Author Topic: DT subs model (Read 21181 times)

madelaide · « **on:** February 25, 2008, 19:05 »

Does anyone have anything to add to the discussion?

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_9336

Regards,
Adelaide

GeoPappas · « **Reply #1 on:** February 25, 2008, 19:19 »

I'm totally agree with your thoughts on this Madelaide, but unfortunately DT treats such threads with an iron fist.

Anyone want to guess how many posts it will be before the thread on DT is locked?

I will guess that it will be locked once DT gets up in the morning.

madelaide · « **Reply #2 on:** February 25, 2008, 21:11 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on February 25, 2008, 19:19

Anyone want to guess how many posts it will be before the thread on DT is locked?

Well, it's been there for two days already.

I guess some locks occur when people lose temper. If you followed the MB thread a while ago (I think I also started this), some people got really out of her minds arguing with DT.

Regards,
Adelaide

epixx · « **Reply #3 on:** February 25, 2008, 22:20 »

My subscription sales at DT have increased a lot in February, and average earnings per sale has gone down to 0.94 from 1.14 and 1.22 in December and January. I don't like this at all.

null · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2008, 04:47 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on February 25, 2008, 19:19

I will guess that it will be locked once DT gets up in the morning.

Yes, they closed it around 10am CET. What we can conclude from this is that Nikutu is not an early riser.

On topic: the subs might take your average per image down, but make your total rise. As Serban argued in another thread, subs are a different market and there is no indication at all an image on sub would be bought on per image sale for a higher price. Since sub images seem to be downloaded for comps and most aren't actually used, it's a good suggestion to exclude the larger sizes from sub sales.

rene · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2008, 05:00 »

All my files are downsized to minimum at all sites that propose subscriptions. I opted out at StockXpert. Paying $0.25-0.30 for high resolution file is a joke.

epixx · « **Reply #6 on:** February 26, 2008, 21:05 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on February 26, 2008, 04:47

Since sub images seem to be downloaded for comps and most aren't actually used, it's a good suggestion to exclude the larger sizes from sub sales.

You mean they download the sub for comp, then throw it away and buy the photo for full price when they're actually going to use it? I know some weird designers, but no, I don't think so.

Designers download images that they need, or images that they think they'll need in the future. Large advertising agencies can save huge amounts by utilizing their subs quota to the fullest. If there were no subs, they would have to pay a higher price.

sam100 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2008, 02:47 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on February 26, 2008, 04:47

Quote from: GeoPappas on February 25, 2008, 19:19
I will guess that it will be locked once DT gets up in the morning.
Since sub images seem to be downloaded for comps and most aren't actually used, it's a good suggestion to exclude the larger sizes from sub sales.

Hi Hugo,

I find this a bizar statement.. why..?..

If the subs are used for comp mostly, than why are 95 % of my subs sales maximum size.?..
No no and no, subs are for every use.

Patrick.

madelaide · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2008, 17:23 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on February 26, 2008, 04:47

As Serban argued in another thread, subs are a different market and there is no indication at all an image on sub would be bought on per image sale for a higher price.

Yes, but I would be ok NOT having a subs sale knowing that someone got a real sale for an image that will be actually used. I think it is an absurd that a buyer may get so many images for so little, it doesn't matter if he'll use them or not.

Regards,
Adelaide

epixx · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2008, 20:11 »

Adelaide,
The forum-* are really active at DT these days. Both your and another thread about the theme appear to have be removed completely.

I made a couple of points in the other thread, particularly about vectors. The two last dl's of one of my most popular vectors there have been subs. A normal dl of those generate a profit of $5.00. That's 16 times more than a sub (and sometimes the subs go even cheaper, my record the last week is $0.21).

The interesting aspect about that, apart from the low price, is that my vectors are very unlikely to be used as comps, since they are mostly garments used for testing out colours and logos for promotional clothing. In other words: my loss of 94% is absolute and irrevocable, and the gain for the customer likewise. By downloading less than 10 vectors, he has already received value corresponding to his complete monthly fee, while the creator receives between 5 and 10% of what he would usually get. Still, the customer can download 290 more images, creating a very healthy image archive for future use.

For DT, the risk is zilch. Even with customers who download their full quota, their loss is only a maximum of $0.01. Very few customers probably do download all, since the advantage of having a subscription is so enormous. And for every not downloaded image, DT earns another 30 cents. Tick tack, tick tack, tick tack.....

fullvalue · « **Reply #10 on:** March 06, 2008, 15:26 »

I just came from the DT forums and yes it seems as if threads about their Subscription model are locked rather quickly. Personally, I really like the suggestion about limiting the size and/or charging multiple units for downloads of higher size/higher level images. Or if they don't do that, introducing an opt out would be great, particularly for exclusive images.

vonkara · « **Reply #11 on:** March 06, 2008, 17:03 »

You are brave Adeleine to have started a such tread on DT

Rule #1 on DT forum: Dreamstime is the best agency in the world

hatman12 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 06, 2008, 18:01 »

I like DT. I think they try to be professional and fair.

However the subs thing is undermining people's enthusiasm - most people think that subs make the agency money at the expense of the photographer.

My one criticism of DT is its constant rain of press releases that claim it 'pays the highest commissions to photographers'. That claim might indeed be correct for credit sales, but conveniently overlooks the dilution effect of subs.

madelaide · « **Reply #13 on:** March 06, 2008, 19:04 »

I was disappointed with DT closing the thread since there was no agression towards the site, just suggestions.

They could even pay 100% commission in subs sales, they're still too cheap for the buyer. Unnecessarily too cheap.

Regards,
Adelaide

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #14 on:** March 15, 2008, 20:58 »

DT seem to be very sensitive about anyone discussing the subscription-sales issue on their forum. Seems to be a very raw and exposed nerve with them. Whyever so?

?? Why should it be such a sensitive topic that they would need to close so many threads about it?

? I guess if you want to discuss anything about DT's subs you just have to search their forums as they tell you to, where it has been discussed so many times. And there you are supposed to find your answers. (I haven't found any answers there but I'm still searching....)
Well, I can't complain too much about DT's early sales, as at first they were pretty good. Lately, though, they're really sinking lower and lower for me every month. I've decided that unless they give us an opt-out for subs, I'm dropping them as soon as my lock-in period is over. I sure hope a lot of other contributors do as well. And once again, many kudos to StockXpert for making their sub program optional. I think by now they've heard the undeniable voice of their contributors.

epixx · « **Reply #15 on:** March 16, 2008, 03:18 »

Quote from: HughStoneIan on March 15, 2008, 20:58

DT seem to be very sensitive about anyone discussing the subscription-sales issue on their forum. Seems to be a very raw and exposed nerve with them. Whyever so??? Why should it be such a sensitive topic that they would need to close so many threads about it?? I guess if you want to discuss anything about DT's subs you just have to search their forums as they tell you to, where it has been discussed so many times. And there you are supposed to find your answers. (I haven't found any answers there but I'm still searching....)
Well, I can't complain too much about DT's early sales, as at first they were pretty good. Lately, though, they're really sinking lower and lower for me every month. I've decided that unless they give us an opt-out for subs, I'm dropping them as soon as my lock-in period is over. I sure hope a lot of other contributors do as well. And once again, many kudos to StockXpert for making their sub program optional. I think by now they've heard the undeniable voice of their contributors.

Isn't it obvious why the won't have any discussions about subs? It generates a big profit for DT, and a very low profit for the photographer. My subscriptions sales at DT are going up, particularly for vectors, which usually generate a $4.00+ commission, and my profits there seem to go down. Not so strange really, when subs pay a fraction of the price of regular downloads.

Aurelio · « **Reply #16 on:** March 16, 2008, 06:45 »

I have about $ 300 a monthly incomes from dreams time, and definitely im going to close my account there, soonest i can, but i have to wait until may, because of their rules of keeping images for 6 month. They are on market longer than fotolia and stockxpert but they been overtaken by both in terms of incomes and traffic. Owning to the actions of the owners they are not going to grow fast enough to stay in race like serious player.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #17 on:** March 16, 2008, 07:23 »

Agreed. I hate to see them falling behind, but they seem to be plugging their ears to their contributors, at least on this issue. Hopefully they'll listen soon. Buyers are important, but without good-quality contributors, the buyers will eventually go elsewhere.

madelaide · « **Reply #18 on:** March 16, 2008, 13:35 »

So do you think many people are giving up DT because of their subs model? The recent poll did not clarify the matter much for me.

Like in StockXpert, DT subs sales are not very significant to me, but in StockXpert I was able to notice that L/XL/XXL credit sales seem to have disappeared.

Regards,
Adelaide

AAC6D63 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 16, 2008, 14:23 »

Quote from: Aurelio on March 16, 2008, 06:45

but i have to wait until may, because of their rules of keeping images for 6 month.

Have you tried emailing them and asking them to let you go early? It would surely be against their reputation to keep you against your will. Whatever any actual rules. I can't believe that they would do that - it would be so old fashioned and pointless.

The web way of doing business is that you keep your customers and contributors because the relationship works for everyone. It's about you all liking each other. Companies that don't do it like - well they don't get it IMO.

Is Dreamstime a US company in any sense?

epixx · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2008, 00:46 »

Quote from: madelaide on March 16, 2008, 13:35

So do you think many people are giving up DT because of their subs model? The recent poll did not clarify the matter much for me.

Like in StockXpert, DT subs sales are not very significant to me, but in StockXpert I was able to notice that L/XL/XXL credit sales seem to have disappeared.

Regards,
Adelaide

Nothing happens overnight, but what I see is that, when I look at my income, DT and StockXpert are sinking and FT, IS and BS are rising. SS is increasing too, but not nearly as much as the three mentioned. Will I bail out? If it's not economically viable to stay, yes, but that may take time.

Aurelio · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2008, 02:54 »

Quote from: AAC6D63 on March 16, 2008, 14:23

Quote from: Aurelio on March 16, 2008, 06:45
but i have to wait until may, because of their rules of keeping images for 6 month.

Have you tried emailing them and asking them to let you go early? It would surely be against their reputation to keep you against your will. Whatever any actual rules. I can't believe that they would do that - it would be so old fashioned and pointless.

The web way of doing business is that you keep your customers and contributors because the relationship works for everyone. It's about you all liking each other. Companies that don't do it like - well they don't get it IMO.

Is Dreamstime a US company in any sense?

I phone them for few times, same answer, yes you have to wait for 6 month
Dreamstime is Romanian company with one office based in US, but most employers are in Romania where they have head office

lisafx · « **Reply #22 on:** March 17, 2008, 11:59 »

I am really surprised to hear anyone wanting out of DT because of subscription sales. They make up such a tiny portion of the overall earnings on the site, at least from my experience. My per sale average there has been consistently over $1/DL since November and goes up a bit each month.

Personally I think they are one of the most contributor friendly sites. You really can't blame them for not wanting their forums littered with dozens of threads rehashing the same issue. It has been discussed to death.

epixx · « **Reply #23 on:** March 17, 2008, 13:04 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 17, 2008, 11:59

I am really surprised to hear anyone wanting out of DT because of subscription sales. They make up such a tiny portion of the overall earnings on the site, at least from my experience. My per sale average there has been consistently over $1/DL since November and goes up a bit each month.

My per DL average climbed well above $1 last autumn, and stayed there until January. In February and March, after the subs sales started to increase and dug into my vector sales, I'm down to $0.90 per DL.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #24 on:** March 17, 2008, 14:30 »

Quote from: hatman12 on March 06, 2008, 18:01

I like DT. I think they try to be professional and fair.

tell me that's a joke, please. fair? changing a contract with 6months keeping photos that are uploaded a year ago?
that's not fair. -that stinks.
subscription downloads for the same images (which did not have that option in the time those wer uploaded?). - that's not fair - that stinks.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #25 on:** March 17, 2008, 14:44 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 17, 2008, 11:59

I am really surprised to hear anyone wanting out of DT because of subscription sales. They make up such a tiny portion of the overall earnings on the site, at least from my experience. My per sale average there has been consistently over $1/DL since November and goes up a bit each month.

Personally I think they are one of the most contributor friendly sites. You really can't blame them for not wanting their forums littered with dozens of threads rehashing the same issue. It has been discussed to death.

Lisa, I don't think everyone has the same experience as you with DT subs. It's true that subs make a tiny portion of earnings, but they are a growing percentage of actual sales.

Until I took some action to stop the rot, subs were 30% of our downloads. Some groups of photos seem to sell as subs more often than others. Some files sell in maximum size more often than others.

Since I've stopped uploading to DT, we are selling many more large files on IS, and I don't think it's a coincidence.

Maybe DT should think up a scheme which distributes the loss of income more fairly between contributors.

Linda

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** March 17, 2008, 14:56 »

I doubt there is any way for DT to control who gets more subscription sales and who gets more per image sales. That seems like luck of the draw to me.

Interesting to hear that L & XL's on istock increased when you stopped uploading to DT. That would suggest that Dreamstime is one of the heaviest beneficiaries of istock's disgruntled buyers. That alone would make me hesitant to drop them.

Not criticizing yours or anyone else's decision, just sharing my own thought process.

Pixart · « **Reply #27 on:** March 17, 2008, 15:08 »

Even I'm getting more large and XL sales at Istock this year. I wouldn't read too much in that.

I'm getting good sales again this week at DT, but then I'll be off for 2 weeks. Sheesh, I've sold more files on BS this month than DT but earned less - even considering subs ($1.235 per sale at DT, $.74 at BS). Although, this week seems to be my turn on DT's search rotation. (I never noticed this rotation thing they have going until, I think it was Hatman, had mentioned it last year.)

Travelling-light · « **Reply #28 on:** March 17, 2008, 15:37 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 17, 2008, 14:56

I doubt there is any way for DT to control who gets more subscription sales and who gets more per image sales. That seems like luck of the draw to me.

Interesting to hear that L & XL's on istock increased when you stopped uploading to DT. That would suggest that Dreamstime is one of the heaviest beneficiaries of istock's disgruntled buyers. That alone would make me hesitant to drop them.

Not criticizing yours or anyone else's decision, just sharing my own thought process.

Well, if DT can't think of a way to fix it, I guess the unlucky ones will go away

Linda

AAC6D63 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 17, 2008, 15:49 »

Do the subscription sites (Shutterstock & Dreamstime ??) allow contributors to opt out of their subscription schemes?

vonkara · « **Reply #30 on:** March 17, 2008, 15:55 »

Quote from: Pixart on March 17, 2008, 15:08

Even I'm getting more large and XL sales at Istock this year. I wouldn't read too much in that.

Although, this week seems to be my turn on DT's search rotation.

The rotation suck. Every search engine would have to work like IS (whit files performance). I have pictures that sold at DT that I wasn't completely remember to have taken. While at others agencies my files that sell are the ones I was expecting to sell except for BS. The DT search engine seem to advantage any files in a random setting. Choosing is best files like 123RF does is also a good thing

Quote from: AAC6D63 on March 17, 2008, 15:49

Do the subscription sites (Shutterstock & Dreamstime ??) allow contributors to opt out of their subscription schemes?

No

fotografer · « **Reply #31 on:** March 17, 2008, 15:58 »

Quote from: AAC6D63 on March 17, 2008, 15:49

Do the subscription sites (Shutterstock & Dreamstime ??) allow contributors to opt out of their subscription schemes?

SS is only a subscription site so if you could opt out you would be opting out of all sales and Dt don't allow you to opt out.

hatman12 · « **Reply #32 on:** March 17, 2008, 16:00 »

Quote from: Pixart on March 17, 2008, 15:08

(I never noticed this rotation thing they have going until, I think it was Hatman, had mentioned it last year.)

Yeah, this week and next are my 'turn' to have bouyant sales.

The rotation thing is being adjusted now and again to take into account the growing number of contributors (which presumably is growing faster than the customer base); I reckon the current rotation is two and a half weeks at the bottom of the pile and one and a half weeks at the top.

hatman12 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 17, 2008, 16:02 »

BTW, BigStock operates a similar rotation scheme which appears to be one week on and one week off at present.

hatman12 · « **Reply #34 on:** March 17, 2008, 16:03 »

To be fair to DT and BigStock I think all they are trying to do is to operate a 'fair' arrangement so that all contributors get a reasonable chance for sales.

lisafx · « **Reply #35 on:** March 17, 2008, 16:15 »

Very interesting. I will keep my eyes open for this pattern. Guess I am not that observant

fullvalue · « **Reply #36 on:** April 06, 2008, 10:40 »

In light of Istock's sub announcment perhaps it's time to bring this to the front again. Seems Istock figured out a way of doing even better than we suggested here. Here's hoping that Dreamstime makes some changes to their Subscription model.

DanP68 · « **Reply #37 on:** April 14, 2008, 20:39 »

I hope they do too, and I predict they will. Achilles cares about contributors, and shares a very generous 50% or more of every credit sale.

My feeling is they were waiting and watching to see what Shutterstock was going to do. I don't see any agency admitting that they do this, but clearly the SS sub model is the only successful one in the business. A big raise from SS would probably push up sub prices at DT, and everywhere else.

However the iStock plan is so different than what we envisioned. Hopefully DT, 123RF, and StockXpert will come up with something similar.

epixx · « **Reply #38 on:** April 15, 2008, 22:34 »

Since January, my profit per sale at DT has gone down every month. Now, it's down to $0.82, which is the lowest since December 2006, and down from $1.49 in August 2007. Is volume going up? No, but the subscription sales are increasing at the cost of credit sales.

This is a very disappointing development, and while DT in my case was fighting for the second spot with IS until recently, it looks like they will soon be overtaken by FT as well as StockXpert.

What to me looked like one of the very best microstock agencies, is apparently being teared down by the greed of the owners. Very sad indeed.

DanP68 · « **Reply #39 on:** April 17, 2008, 06:57 »

It's weird how it is different for each contributor. I trust your numbers more than mine, because of the larger sample.

However my Earnings per DL are increasing every month, and my overall sales are increasing too. On the other hand, Fotolia is a solid seller for me but far, far below DT in 4th place.

Lizard · « **Reply #40 on:** April 24, 2008, 23:11 »

Just few facts from my point of view

In last 20 sales I had two that were not a subscription.

n this month sub sales have outnumbered regular ones for at least 4 times for me.

I had way more regular sales before sub came , so I think that proves that subs model its puling nice part of the regular buyers.

epixx · « **Reply #41 on:** April 25, 2008, 02:58 »

Quote from: Lizard on April 24, 2008, 23:11

I had way more regular sales before sub came , so I think that proves that subs model its puling nice part of the regular buyers.

Same here, and still they haven't even had subscriptions for 6 months. This doesn't look good for the future.

The contrast to StockXpert is interesting. I opted out of subs there from day one, and my sales are soaring.

fotografer · « **Reply #42 on:** April 25, 2008, 03:18 »

Quote from: epixx on April 25, 2008, 02:58

The contrast to StockXpert is interesting. I opted out of subs there from day one, and my sales are soaring.

I opted in and my earnings are soaring, double last month which was a 2nd BME. So I think that it says more about the site doing well than whether we are opted in or not.

madelaide · « **Reply #43 on:** April 25, 2008, 18:32 »

Quote from: Lizard on April 24, 2008, 23:11

In last 20 sales I had two that were not a subscription.

Gladly my figures are different. Of my latest 24, only 3 were subs.

Normally subs are about 15-20% of dlds in DT for me. It used to be like that in StockXpert, then subs grew too much and I opted out. I wished all sites allowed us to do that.

Regards,
Adelaide

PrecariousPosition · « **Reply #44 on:** May 18, 2008, 00:38 »

Well I won't pretend to know very much about this. But I do have a question.

If you are already selling the same high-res images on SS for next to nothing, then why the concern over selling the photo on DT under a subscription?

I'm probably missing something important here...

sharply_done · « **Reply #45 on:** May 18, 2008, 00:47 »

Quote from: PrecariousPosition on May 18, 2008, 00:38

...
I'm probably missing something important here...

Yes, you are.

madelaide disagrees with the philosophy of subscription models, and thus refuses to use SS. As far as I am aware, she stands alone in putting her money where her mouth is, so to speak. There are many others on this forum who, though they also disagree with subscriptions, continue to license their imagery on SS.

jsnover · « **Reply #46 on:** May 18, 2008, 01:07 »

I think there's another angle to the issue of subscriptions at sites that are primarily per-image models. They have all the disadvantages of subscriptions - low commission per sale - and none of the advantages - higher sales volume.

I don't have (or at least haven't before had) any philosophical objections to subscriptions as long as the site produced a good monthly return - Shutterstock generally has done that. All the SS wannabes - DT, StockXpert and 123rf - have not been able to generate any reasonable volume of subscription sales. They all talk about these "extra" subscription sales, but that's not what I've seen.

For reasons I can only guess at (perhaps a tweak in the default search results) DT is having a great month for me after over a year of sad sack results. The number of subscription sales is very small. Who knows if this will continue, but it's certainly a welcome change.

When you look at the monthly performance of an essentially similar portfolio over multiple sites, you get a sense for which sites can consistently generate sales. If they can do that, I don't much care what their model is; it works.

epixx · « **Reply #47 on:** May 18, 2008, 01:28 »

Quote from: sharply_done on May 18, 2008, 00:47

Quote from: PrecariousPosition on May 18, 2008, 00:38
...
I'm probably missing something important here...

Yes, you are.

madelaide disagrees with the philosophy of subscription models, and thus refuses to use SS. As far as I am aware, she stands alone in putting her money where her mouth is, so to speak. There are many others on this forum who, though they also disagree with subscriptions, continue to license their imagery on SS.

I have a big question mark placed at SS as well. Even with a 50% bigger portfolio than last year, better photos and the recent rise, my sales there are stagnant. Add to that the fact that sales decrease further if I don't upload at least once per week, it becomes quite clear that SS is not a long term investment.

Subscription sales represent a diminishing share of my stock earnings, and it's only a question of time before I leave all agencies where it's not possible to opt out, SSS included. It may take a year, or even two, but this is developing faster than what I thought just a few months ago.

PrecariousPosition · « **Reply #48 on:** May 18, 2008, 03:27 »

Hmm interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain that for me

While I'm a stock newbie I do know a bit about economics. It sounds to me like the subscription market share is shifting around and becoming distributed a little more evenly. If that is correct then I'd imagine it will level out eventually, leaving some sites (SS) a little less profitable and others (DT, 123RF, StockXpert) a little more.

Unless there is a massive photog revolt I can't see the subscription model going away as it's obviously in demand from the purchasers (and why wouldn't it be).

Microbius · « **Reply #49 on:** May 18, 2008, 03:36 »

I've said it on another thread and I'll say it again. No matter how low a commission percentage you get on a (at least partly) non subscription site at least their interests are directly tied up with yours.
On Shutterstock the better you do as far as downloads go the worse they do. If they could offer the entirety of their new uploads for the month in one file for the subscription fee, they'd be more than happy to do it and we'd have to split the 38c between us.
This is business and as long as this perverse relationship continues (ie. they do not at least offer the option of per sale downloads) they will have no reason to, and therefore will not, value any individual submitters. They will only care about the overall size of the collection, and ensuring that there are a few good images there. Great for them, sucks for us!-- take the pay rise......

PrecariousPosition · « **Reply #50 on:** May 18, 2008, 04:39 »

Right, I understand that. But the missing part of the equation is the buyers. Many of them (the high volume buyers) obviously benefit from the subscription style. So unless we as the photographers stage a revolt is there any other way that subscription sites will stop being a large segment of the market?

Microbius · « **Reply #51 on:** May 19, 2008, 02:26 »

Nope, that's the beauty of it for the agencies. As no individual submitter matters, they can screw us to their hearts content and there's nothing we can do about it. There will always be more people to take our places. While we're sitting back feeling morally superior some other bugger will be taking our places.
Think about how disgusting it is to be offering subscriptions for microstock images in any case... "Hey buyer, $1 per download way to much for you? how about 20 cents; soooooo cheap you won't even be arsed to download all the images you pay for!!!! (and that might give us enough profit to chuck the submitters some scraps)"

DanP68 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 19, 2008, 05:43 »

I have yet to see the percentage of subscriptions sales increase enough to cause a problem for me at Dreamstime. I average over 80c per sale every month, and sometimes well over. However by the same token, I have noticed the same problem there that I see everywhere else...portfolio increases by 15-25%, earnings stay the same or decline.

I'm having my worst month at Dreamstime since January, and my portfolio was 1/3 smaller then. And I'm on pace for my second consecutive monthly decline of 30% or more. I'm shocked at how things have turned for me there. Two months ago things could not be better. Now they are down to #5 for earnings this month. I don't get it. I may still be involved with 7 companies, but only 2 provide earnings worth uploading for these days. Frustrating.

PrecariousPosition · « **Reply #53 on:** May 19, 2008, 10:01 »

Ha, thanks Microbius. I just went from being blissfully ignorant to depressingly enlightened.

jsnover · « **Reply #54 on:** May 19, 2008, 11:28 »

Quote from: DanP68 on May 19, 2008, 05:43

I'm having my worst month at Dreamstime since January, and my portfolio was 1/3 smaller then. And I'm on pace for my second consecutive monthly decline of 30% or more.

They've obviously been playing with the search engine. I've had (so far) more sales this month than any since last November. For me, DT just fell into a black hole a year ago (and yes, I did stop uploading there last July, months after sales tanked). Whatever they've done this month has obviously hosed you and helped me.

My average per sale is up too from around $1 to $1.42 (but there was one EL). There have been a handful of subscription sales, but very few compared to previous months. I did have one 2-credit sale with a 70 cents commission today - I assume some sort of partner deal that ate 30 cents of the typical $1 commission.

DanP68 · « **Reply #55 on:** May 19, 2008, 17:26 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 19, 2008, 11:28

They've obviously been playing with the search engine. I've had (so far) more sales this month than any since last November. For me, DT just fell into a black hole a year ago (and yes, I did stop uploading there last July, months after sales tanked). Whatever they've done this month has obviously hosed you and helped me.

Yeah, I figured it was your fault.

Maybe one of these months we can celebrate at the same time.

CofkoCof · « **Reply #56 on:** June 03, 2008, 18:30 »

This month started really badly, curently 84% of my sales are sub sales at DT. Mostly big size photos and additional format on vectors

stock_fan · « **Reply #57 on:** June 11, 2008, 15:23 »

DT subs are killing me. Have about the same amount of downloads as last month ... and my RPD went from 0.84 $ to 0.57 $ ...

I sold 6 pics yesterday ... and 5 have been subs

epixx · « **Reply #58 on:** June 11, 2008, 19:23 »

Subs are on the rise at DT. I had a whole bunch of them yesterday, more than ever before

madelaide · « **Reply #59 on:** June 11, 2008, 20:05 »

Last month was horrible, with something like 40% as subs, if I remember it right. This month so far things seem under control (10%).

Regards,
Adelaide

CofkoCof · « **Reply #60 on:** June 12, 2008, 13:07 »

Quote from: CofkoCof on June 03, 2008, 18:30

This month started really badly, curently 84% of my sales are sub sales at DT. Mostly big size photos and additional format on vectors

Getting even worse (al maximum or vector format):

Last month my RPD was 1.03, this month 0.53

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: DT subs model (Read 21181 times)

vonkara

lisafx

lisafx

vonkara

lisafx

DanP68

DanP68

jsnover

Microbius

Microbius

DanP68

jsnover

DanP68

CofkoCof

CofkoCof

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors