pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: DT Subscriptions Update  (Read 4268 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

red

« on: November 17, 2011, 09:09 »
0
From Achilles -

As most of you know, a few weeks ago we have eliminated the weekly subscriptions. Today, we are removing all 10/images-per-day subscriptions and will monitor database effects in the following weeks. Both these types of subscriptions have been producing a significant amount of downloads and subsequently helped many files to reach a higher pricing level. Since early this year, the number of downloads generated by these plans corelated with the lower submission limits helped us to better monetize the content. At this point we consider that they are no longer needed and at least temporarily, they will be unavailable.

The 25/day and 50/day subscription plans will remain in place. They are the alternative to credits for volume-seeking buyers. If the smaller plans will be permanently removed and based on the results we will receive during this time interval, we plan to adjust the remaining subscriptions. They will be aligned to the current market conditions. Many designers have criticised the level-based system that deducts several downloads of their daily quota. Depending on their feedback and market reactions these sub. plans may be revised in order to keep a competitive product. Naturally, we strive to stay fair to contributors by providing fair royalties.

We also plan to make changes to the free images section, considering the amount of images is high. It is the largest collection of free content ready to be licensed and certainly will need our attention.

Thank you for your continuous support and for your feedback.


« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2011, 13:24 »
0
So do we start a betting pool on what levels will generate extra subscription royaltiesin the future?

I read this as hinting that getting 70 cents for a level 3 subscription and $1.05 for level 5 may be history. That'd be a shame, but as long as the level of subscription downloads stays low-ish, using them as a boost to the prices for files purchased with credits would still be there as a sweetener to the yucky taste of subscriptions (from a contributor's point of view).

« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2011, 13:42 »
0
So do we start a betting pool on what levels will generate extra subscription royaltiesin the future?

I read this as hinting that getting 70 cents for a level 3 subscription and $1.05 for level 5 may be history. That'd be a shame, but as long as the level of subscription downloads stays low-ish, using them as a boost to the prices for files purchased with credits would still be there as a sweetener to the yucky taste of subscriptions (from a contributor's point of view).

Hmm. I think you may be correct. Of course the subscription model only works for the agency if the customer downloads a fraction of the content that they are entitled to. My guess is that it is usually about 30-40%, possibly less. Charging the customer 2-3 subscription 'credits' for popular files, although beneficial to the contributor, just cuts into the agency's margin. I'm actually surprised that DT appear to have only just woken up to this flaw in their business model as well as the ridiculous weekly and 10-image-per-day subscription packages. It was quite obvious that those would be more attractive than credit sales to even medium volume customers. The subscription model only works for both the agency and contributors if it is limited to high-volume, long-term customers.

« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2011, 15:44 »
0
I read this as hinting that getting 70 cents for a level 3 subscription and $1.05 for level 5 may be history.

That will be a shame...  :'(  I have stated many times that I don't like subs, but this made the loss a bit more edible (I would still prefer to be able to opt out anyway).

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2011, 16:58 »
0
So do we start a betting pool on what levels will generate extra subscription royaltiesin the future?

I read this as hinting that getting 70 cents for a level 3 subscription and $1.05 for level 5 may be history. That'd be a shame, but as long as the level of subscription downloads stays low-ish, using them as a boost to the prices for files purchased with credits would still be there as a sweetener to the yucky taste of subscriptions (from a contributor's point of view).

Hmm. I think you may be correct. Of course the subscription model only works for the agency if the customer downloads a fraction of the content that they are entitled to. My guess is that it is usually about 30-40%, possibly less. Charging the customer 2-3 subscription 'credits' for popular files, although beneficial to the contributor, just cuts into the agency's margin. I'm actually surprised that DT appear to have only just woken up to this flaw in their business model as well as the ridiculous weekly and 10-image-per-day subscription packages. It was quite obvious that those would be more attractive than credit sales to even medium volume customers. The subscription model only works for both the agency and contributors if it is limited to high-volume, long-term customers.

I agree. It's sort of like the all-you-can-eat buffet. It's profitable because most people never fill their plates more than twice. I hope this isn't a prelude to changing the level system entirely to make prices more competitive.

« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2011, 18:41 »
0
If the smaller plans will be permanently removed and based on the results we will receive during this time interval, we plan to adjust the remaining subscriptions. They will be aligned to the current market conditions.
In microstock lingo, adjust/aligned means "decreased" and "joining the race to the bottom".
Many designers have criticised the level-based system that deducts several downloads of their daily quota.
So the guy whining here in another thread about the level system with subs got wat he wanted.

It seems to be a gentle warning that the level system will be phased out gradually (for the subs, later the credits?) and that the subs will earn less. Is stinkstock hurting that much?

Basically the level system is unsustainable since the longer a (good) image is online on DT, the fairer the change it will achieve a higher level. Probably the proportion level > 2 images on DT is rising all the time, considering the asymptotic upload rate has been broken. Perhaps the buyers should be confronted with the truth that a Mercedes costs more than a VW Polo but as long as the Mercedes factories decide to put their content on every new site that pops up for the price of a VW Polo, it will grow more and more into a buyer's market. Anybody shooting in his neigbor's feet should realize that his neighbor will also shoot in his feet and that they both will end up with feet in fragments and less revenue. End of rant. :-\

« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2011, 21:24 »
0
Oh yeah! Another royalty cut on its way! Just what we needed!
Gah ;(

« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2011, 22:08 »
0
Oh yeah! Another royalty cut on its way! Just what we needed!
Tu quoque, Achille, fili mi?  :P
No seriously, he was just asking for some feedback. Did FT ask feedback before they did it? Did iStock asked feedback before they "mirrored" our content into the garbage bin? DT has a history of listening so they'll listen.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 22:57 by AttilaTheNun »

« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2011, 22:49 »
0
The higher commissions for level 3 and up images and the fact that subs move images up the levels are the only really good things about the DT subs program. I'd be sorry to see them be reduced or be removed completely. The <.35 subs there are also not good.

« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2011, 23:27 »
0
Oh yeah! Another royalty cut on its way! Just what we needed!
Tu quoque, Achille, fili mi?  :P
No seriously, he was just asking for some feedback. Did FT ask feedback before they did it? Did iStock asked feedback before they "mirrored" our content into the garbage bin? DT has a history of listening so they'll listen.
Hmm, it does sound like an announcement to me;  a pretty vague one about things to come up, but still an announcement. It sounds like "buckle up"...
They will be aligned to the current market conditions. Many designers have criticised the level-based system that deducts several downloads of their daily quota. Depending on their feedback and market reactions these sub. plans may be revised in order to keep a competitive product. Naturally, we strive to stay fair to contributors by providing fair royalties.

I do hope you're right though ;)

« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2011, 05:07 »
0
It sounds like "buckle up"...
Or "brace for impact..."?  :-\

« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2011, 04:40 »
0
I really don't understand DT move; Ok, they remove the weekly sub but why they remove also the 1mounth  10/day ??? i believe they will send many buyers ( the small and middle ones ) to the competition especially to 123RF.

« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2011, 05:55 »
0
I really don't understand DT move; Ok, they remove the weekly sub but why they remove also the 1mounth  10/day ??? i believe they will send many buyers ( the small and middle ones ) to the competition especially to 123RF.
I have no clue of course but my guess is that they found out that the small subs packages were cannibalizing slowly the credits sales, especially since DT subs have no size limit. You made already a profit the first day on a subs package if you wanted 5 XL sizes. Subs packages were not intended for low volume "poor" buyers but for large design houses or media that need a lot (perhaps just for comping). The "poor" buyers that need an image once in a while can still get level 1-2 images for 3 credits only, level 1 images for 1 credit. If a small business is going to break its neck over a couple of bucks, it's borderline anyways.

Bottom line is that DT refuses to join the race to the bottom and if 123RF wants to play that game, they're going to lose contributors. My highest credit sale on DT the past 3 days (excluding 2 EL's) was 8.50$ and on 123RF over the whole of November just 2.6$. Some buyers looking for paying peanuts will end up getting monkeys. If they can't afford 1$ for a well-shot licensed image, they can go shoot it themselves or dig in the free image sites. End of rant.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 06:14 by AttilaTheNun »

« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2011, 21:33 »
0
I am guessing that the shorter the subs plan the more likely a subscriber is to download their full limit. The real money to be made on subs is when the buyers don't use them all. DT discovered that the short subs plans weren't making them enough money, so they dropped them.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
81 Replies
27217 Views
Last post September 21, 2009, 09:27
by Pixart
1 Replies
1345 Views
Last post July 28, 2014, 05:44
by MxR
$2 subscriptions

Started by ultimagina Dreamstime.com

4 Replies
2074 Views
Last post August 06, 2014, 21:39
by Mantis
6 Replies
1969 Views
Last post November 12, 2014, 14:05
by sgoodwin4813
47 Replies
11022 Views
Last post September 07, 2016, 08:21
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results