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.

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.

Quote from: jsnover on November 17, 2011, 13:24

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.

Oh yeah! Another royalty cut on its way! Just what we needed!
Gah ;(

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.

It sounds like "buckle up"...

Or "brace for impact..."? 

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.