Author Topic: Sales through subscriptions: Indicative of image value? (Read 3399 times)

SME · « **on:** June 26, 2013, 02:32 »

Do you feel there is any correlation between images sold through subscriptions and images sold on demand? Obviously the on demand ones will pay out more, but the question is, say one image gets 10 subscription sales (25 cents each) and another gets 2 on demand ($2 each). The on demand one has made you more money this month, but does that suggest that it is a better image, or more valuable? Or is it all variance and that next month the stats may completely flip?

I guess my question is, do on demand sales reflect an image that is "better"? And are subscription sales for cheaper or less "quality" images?

My thoughts are "no", but I haven't been in the industry long enough to know for sure. So I am asking for opinions.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** June 26, 2013, 02:46 »

The different commission you get with subs and on demand doesn't mean one image is better than the other. Just because you get $0.25, doesn't mean the buyer paid less than an on demand buyer. Lots of subs buyers don't use all their download allowance, so they might be paying more than they would if they purchased an image on demand. They might use subscriptions so they have a fixed budget for images each month.

SME · « **Reply #2 on:** June 26, 2013, 02:55 »

Yep, that's a valid point - it doesn't matter how much we make, it matters how much the client paid. And to some extent people who pay for subscriptions may actually indicate a higher consistency or level of professionalism that on demand won't, making subscription sales potentially more valuable of an indicator.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 26, 2013, 08:25 »

Quote from: EM on June 26, 2013, 02:32

I guess my question is, do on demand sales reflect an image that is "better"? And are subscription sales for cheaper or less "quality" images?

I think the answer to both questions is no.

Batman · « **Reply #4 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:47 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on June 26, 2013, 08:25

Quote from: EM on June 26, 2013, 02:32
I guess my question is, do on demand sales reflect an image that is "better"? And are subscription sales for cheaper or less "quality" images?

I think the answer to both questions is no.

+1 Buyers who don't have subscriptions by on demand has nothing to do with bettr.

OM · « **Reply #5 on:** June 27, 2013, 04:59 »

If I were a buyer (which I am occasionally), I would first find the images I needed at a particular agency, calculate how many images I needed for a certain project and at what size I would need them. If I needed,say, 20 images at max size for print and the majority of images selected were priced at 3x basic credit (as at FT), then I would probably buy a month's subscription because it would be much cheaper than the 'on demand' option.
Whilst SS has a standard price for all its jpegs, that too can get expensive if you need 20+ images for print and a $200 sub for one month would be cheaper.

So simple economics and not the 'value' of an image will determine whether the sale goes down as a sub-sale or 'on demand'.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Sales through subscriptions: Indicative of image value? (Read 3399 times)

SME

sharpshot

SME

sgoodwin4813

Batman

OM

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors