

« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2012, 21:22 »
0
DT has fiddled too much their system shafting buyers and contributors each time, for their own financial gain.  This new move on subs won't bring buyers back.  By now they've had enough of their fiddling and probably won't trust them ever again.  Why would anyone?

Remember the weekly subs plan that they introduced suddenly?  Months later they removed it again and lots of buyers left.  Then they fiddled with the level system making both credits and subs more expensive and buyers left again.  Why would they return when DT is so unstable and obviously in a bit of financial strife?  For all they know, DT could revert back to the level system again or throw some other curve ball at them a few weeks later.

Achilles has done a fine job messing up DT.  He has managed to piss off contributors and buyers on a massive scale almost on a monthly basis  ;D

I'm at the point now where I want the company to fail to put everyone (including Achilles) out of their misery.  The place has unfortunately become a joke. 

« Reply #31 on: June 30, 2012, 22:55 »
0
They are competing for customers with Istock who have changed increased prices many many times. Its a battle to keep just a tiny fraction better than the opposition.

« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2012, 23:15 »
0
Last few days have been surprisingly good for me at DT.  This could be yet another case of a change being good for some and terrible for others.  Most of the changes at FT and DT this year have been awful for me, so hopefully I'm finally getting the good end of a change.

« Reply #33 on: July 01, 2012, 11:29 »
0
Maybe they should rethink this similars policy now that subs buyers are going to be buying so many more images...

I guess I should suggest that over on DT, not that they ever listen to me.

It just looks like a price drop for buyers and for us. At least it doesn't come with a commission % cut too, although if this moves subs buyers from SS to DT it won't benefit me any (unless I get enough regular credit sales of images that are higher level because of subs sales - doubtful). If it moves them from thinkstock, that is great.

It does come with a commission % cut more or less.  You will now get a less percentage of an image because they dumped the tire system.  No more 70 cent subs, just 30 or 35 cent subs.  DT simply caved in to the other agencies' pricing and realized a quick revenue scheme.  Those in here that say this won't be a big deal then why did DT make that move?  Revenue, margins.

The reason I say it is a price cut (for buyers and us) and not a commission % cut is that before a sub sale "cost" from 1 to 3 credits and we got 1 to 3X our subs commission (usually). Now the price has been dropped across the board to 1 sub credit. Had level 3 images still cost 3 subs credits but we only got the .35 that would have been a % drop too.

I didn't say I liked it or that I thought it was a good idea.

Understood.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3224 Views
Last post March 22, 2010, 15:57
by Phil
7 Replies
2311 Views
Last post February 02, 2013, 12:38
by brmonico
1 Replies
1882 Views
Last post February 27, 2013, 11:30
by MisterElements
19 Replies
3822 Views
Last post September 11, 2013, 14:57
by EmberMike
51 Replies
8370 Views
Last post October 07, 2015, 13:52
by PixelBytes

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results