Author Topic: Premium subscription XLs (Read 20846 times)

kevin1 · « **on:** September 07, 2009, 02:07 »

Lately I notice an increase in XL size images sold as "premium subscription". Did you notice the same?

I'm curious about the general trend, it seems that FT slowly turns into a subscription site, which (given the huge difference in sales volume to the real subscription site - SS) will also turn it from a crappy site to the crappiest.

Year after year FT sucks more and shows more that it doesn't give a * about photographers.

goldenangel · « **Reply #1 on:** September 07, 2009, 02:42 »

Yeah, it was announced a few weeks ago:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/news-fotolia-members-get-it-all-with-premium-subscription-plan/

Subscription, unfortunately, seems to be a general trend lately.

kevin1 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 07, 2009, 03:02 »

I know it was announced, it just came into effect recently, more and more. Most of my sales now are subs or "premium subs". And the premium ones are mostly sold as XL.

goldenangel · « **Reply #3 on:** September 07, 2009, 04:47 »

It makes sense. My understanding was that whole the purpose of premium subscription plan is for buyers to be able to get XL images.

madelaide · « **Reply #4 on:** September 07, 2009, 16:47 »

I had several last month, none this month so far (only regular subs). This move again make subs more advantageous for big buyers, or maybe to attract subscribers from other sites. FT was already the cheapest subs, if I am not mistaken, but with that restriction.

Allsa · « **Reply #5 on:** September 07, 2009, 17:02 »

Subs are bringing down my earnings on all sites. It's reached the point where if it were not for the waste of rejections, I'd seriously consider iStock exclusivity. Up until the epidemic of subscriptions, I never imagined I'd say that...

icefront · « **Reply #6 on:** September 07, 2009, 17:07 »

I have more and more subscription sales at all agencies, and I'm thinking, what can be worse...

So, ladies and gentlemen, I think, today we are living in the Golden Era of Microstock Photography since there are many more per-photo sales. Compared to the future when we, the rich photographers, we will pay for our images to be downloaded and at the end of the day wins who paid more.

Seriously, with the today's technology and equipment availability virtually everybody can be a photographer. Forget the old days when only composition and message was important via the photo, today it's very important also the volume what this army of photographers produce. Volume production needs volume selling.

But the theory remains the same: it has value what is rare.

icefront · « **Reply #7 on:** September 07, 2009, 17:14 »

Quote from: Allsa on September 07, 2009, 17:02

Subs are bringing down my earnings on all sites. It's reached the point where if it were not for the waste of rejections, I'd seriously consider iStock exclusivity. Up until the epidemic of subscriptions, I never imagined I'd say that...

Together with . of rejections and nearly only subscriptions you will earn always more as non-exclusive than exclusive at IS. You will depend only on one agency. There is also subscription on IS. So what will change?

KB · « **Reply #8 on:** September 07, 2009, 17:31 »

Quote from: icefront on September 07, 2009, 17:14

Quote from: Allsa on September 07, 2009, 17:02
Subs are bringing down my earnings on all sites. It's reached the point where if it were not for the waste of rejections, I'd seriously consider iStock exclusivity. Up until the epidemic of subscriptions, I never imagined I'd say that...

Together with . of rejections and nearly only subscriptions you will earn always more as non-exclusive than exclusive at IS. You will depend only on one agency. There is also subscription on IS. So what will change?

Not that I'm advocating it, but ...

One change would be far fewer sub sales (I think I average about 1 in 40 sales being subs at IS, compared to about 6-7 of 10 at FT).

But maybe a bigger change would be getting $5.60 for an XXXL sub sale instead of the huge total of ... $0.36?

ETA: In the spirit of full disclosure, though, I've never had a sub sale larger than L at IS (but those have earned as much as $2.28, which still handily beats $0.36).

lisafx · « **Reply #9 on:** September 07, 2009, 18:21 »

KB, are you advocating IS exclusivity for those who don't like sub prices? If so, I agree. If you don't like low priced subs Istock exclusivity would seem to be the best option.

KB · « **Reply #10 on:** September 07, 2009, 18:45 »

Well, I wrote "not that I'm advocating it". But what I really meant was, "not that I'm seriously considering it for myself". For those who are bothered by sub sales even more than I am, then perhaps I am advocating it after all!

It's beginning to look more and more to me like there will be little difference in subs / PPD DLs among DT, FT, and SS. SS's PPD sales keep increasing, while the same can be said for sub sales at DT & FT. If the current trend holds, it wouldn't surprise me to see all 3 roughly at about the same level within a year (which looks to me to be around 70-80% subs).

And FT loses in that comparison, since their average PPD is far below DT & SS for me.

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #11 on:** September 08, 2009, 16:36 »

Since the new premium subscription is in effect I realize a DRASTIC decrease in PPD. It means significantly less income as well. I am not happy. I agree that IS exclusivity is going to be an option again. Downloads on SS are decreasing month after months, StockXpert is sold out, DT never had been a real big seller and FTL is lowering its prices methodically. So yes, IS is going to be the final winner.

kevin1 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 09, 2009, 03:36 »

Quote from: NitorPhoto on September 08, 2009, 16:36

Since the new premium subscription is in effect I realize a DRASTIC decrease in PPD. It means significantly less income as well. I am not happy.

Exactly. Except that Fotolia doesn't quite care about whether we're happy or not.

I would really like to see a mass exodus from Fotolia, this is the worst ever agency from photographer's point of view. I simply hate those emails "congrats you have sold another Premium Subscription XL size photo". They also dropped in revenue for me to a funny place 5, even after 123RF.

kevin1 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 09, 2009, 03:42 »

Fotolia will end up selling only premium subscriptions because it's very convenient to buyers. And PPD sales will become much more rare than you'll get ODs from SS.
I think Fotolia is trying to be Shutterstock in volume sales and that's plain stupid, they're light years behind and they'll never catch up.

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #14 on:** September 09, 2009, 04:40 »

For me FTL is still not bad. Before this premium subscription they were the more dynamically advancing agency... income-wise. They already outstiped SS and they were near to IS in monthly income. It resulted a higher priority in our daily upload policy so FTL got the most images of our and they got them first. But now they are back to 3-4th place. This is sad, because I had and still have high hopes in this agency. I still hope they will change their mind... or something.

dirkr · « **Reply #15 on:** September 10, 2009, 05:44 »

At least one good thing about the Premium subscription: I had one file selling today as Premium subscription that is only available as "L" size.
So it made me 0,36 (Euros in my case) instead of 0,31 because the buyer just happened to have bought the Premium plan.

fotografer · « **Reply #17 on:** September 10, 2009, 13:15 »

I have to agree with you Mat, I am seeing exactly the same as you with Fotolia giving me my highest earnings most months.

Quote from: MatHayward on September 10, 2009, 13:01

I see my sales and profit continue to increase month after month with a diverse mix of regular subscriptions, Premium subscriptions, L, XL and EL sales every day on Fotolia.

Mat
[/quote]

hqimages · « **Reply #18 on:** September 10, 2009, 13:18 »

I'm guessing the OP is a small contributor.. you can't really compare a small contributors experience against a pro's..

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #19 on:** September 10, 2009, 15:34 »

Hmm... my portfolio at FTL is 7000+ images. Before the premium subs* my income was steady or increasing. The last months (when premium subs took effect) was a terrible slow down. Nearly the same amount of monthly downloads with a much lower income.

Quote from: MatHayward on September 10, 2009, 13:01

Quote from: kevin1 on September 09, 2009, 03:36
Quote from: NitorPhoto on September 08, 2009, 16:36
Since the new premium subscription is in effect I realize a DRASTIC decrease in PPD. It means significantly less income as well. I am not happy.

Exactly. Except that Fotolia doesn't quite care about whether we're happy or not.

I would really like to see a mass exodus from Fotolia, this is the worst ever agency from photographer's point of view. I simply hate those emails "congrats you have sold another Premium Subscription XL size photo". They also dropped in revenue for me to a funny place 5, even after 123RF.

Kevin,

I am curious as to how many photo's you have in your portfolio there. Can we see an example of your work to determine if it is in fact the agency that is causing your poor revenue stream? I see my sales and profit continue to increase month after month with a diverse mix of regular subscriptions, Premium subscriptions, L, XL and EL sales every day on Fotolia.

Looking forward to seeing your work,

Mat

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Premium subscription XLs (Read 20846 times)

kevin1

goldenangel

kevin1

goldenangel

madelaide

Allsa

icefront

icefront

KB

lisafx

KB

NitorPhoto

kevin1

kevin1

NitorPhoto

dirkr

MatHayward

fotografer

hqimages

NitorPhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors