I think I prefer to switch off that choice for all my images now.  Can this be done in one move?  Anyone now how?

Yes, you can click the Manage Licenses link in your management area http://www.dreamstime.com/extended_license.php.  At the top you can set (or remove) the SR-EL license option/pricing for all images at once...

Thanks for that tip. I went over to uncheck that option, and I already have it unchecked. Which is odd because I just had a request for sell-the-rights not too long ago (of course, never heard back). I suppose a client can ask, even if that is unchecked.

You are right, a buyer can still request an SR-EL or RAW if it isn't available...  (you are free to decline or not respond)

I think the pricing for these has got a lot more confusing all of a sudden.  The fact that the SR-EL1 is only 25% of the SR-EL price makes it pretty unappealing to a non-exclusive if you have your prices set to the minimum or the automatic ones (as low as $250 for the SR-EL).  This means you might only get $31 for taking it offline for a year ($250 x 50% royalty x 25%).  This is pretty low - I routinely get $12 for one level 5 TIFF sale!  If you aren't exclusive the problem is compounded as what isn't selling on DT could be a big seller elsewhere.  I think many people have it in the back of their mind that it would be worth pulling an image from other sites to get a few hundred dollars, but those people obviously aren't making hundreds a year from their images in the first place!

Bottom line, non-exclusive and exclusives should both be reviewing their pricing and their decision to make SR-ELs available at all.  To me the SR-EL1 pricing is what you need to base your decision on, as it is the lowest of the three...  They aren't saying anything about where that image ends up in the searches when it comes back after a year or three, either.  On DT I am of the opinion that an older image with low sales gets lost in the search after a while.  They should consider an automatic level bump or two if an SR-EL1 or 3 happens...  Taking an image offline for 3 years would likely kill it for future sales!

Innovative idea, but it doesn't seem very good for non-exclusives unless you set your prices really high - in which case buyers were probably better off with just a high priced SR-EL in the first place...  This does seems good for exclusives, as by definition they aren't doing much with their photos other than selling it on DT anyways.

Might want to double check (older pages, also) if the changes actually went through. I've tried this on several occasions, but nothing changed. I've sent a support ticket to DT about this a while ago, but gave up when they didn't address the issue I wrote them about.

Quote from: corepics on April 04, 2011, 16:36

Might want to double check (older pages, also) if the changes actually went through. I've tried this on several occasions, but nothing changed. I've sent a support ticket to Dreamstime about this a while ago, but gave up when they didn't address the issue I wrote them about.

It turns out the new prices are only for customers who join the site from this month on. Existing customers are being charged at last year's rate, for the moment. So there are two different price schedules running in tandem. Very strange.

Yes strange. Maybe there will be cases of existing customers opening new accounts so they can get a better deal. 

Quote from: Komar on April 05, 2011, 08:45

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 05, 2011, 07:46

Quote from: corepics on April 04, 2011, 16:36

Might want to double check (older pages, also) if the changes actually went through. I've tried this on several occasions, but nothing changed. I've sent a support ticket to Dreamstime about this a while ago, but gave up when they didn't address the issue I wrote them about.

It turns out the new prices are only for customers who join the site from this month on. Existing customers are being charged at last year's rate, for the moment. So there are two different price schedules running in tandem. Very strange.

Yes strange. Maybe there will be cases of existing customers opening new accounts so they can get a better deal. 

What better deal?  A Level 0 costs what a Level 1 used to, and everything else is higher across the board for the new customers.  Whether you are an old customer or not you have access to the weekly subscription...

The weekly subscription plan is a joke for contributors (not an April Fool's joke but a JOKE!)  We're going to be shafted big time with this new plan.  I can see that most sales will be subscription sales in the future and when this happens, I'll be forced to give Dreamstime the boot, just like I did with Fotolia.  Shame because I really liked them.

I was excited about the increase in prices initially, thinking this is a step forward in the micro industry and expecting to see other agencies follow suit.  My excitement was replaced with disgust when I saw the weekly subscription plan.  There is no incentive for the DT buyer to pay as they go anymore.  Why would they buy 52 credits for $49.99 when they can get up to 700 credits for just $44.99 under the old pricing structure and 910 credits with the new pricing structure.

I can't help but feel suspicious that they introduced this entire princing structure (which is now suddenly for new customers only) just to sneak in the weekly subscription plan. 

Dreamstime was one of my two favourite agents... I can see that changing quite quickly!

Disappointed!

I just hope they quickly raise the weekly subscription price if it becomes too popular.  Wont it lose them a lot of money if buyers switch to it and max out their downloads?  I really don't want to drop DT, so I hope they react quickly if this does go wrong.

Quote from: Komar on April 05, 2011, 08:45

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 05, 2011, 07:46

Quote from: corepics on April 04, 2011, 16:36

Might want to double check (older pages, also) if the changes actually went through. I've tried this on several occasions, but nothing changed. I've sent a support ticket to Dreamstime about this a while ago, but gave up when they didn't address the issue I wrote them about.

It turns out the new prices are only for customers who join the site from this month on. Existing customers are being charged at last year's rate, for the moment. So there are two different price schedules running in tandem. Very strange.

Yes strange. Maybe there will be cases of existing customers opening new accounts so they can get a better deal. 

What better deal?  A Level 0 costs what a Level 1 used to, and everything else is higher across the board for the new customers.  Whether you are an old customer or not you have access to the weekly subscription...

ah! Seems I wasn't paying attention. I don't know what dt are thinking of with weekly subscriptions, if it catches on it's going to kill us, unless of course they gain a larger customer base than ss. The future of microstock, all subs?

Quote from: Komar on April 06, 2011, 04:58

ah! Seems I wasn't paying attention. I don't know what Dreamstime are thinking of with weekly subscriptions, if it catches on it's going to kill us, unless of course they gain a larger customer base than Shutterstock. The future of microstock, all subs?

They aren't still thinking of weekly subscriptions.  They have already implemented it, it's a done deal.

Yes I know. It was a figure of speech. I mean, profit instigates most decisions. This will dig  deep in to credit purchases, if not eliminate them completely. It just doesn't seem wise, but then again what do I know, I've never known anything about making money in microstock.  

Quote from: Komar on April 06, 2011, 04:58

ah! Seems I wasn't paying attention. I don't know what Dreamstime are thinking of with weekly subscriptions, if it catches on it's going to kill us, unless of course they gain a larger customer base than Shutterstock. The future of microstock, all subs?

They aren't still thinking of weekly subscriptions.  They have already implemented it, it's a done deal.

Sorry, I just realised why u thought i didn't realise dt had already implemented it. I meant if it catches on with the other agencies, not with dt.

The more I think about it, the more it's infuriating me. This could be worse news than when they cut the commission. That if I remember was supposed to be for our own good, as they needed more to help expand and take over the microstock world. Well that didn't happen and as far as I can make out they haven't climbed positions and I really doubt we are making more money because of commission cuts. My own earnings fell in every quarter of 2010, and the first quarter of this year is only back to the same level of the first quarter of 2010, of course this is also after adding more images. With weekly subscriptions there may be no end to the slide.

I guess they must have "questioned" this before.. I don�t believe they want to ruin their business

A weekly subscription is a good marketing tactic.  Try us out for a week.  Then buy a real subscription.  But having a weekly subscription available to anyone at any time is just horrible business.  A sign of desperation.

What I don't get - if they are trying to be a subscription site, why don't they take all the photos they can get their hands on instead of just a fraction from a series?

I won't argue that I know this to be good for contributors, but I'd be interested to see behind the scenes what kind of buyer actually goes for this.  It would be a no brainer to buy the weekly sub if you were already going to buy a 50 pack for some specific purchases that used the whole 50 pack.  But if you occasionally need images the weekly sub is still hard to take full advantage of.  As someone who occasionally buys credit packs for specific purposes, I would not want a sub pack that expired in a week for my $50.  I'd rather use the 5-10 credits out of the pack for the image I need today and then have a full year to use up the rest.  If you are a blogger and you need small images, the credit pack still gets you a large number of photos (i.e. you aren't taking advantage of the full size anyways) and you don't have to know in advance what you might need.

I have no data to support this conclusion, but I'm optimistic that this will tend to draw sub buyers away from monthly plans or other sites more than it will cause credit buyers to step up to subs.  Either you have a need for 70 images a week, or you don't, in my opinion.  It takes time to log in and spend the time to grab 10 images a day that you might use in the future...  Whether this is good or bad for contributors remains to be seen, but will depend a lot on why buyers are coming to Dreamstime.  People will still need credit packs for ELs, which I believe is the main reason people would buy a large credit pack in the first place.

Another way to look at this is to look into what price people are paying for the credits they use to buy your images now.  To get a credit value around $0.92 you have to spend about $100 on credits at once.  The monthly sub is only $128 - the same argument applies there - why don't people buy the sub for a month instead of a 100 credit pack?  If the argument is that the price is so similar everyone will pick subs were valid, then you wouldn't see any credit sales where the buyers spent more than $100 on the credits - yet it happens all the time in my credit sales.  For this reason, am I optimistic that there are truly two kinds of buyers...  Don't get me wrong, this will surely push some people to buy subs that didn't before.  But will they be new buyers, buyers from other sites, monthly sub buyers, or existing credit buyers?