Author Topic: Are subscriptions finally starting to hurt this industry? (Mainly SS) (Read 19202 times)

ironarrow · « **on:** January 19, 2009, 18:02 »

We are seeing way too many threads complaining about low sales recently. As a matter of fact I think there is no need to complain. I might be wrong but I think the business in general is in decline. I still manage to keep my numbers reasonable by uploading many more images than I used to.

But I don't blame the competition. This is not because of the competition because I alone referred 2 buyers for DT and I know the number of buyers is going up too, since these people had no idea about microstock before I told them..

I remember how I used to need 20+ dls a day to get to Top 50 most popular vectors.

Believe it or not I managed to get to the Top 50 vectors with about 8 dls per day. This alone, proves low sales in general.

Now imagine you are a buyer. Last year you were a subscriber of Shutterstock for 12 months and downloaded all 9000 images you are allowed to even if you don't need them. Amazing for a buyer.

Now, a clever buyer will download all the popular subjects and cover many possible uses with those 9000 images.

It is a huge number which can cover you during the economical crisis. You don't have to subscribe with all those 9000 amazing images you already have. At least until the global crisis is gone and you are out of the hot waters.

If I was a buyer, I would definitely make do with what I downloaded but never got to use. 9000 is pretty d.amn good to cover all the main subjects.

To summarize, Shutterstock and followers (StockXpert, FT, DT, 123RF) shot themselves in the head for the sake of short term success. Sure, they got very good numbers in the past but the subscription model is eventually going to create "a doomsday effect" for microstock industry.

Giving the images away even If the buyers don't need them will prevent the buyers from buying them next time; as he/she already got them.

SS made money yesterday, making money today, but killing the tomorrow IMO... And so does the other incredibly clever agencies like FT, StockXpert, DT, 123rf etc.. I didn't talk about them much as Their subs dl volumes are very low comparing to SS.

abimages · « **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:08 »

I have seen a steady decline in downloads at SS over the past few months, despite regular uploads. I have seen reports of others experiencing a downturn there also.

I'm considering pulling out from there as nowadays images have such a short shelf life, it's almost not worth the effort required any longer.

stokfoto · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:22 »

nowadays I too experience a significant decline of DLs at SS I don't know why it would be though despite the fact that I have been uploading as usual-if not more-
It could be because of the current economical situations but I believe increasing competition among the contributes must have something to do with it too and I also believe on demand sales some kind of affects on subs sales at SS

lisafx · « **Reply #3 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:22 »

You make some interesting points, and you may be right for all I know. But IMO it is more likely the slowing world economy that is responsible for softening sales for a couple of reasons:

According to a number of folks I have spoken to in marketing (online and also in the real world), advertising is way down. Companies with tight budgets don't see the point in advertising when people just aren't spending. And given a choice between cutting marketing budgets or staff, they are opting for cutting advertising.

And secondly, as people are losing their day jobs, or having their hours cut, microstock starts to look like a great way to make extra money to supplement shrinking or disappearing incomes, so there is more competition.

As I said, you make a good point about subscriptions too - I am not a fan of them, for sure. But if the economy was still growing at a healthy pace I think those folks would still be downloading and not just relying on their stash from last year.

Iriz · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:35 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02

SS made money yesterday, making money today, but killing the tomorrow IMO... And so does the other incredibly clever agencies like FT, StockXpert, DT, 123rf etc.. I didn't talk about them much as Their subs dl volumes are very low comparing to SS.

That's a reasonable assumption. The other thing to consider is this, whenever you've got too much food in the fridge you end up not using it or throwing a lot of it out. Or at least that's what I do. So you might use a similar analogy for stock. Yes I've bought a few images myself but all of a sudden some other ones look a lot better and the whole cycle starts all over again.

Those who subscribe to the "eat as much as you can" model tend to hoard and therefore it's not so much about the quantity or quality but getting as much value as you can for whatever the sub cost. That's why microstockers will continue to make money. These hoarders never have enough if you get my drift.

ironarrow · « **Reply #5 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:44 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 19, 2009, 18:22

You make some interesting points, and you may be right for all I know. But IMO it is more likely the slowing world economy that is responsible for softening sales for a couple of reasons:

According to a number of folks I have spoken to in marketing (online and also in the real world), advertising is way down. Companies with tight budgets don't see the point in advertising when people just aren't spending. And given a choice between cutting marketing budgets or staff, they are opting for cutting advertising.

And secondly, as people are losing their day jobs, or having their hours cut, microstock starts to look like a great way to make extra money to supplement shrinking or disappearing incomes, so there is more competition.

As I said, you make a good point about subscriptions too - I am not a fan of them, for sure. But if the economy was still growing at a healthy pace I think those folks would still be downloading and not just relying on their stash from last year.

I agree with advertising as a very close friend of mine has an advertising company. He always says the first thing companies do is cutting the advertising costs. So I back you up here but I don't really buy the competition thing as I don't see many quality competition rising recently. As I mentioned in another thread it is mostly wannabes.

If I am still getting to Top 50 and it is not others I can't complain about competition since I get to top 50 vectors every so often just like last year. The difference this time is that I am getting there with many less dls. If I was hurt by competition I should not have been getting to top 50 no matter what.

But I am, so the problem is not competition. The problem is I am getting there with 3 times less dls than last year.

I might agree with stokfoto too about on demand dls having a little effect on it but still!!

I have another friend who owns a small design company and when I tell him about stock he is like "why bother, I have my CDs with lots of images about lots of subjects". He is one example and I am sure if he was to subscribe to SS for a year he is the kind of guy who would get all 9000 (not 1 less) and make do with it for 10 years

ironarrow · « **Reply #6 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:48 »

Quote from: Iriz on January 19, 2009, 18:35

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02
SS made money yesterday, making money today, but killing the tomorrow IMO... And so does the other incredibly clever agencies like FT, StockXpert, DT, 123rf etc.. I didn't talk about them much as Their subs dl volumes are very low comparing to SS.

That's a reasonable assumption. The other thing to consider is this, whenever you've got too much food in the fridge you end up not using it or throwing a lot of it out. Or at least that's what I do. So you might use a similar analogy for stock. Yes I've bought a few images myself but all of a sudden some other ones look a lot better and the whole cycle starts all over again.

Those who subscribe to the "eat as much as you can" model tend to hoard and therefore it's not so much about the quantity or quality but getting as much value as you can for whatever the sub cost. That's why microstockers will continue to make money. These hoarders never have enough if you get my drift.

I do get what you are saying but I am definitely convinced that the future of microstock would have been much brighter If there was no subs.

sharpshot · « **Reply #7 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:50 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02

We are seeing way too many threads complaining about low sales recently.

I don't think this has anything to do with subs sites. There always have been threads about low sales. They seem to peak in the winter and summer, when sales are seasonally low and diminish in the spring and autumn. It is not surprising that there are more at the moment.

ironarrow · « **Reply #8 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:56 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 19, 2009, 18:50

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02
We are seeing way too many threads complaining about low sales recently.

I don't think this has anything to do with subs sites. There always have been threads about low sales. They seem to peak in the winter and summer, when sales are seasonally low and diminish in the spring and autumn. It is not surprising that there are more at the moment.

I hope you are right and subs will save our lives

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #9 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:59 »

If only there was a hero, someone everyone looked up to and lauded with praise, that could lead the exodus from the subs...

Didn't we try that before

?

tan510jomast · « **Reply #10 on:** January 19, 2009, 20:58 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 19, 2009, 18:22

And secondly, as people are losing their day jobs, or having their hours cut, microstock starts to look like a great way to make extra money to supplement shrinking or disappearing incomes, so there is more competition.

A very insightful point Lisafx. No doubt some of you who were used to seeing more sales are facing competition from these newcomers who perharps have lost their jobs, and now hoping to find some income here. Or just that as time goes by, newbies gain experience and knowhow and are now attracting buyers. The pie is being shared over a larger scale.
I for one am seeing more sales , all to which I feel is due to the aforementioned. Naturally, this increased competition will be good as quality will no doubt go up, from all involved in order to keep ahead of the game.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2009, 21:09 »

I don't really imagine that people that are losing their jobs are turning to microstock to feed their family. Maybe a couple here and there, but I just don't see it anymore than a year ago.

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2009, 21:19 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 19, 2009, 21:09

I don't really imagine that people that are losing their jobs are turning to microstock to feed their family. Maybe a couple here and there, but I just don't see it anymore than a year ago.

I have read a number of posts in various forums over the past couple of months from microstock hobbyists who have been laid off and are trying this full time. And then there are the posts from newbies wanting to know how to make the most money in microstock (rather than looking for a place to sell the photos they enjoy taking for fun). For everyone that posts about it we can probably assume there are a number in the same situation that aren't bothering with posting in the forums.

Add to that the growing number of books, blogs, magazine articles, etc. that tout microstock as a get rich quick scheme, and how can it fail to attract hopeful folks who have been downsized?

hoi ha · « **Reply #13 on:** January 19, 2009, 22:03 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02

Now imagine you are a buyer. Last year you were a subscriber of Shutterstock for 12 months and downloaded all 9000 images you are allowed to even if you don't need them. Amazing for a buyer.

Now, a clever buyer will download all the popular subjects and cover many possible uses with those 9000 images.

It is a huge number which can cover you during the economical crisis. You don't have to subscribe with all those 9000 amazing images you already have. At least until the global crisis is gone and you are out of the hot waters.

If I was a buyer, I would definitely make do with what I downloaded but never got to use. 9000 is pretty d.amn good to cover all the main subjects.

To summarize, Shutterstock and followers shot themselves in the head for the sake of short term success. Sure, they got very good numbers in the past but the subscription model is eventually going to create "a doomsday effect" for microstock industry.

Giving the images away even If the buyers don't need them will prevent the buyers from buying them next time; as he/she already got them.

SS made money yesterday, making money today, but killing the tomorrow IMO... And so does the other incredibly clever agencies like FT, StockXpert, DT, 123rf etc.. I didn't talk about them much as Their subs dl volumes are very low comparing to SS.

As someone who has been using subs for a year and a half now I can tell you that this is not how it works at all - yes we have many many images that we have not actually used and hope to use them one day - but publishing is not like that - we cannot anticipate especially well what images we might need ahead of time because who the heck knows what an article in 3 months is going to be about or what news story is going to need to be illustrated?

I admit that as the economy has begun to hurt us I have contemplated whether we could perhaps not renew our subs for a month to save the revenue and whether we could live off of what we have in the image bank ... but at the end of the day that simply does not work ... every story, every news item, every article has a different slant and angle that requires a fresh way of viewing things and illustrating them ... we need new and fresh images almost every day. Period.

People moan about subs but the truth is many many many of the images downloaded via subs are never actually used - with subs your images are getting purchases they never would have had ... subs allow our designers to play around with ideas, half of which do not work and hence do not get published/used - if we were limited to pay as you go purchases none of these downloads would be happening and we would be using the comps only and our actual purchases would be very minimal.

From a pricing point of view it would be more efficient for us to send one of our designers off on a photography course in the evenings with an eye toward bringing our image production in house - and that is not out of the realm of possibility given the relative pricing issues at play here.

ironarrow · « **Reply #14 on:** January 19, 2009, 22:20 »

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 22:03

As someone who has been using subs for a year and a half now I can tell you that this is not how it works at all - yes we have many many images that we have not actually used and hope to use them one day - but publishing is not like that - we cannot anticipate especially well what images we might need ahead of time because who the heck knows what an article in 3 months is going to be about or what news story is going to need to be illustrated?

I admit that as the economy has begun to hurt us I have contemplated whether we could perhaps not renew our subs for a month to save the revenue and whether we could live off of what we have in the image bank ... but at the end of the day that simply does not work ... every story, every news item, every article has a different slant and angle that requires a fresh way of viewing things and illustrating them ... we need new and fresh images almost every day. Period.

People moan about subs but the truth is many many many of the images downloaded via subs are never actually used - with subs your images are getting purchases they never would have had ... subs allow our designers to play around with ideas, half of which do not work and hence do not get published/used - if we were limited to pay as you go purchases none of these downloads would be happening and we would be using the comps only and our actual purchases would be very minimal.

From a pricing point of view it would be more efficient for us to send one of our designers off on a photography course in the evenings with an eye toward bringing our image production in house - and that is not out of the realm of possibility given the relative pricing issues at play here.

Well I have to tell you my friend that is only you. I did in the past worked as a very very successful graphic designer and I know how it is like. It is not like magazines or fresh new looks. You can get away with what you have on your image bank CDs many many times.

And hell, Do I want you to buy many of my images for 35 cents? No! I would have gotten more If there were no subs. Shutterstock's new on demand option proves me right every day. I am already getting 5-6 on demands a day in average which equals 50 of your little dls. If SS asked me I would give up subs dls right here, right now If it was going to become an on demand only site.

Also since I do illustrations, send one of your designers to take an illustration course as well. If he works hard enough for 65 years maybe he can get his comics published like I did. It makes me want to puke when someone backs the subs model.

Do you know that I am not making any more than before on StockXpert since the subs are introduced? Yes, thank god I am getting millions of sub dls

and in return I lost many of my $5 or $7,5 sales. I am making exactly the same money with subs.

I would rather make it on 50 image sales than 550 image sales.

hoi ha · « **Reply #15 on:** January 19, 2009, 22:45 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 22:20

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 22:03

Well I have to tell you my friend that is only you. I did in the past worked as a very very successful graphic designer and I know how it is like. It is not like magazines or fresh new looks. You can get away with what you have on your image bank CDs many many times.

And hell, Do I want you to buy many of my images for 35 cents? No! I would have gotten more If there were no subs. Shutterstock's new on demand option proves me right every day. I am already getting 5-6 on demands a day in average which equals 50 of your little dls. If SS asked me I would give up subs dls right here, right now If it was going to become an on demand only site.

Also since I do illustrations, send one of your designers to take an illustration course as well. If he works hard enough for 65 years maybe he can get his comics published like I did. It makes me want to puke when someone backs the subs model.

Do you know that I am not making any more than before on StockXpert since the subs are introduced? Yes, thank god I am getting millions of sub dls and in return I lost many of my $5 or $7,5 sales. I am making exactly the same money with subs.

I would rather make it on 50 image sales than 550 image sales.

All right then ... hostility noted. It's pretty interesting to learn my company is so unique ...

ironarrow · « **Reply #16 on:** January 19, 2009, 23:09 »

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 22:45

All right then ... hostility noted. It's pretty interesting to learn my company is so unique ...

What hostility

I just made my point against your denial that you would spend much more money if there were no subs. If not, Why are you subscribing? Go for On demand!

DanP68 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 19, 2009, 23:38 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02

To summarize, Shutterstock and followers shot themselves in the head for the sake of short term success. Sure, they got very good numbers in the past but the subscription model is eventually going to create "a doomsday effect" for microstock industry.

Take a look to the right. Do you see that chart?

Where is Shutterstock ranked?
#1.

Where have they been ranked for the last 12 months?
#1.

I've been there for 18 months, and my images continue to sell from my initial uploads. I also make $28 per EL sale, which is substantially more than I make anywhere else. So will you revisit your theory on how we have shot ourselves in the head one year from now when SS is still ranked #1 among contributors?

I also don't appreciate SS contributors being called "it's followers" as if we are all a bunch of lemmings. Perhaps you should accomplish something meaningful in microstock before criticizing all of us?

gostwyck · « **Reply #18 on:** January 19, 2009, 23:43 »

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 22:45

All right then ... hostility noted. It's pretty interesting to learn my company is so unique ...

Oh no, please don't regard Ironarrow as speaking for all of us. Thanks very much for your interesting insight into a regular volume-buyer's needs. Cheers.

hoi ha · « **Reply #19 on:** January 19, 2009, 23:49 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 23:09

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 22:45
All right then ... hostility noted. It's pretty interesting to learn my company is so unique ...

What hostility I just made my point against your denial that you would spend much more money if there were no subs. If not, Why are you subscribing? Go for On demand!

I took your words ..." It makes me want to puke when someone backs the subs model ..." as being evidence than you had a degree of hostility towards subs model and those who back it ... but perhaps I misunderstood that ... no worries ...

DanP68 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 19, 2009, 23:49 »

Of course Hoiha's company is not unique. His experiences echo what we many of us read in the thread Yuri started one year ago regarding the amount of images actually downloaded under a subscription plan. Ironarrow is attempting to suggest every situation is like his own. Unfortunately for his argument it does not mesh with the information we already have on this subject. So do you trust the contacts of one of microstock's top contributors, or Ironarrow?

I will say this...

Before another one of these anti-subs threads is started, I would like to see the poster put his money where his mouth is. Pull out of Shutterstock. Pull out of Dreamstime. Pull out of Fotolia. Opt out at StockXpert. Then talk all you want. Until then, it's just words. You don't have the conviction to back yourself up, so why expect anyone else to do it for you?

And by the way, I made my stand with FT's treatment of contributors over the last year. I didn't moan about it incessantly. I pulled out, and sacrificed future earnings for what I stand for. Until someone else does the same with SS or whoever else they are railing against, I am calling their bluff.

ironarrow · « **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2009, 00:07 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 19, 2009, 23:38

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02
To summarize, Shutterstock and followers shot themselves in the head for the sake of short term success. Sure, they got very good numbers in the past but the subscription model is eventually going to create "a doomsday effect" for microstock industry.

Take a look to the right. Do you see that chart?

Where is Shutterstock ranked?
#1.

Where have they been ranked for the last 12 months?
#1.

I've been there for 18 months, and my images continue to sell from my initial uploads. I also make $28 per EL sale, which is substantially more than I make anywhere else. So will you revisit your theory on how we have shot ourselves in the head one year from now when SS is still ranked #1 among contributors?

I also don't appreciate SS contributors being called "it's followers" as if we are all a bunch of lemmings. Perhaps you should accomplish something meaningful in microstock before criticizing all of us?

By "it's followers" I meant StockXpert, FT, DT, 123rf and other sites which introduced subs following SS. Not contributors. And SS is only the best If you haven't got enough images and acceptance at IS. Because anyone claiming SS is better than IS is dreaming.

The reason SS is on top on the right is because most contributors are not approved by IS.

IS has 22.000 contributors...
SS claims to have 135.000 something... The difference is 113.000 people. They don't even have an experience of a real high standard microstock site.

SS is at best 2nd website. No top contributor will rate SS over IS. If they do, it means they are not TOP, and they have not achieved anything yet.

ironarrow · « **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2009, 00:10 »

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 23:49

I took your words ..." It makes me want to puke when someone backs the subs model ..." as being evidence than you had a degree of hostility towards subs model and those who back it ... but perhaps I misunderstood that ... no worries ...

I did think twice before I used that statement but then decided what's the big harm

Why would I have any problem with you? I don't even know you. Thanks for the input but I don't agree at all.

hoi ha · « **Reply #23 on:** January 20, 2009, 00:28 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 00:10

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 23:49

I took your words ..." It makes me want to puke when someone backs the subs model ..." as being evidence than you had a degree of hostility towards subs model and those who back it ... but perhaps I misunderstood that ... no worries ...

I did think twice before I used that statement but then decided what's the big harm Why would I have any problem with you? I don't even know you. Thanks for the input but I don't agree at all.

no harm at all ... I am not so thin skinned

leaf · « **Reply #24 on:** January 20, 2009, 02:09 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 00:07

The reason SS is on top on the right is because most contributors are not approved by IS.

IS has 22.000 contributors...
SS claims to have 135.000 something... The difference is 113.000 people. They don't even have an experience of a real high standard microstock site.

SS is at best 2nd website. No top contributor will rate SS over IS. If they do, it means they are not TOP, and they have not achieved anything yet.

This thread is an interesting discussion -

But about the point quosted, Those who are not accepted at iStock wouldn't be giving a vote to IS so this wouldn't bring their average down at all.

I think the reason iStock is so low is because people can't get their portfolio online. I see that per image iStock earns way more than any other site, but at a limit of 20 uploads/week when my goal is to produce 50/week - I get behind 1600 images/year. Add to an extremely laborious upload process, there are many weeks I can't be bothered to upload there at all. Big producers get behind even quicker making shutterstock or fotolia an easy #1 earner. I don't think it is the subs though that make IS a better earner per image basis. I think it is their amount of customers. If people have heard about microstock, it is iStock they have heard about.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Are subscriptions finally starting to hurt this industry? (Mainly SS) (Read 19202 times)

ironarrow

abimages

stokfoto

lisafx

Iriz

ironarrow

ironarrow

sharpshot

ironarrow

Sean Locke Photography

tan510jomast

Sean Locke Photography

lisafx

hoi ha

ironarrow

hoi ha

ironarrow

DanP68

gostwyck

hoi ha

DanP68

ironarrow

ironarrow

hoi ha

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors