MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Important Dreamstime Announcements - New Pricing Structure  (Read 41852 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: April 06, 2011, 16:23 »
0
^^^ Some very good points Megastock.

I'm pretty sure CanStockPhoto introduced weekly subs packages several years ago. It didn't exactly have the customers falling over each other to buy them though. Probably because 95% of image buyers never knew anything about CanStockPhoto anyway (because they hadn't got the money to do the marketing).

Of course if Dreamstime's customers were to switch to weekly subs instead of PPD ... then the biggest loser would undoubtedly be Dreamstime themselves. We only make money when they make money.

Except we get paid per sub download, which isn't as much as what they get paid which is per sub package bought, as how many buyers won't download their full quota of 10, 25 or 50 images a day? Those who have credits though would generally use them up. There will definitely be a swing towards subs, but it just depends on how large the swing will be to find out how much we lose.


« Reply #126 on: April 06, 2011, 17:45 »
0
Except we get paid per sub download, which isn't as much as what they get paid which is per sub package bought, as how many buyers won't download their full quota of 10, 25 or 50 images a day? Those who have credits though would generally use them up. There will definitely be a swing towards subs, but it just depends on how large the swing will be to find out how much we lose.

Definitely remains to be seen.  It isn't a given that Dreamstime makes more money on a $45 sub package than a $50 credit package - a full payout for 70 exclusive subs is $29.40, a minimum payout on a 50 credit pack for non-exclusive level 0's is $12.50.  I realize these aren't equivalent purchases, but neither is saying that a buyer who currently comes to Dreamstime for 4 images suddenly now wants 70 in a week.

I'm trying to figure out who the buyers of 50 credit package are and how this would impact them.  People currently buying smaller credit packages likely have a one time or infrequent need for images or they would spend more and get a discount.  People who buy 100 credit and larger packs already have a sub option for a similar price, and aren't buying it.  So who are the 50 credit pack buyers that will suddenly be flocking to this deal?  The one worry would be the buyer who comes for 4 or 5 images and realizes they can get those via the sub and have more left over whether they use them or not - for the same price.  Keep in mind, though, that they might have to take two days if they are interested in more than 3 level 5's.

There is the possibility that this draws sub buyers from other sites and both adds revenue as well as driving up levels.  Could be my personal pipe dream, though :)
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 18:06 by Megastock »

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #127 on: April 06, 2011, 22:38 »
0
You have to ask yourself how many downloads will 52 credits buy under the new pricing structure.

Say a buyer bought this package, they could only purchase two level 1 vector files, or just one level 5 vector, or five extra large level 1 jpegs or 17 extra small level 1 jpegs etc.

The table below is a summary of my sales this year grouped by size and level.  The third column shows how many of those type/level images can be bought using the 52 credit package.

For the sake of this little exercise, let's assume that all these downloads were purchased using the 52 credit package and that the buyers bought only 1 type of size/level.  This would indicate that for 67% of my sales, the buyer could only purchase 1-5 images with the 52 credit package.  In this scenario, the buyer is likely to switch to the weekly subs deal.  This is what I'm concerned about.  There's not much incentive for most buyers to purchase the 52 credit package.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #128 on: April 07, 2011, 04:50 »
0
I really dislike subs for obvious reasons.  It's the main reason I never bothered to sign up with Shutterstock and the main reason why I dropped fotolia. And now I have major concerns with the weekly subs issue on Dreamstime.  I cannot see how it won't lower our earnings.

This is how I responded to Achilles post on the Dreamstime thread....

Quote
Achilles wrote:
Quote
Weekly subscription plans are new for us too and we`ll be keeping a close eye on them. They don`t jeopardize photographers` royalties since they award the same value per download with the monthly subscription. As opposed to those, the designers will consume weekly subs extensively. That means that royalties paid to photographers are higher percent-wise than for monthly subs. Also, royalties are higher %-wise than for credit-based sales. We estimate royalties to be aprox. 50% from the paid price.Not the least, remember they accelerate the level-pricing for credits. Although cheaper for designers than credit packages, the $ amount required is higher ($45 vs $10) which compensates. It`s a win-win-win situation or at least that was our intention.


Achilles, I have to say the more I look into this new pricing structure, the more it concerns me.  I can't see how you don't believe our royalties will be affected here.

It's not as simple as comparing the value per downloads between the monthly and weekly subscriptions.  We need to compare the buying power of the weekly subscription to that of the credit package.  The shorter the duration of the subscription plan, the more likely that buyers will convert from purchasing credit packages to buying a weekly subs deal.  Unless buyers stick to buying XS level 0 images, they don't receive much value with a credit package these days, especially now that prices have gone up.  To maximise the value of their credit purchases, they're likely to look for 0 level images and you've reduced our commissions on those from 30% (at least) to 25% so our royalties are likely to be affected here also.

You have stated that royalties are higher percent-wise for weekly subs than for monthly subs but again, that's no comparison because I'd image buyers who buy the monthly plan will stick to the monthly plan, not switching to the weekly.  It's more likely that the ones who purchase the weekly subs are those that usually buy credit packages.  

You've argued that royalties are higher percentage-wise for subs than for credit sales but that's no real relief because a higher percentage of peanuts is still peanuts. I'm sorry but that's how the average contributor feels about sub sales.  

You've stated that sub sales will accelerate the level-pricing for credits.  That's true but there's no relief there either because the problem is that higher level images only reduce the buying power of credit package further making the buyer more likely to switch to the subs deal or buying only 0 level images.  

No matter which way I look at this, I can only see our royalties and RPD being reduced and long term you're likely to shoot yourselves in the foot (and us in the heart!).  I too believe this wasn't your intention.  I believe... or at least I'm hoping that you just haven't thought this one through enough and I cannot see a win-win-win here at all.  All I can see is a win-lose-lose situation with the only win being granted to the buyer if they switch to the subs plan.  I can see how you'd think that the weekly plan will attract subs customers from other agents but at what cost?  Losing your current contributors?

I'm really trying hard to put a positive spin on this new pricing structure because I don't want to see one of my favourites bomb out, but I just can't see anything good about it.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 04:53 by pseudonymous »

« Reply #129 on: April 07, 2011, 07:02 »
0
I don't think any site has ever increased subs prices, what makes them each time more attractive.

Shutterstock did.  Several times, and once the dust had settled (they saw how it affected download rates) they adjusted contributor compensation to match.

Sorry, I was not referring to Shutterstock or others that are (basically) subs. My point is that sites like Dreamstime and Fotolia increase image cost for credits while subs are frozen, making the latter more attractive. The relative increase of subs in these sites are a clear trend to me.

edited to correct mistyping (aging! :D)
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 18:16 by madelaide »

« Reply #130 on: April 07, 2011, 08:08 »
0
yes this new plan working? for me guess not, have less than half I used to have and for a 0.38$ RPD use to be close to 1$

« Reply #131 on: April 07, 2011, 10:27 »
0
You have to ask yourself how many downloads will 52 credits buy under the new pricing structure.

Say a buyer bought this package, they could only purchase two level 1 vector files, or just one level 5 vector, or five extra large level 1 jpegs or 17 extra small level 1 jpegs etc.

The table below is a summary of my sales this year grouped by size and level.  The third column shows how many of those type/level images can be bought using the 52 credit package.

For the sake of this little exercise, let's assume that all these downloads were purchased using the 52 credit package and that the buyers bought only 1 type of size/level.  This would indicate that for 67% of my sales, the buyer could only purchase 1-5 images with the 52 credit package.  In this scenario, the buyer is likely to switch to the weekly subs deal.  This is what I'm concerned about.  There's not much incentive for most buyers to purchase the 52 credit package.

You are assuming that the buyer is ready to max out the package in the first week, which is surely true for some, and not others.  There is lots of incentive to buy credits if you don't know what you need them for yet, and just have a short term need to buy an image.  I see credit sales with 100 and 200 credit packs all the time - and there are monthly subs cheaper than a 200 pack.

Still, I'm as interested as anyone is whether these new packs will cannibalize sales from credits or not.

« Reply #132 on: April 07, 2011, 13:56 »
0
I don't know about the weekly sub, but I do worry that they are a bit cheap for what one could get, and the likelihood of maxing out a weekly subscription is higher than a monthly one. Actually if they max it out, that is good for us (and DT will change things quickly). If they just buy that instead of a 50 pack because they need 2 big images and that is all they get - that is bad for us.

In other news, I've gotten my first 2 level 0 sales. One is XS for 1 credit and .29 - no big deal, the other is a Tiff - 11 credits and 3.17. It would have been 3.80 or so under the old scheme. I suppose the next sale will be for more if it isn't a sub though. I still think they could have kept it at 30%, or made level 0 for 0 or 1 sale at 30%. Both images were uploaded in the last 6 months.

lisafx

« Reply #133 on: April 07, 2011, 16:09 »
0

In other news, I've gotten my first 2 level 0 sales.

What color swirlly icon represents the level 0? 

« Reply #134 on: April 07, 2011, 17:02 »
0

In other news, I've gotten my first 2 level 0 sales.


What color swirlly icon represents the level 0?  

Kind of a bronze color:

lisafx

« Reply #135 on: April 07, 2011, 17:23 »
0

In other news, I've gotten my first 2 level 0 sales.


What color swirlly icon represents the level 0?  

Kind of a bronze color:



Ah.  Thanks.  Will keep my eye out for them.  None so far today.

« Reply #136 on: April 07, 2011, 17:36 »
0
Ah.  Thanks.  Will keep my eye out for them.  None so far today.

I'm very interested in the value of the level 0 purchases.  Anyone using these just signed up, presumably may know about the weekly sub, and picks credits or not.  I've had two such sales so far, and both were with credits - and both appeared to be via 13 credit packs based on the value I received.  So they aren't all buying sub plans yet!  I have not seen any level 0 subs yet.  I don't think there would be any way to tell if it was a weekly sub unless a level 0 is purchased.  All that said, the absence of level 0 sub purchases could just mean that people who buy subs pick more expensive images since they don't really cost more.  But the two I sold were both editorial, and don't have much else to pick from (i.e. location specific).

« Reply #137 on: April 07, 2011, 17:45 »
0
Ah.  Thanks.  Will keep my eye out for them.  None so far today.


I'm very interested in the value of the level 0 purchases.  Anyone using these just signed up, presumably may know about the weekly sub, and picks credits or not.  I've had two such sales so far, and both were with credits - and both appeared to be via 13 credit packs based on the value I received.  So they aren't all buying sub plans yet!  I have not seen any level 0 subs yet.  I don't think there would be any way to tell if it was a weekly sub unless a level 0 is purchased.  All that said, the absence of level 0 sub purchases could just mean that people who buy subs pick more expensive images since they don't really cost more.  But the two I sold were both editorial, and don't have much else to pick from (i.e. location specific).


Noticed few seconds ago a Level 0 sub sale days ago..


« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 17:49 by luissantos84 »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #138 on: April 26, 2011, 14:39 »
0
I've had several Level 0 sales but RPD is holding steady.  Noticed that Subscriptions sale did not seem to change ... Level 0 Sub was 35 cents.  I guess that stayed the same?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
4809 Views
Last post February 12, 2009, 21:52
by DanP68
New Pricing from Dreamstime

Started by WarrenPrice « 1 2  All » Dreamstime.com

42 Replies
21127 Views
Last post January 12, 2010, 20:54
by rene
New DT 2012 Pricing Structure

Started by red « 1 2 ... 5 6 » Dreamstime.com

135 Replies
27229 Views
Last post May 02, 2012, 03:39
by Microbius
4 Replies
2703 Views
Last post February 04, 2013, 16:35
by gillian vann
65 Replies
17542 Views
Last post April 19, 2017, 16:19
by increasingdifficulty

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle