pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: subscriptions  (Read 7052 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 01, 2008, 06:11 »
0
what is your feelings on these subscriptions i am fairly new to stock but recently been selling a few images through subscriptions and it seems to be a rip off for photographers i just sold a large photo on fotolia for 0.3 commision not good.


« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2008, 04:54 »
0
Try shutterstock, and youll se what subscriptions is all about.  The other sites dont count for now... 

Microbius

« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2008, 05:33 »
0
what is your feelings on these subscriptions i am fairly new to stock but recently been selling a few images through subscriptions and it seems to be a rip off for photographers i just sold a large photo on fotolia for 0.3 commision not good.

Depends on the business model that the agency has, with SS I would say yes, it is a total rip off if you are any good at producing images. Their model means that the better a contributor does the worse SS does and no individual matters to them. It really shows in their attitude to intellectual property and unwillingness to respond to contributor concerns, just check out how many of the threads on their forum start with "I've tried emailing support x number of times but have gotten no response for x number of weeks", and for that matter end with "you should be emailing support about this".
The question is what can we do about it? not a lot I don't think. I certainly can't afford to ditch them as they are my second biggest microstock earner. In any case, as I've said, their model means that no individual matters plus I think they are one of the few sites that could happily go on with just hobbyists who would never leave due to bad treatment. These people would give away their images for free just for the thrill of knowing they are being used.
Maybe the pressure would have to come form the other side, I for one would never buy from SS knowing the way that they run things. Alternatively existing buyers could make a concerted effort to use ALL their downloads. That would soon make them realize the flaws in their business model as it's based on * contributors the scraps if buyers don't use all their credits. 


« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2008, 05:46 »
0
I would have to agree with magnum.

Shutterstock works because subscriptions is what they do.  There is a reason they are at the top of the earnings poll, and it is simply because they earn a lot of people a lot of money.

What a picture is worth, or how much it should be sold for should be looked at, at a large scale.  How much a site gives you for an image over a whole month is what should be a deciding factor of wether or not it is worth it or not.  25 cents or $5.00 both amount are ridiculously low and there is no real difference.  Neither amount will buy a new camera, pay for a studio, models, computer or internet.  What matters is how much it ads up to at the end of the month.  At shutterstock, (and the other big 6) it is a significant amount that CAN and does pay for stuff, including a wage.

jsnover

« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2008, 14:25 »
0
There are two big differences between SS and every other microstock that does subscriptions and per-image sales.

1) SS only does subscriptions, so if you upload a reduced size image (those with 12 - 21MB images sometimes offer only a scaled down version at SS) you don't lose anything. With sites that do both, and don't limit the size or level (DT) that's available via subscription, you lose out on the larger commissions for per image sale when you try to limit what a buyer gets for a subscription

2) SS is the only site that has developed the kind of volume that makes sense of the subs model. Everywhere else it's dribs and drabs - just enough to be irritating but not enough to really add to the bottom line each month.

« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2008, 17:06 »
0
Well put

« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2008, 20:04 »
0
There are two big differences between SS and every other microstock that does subscriptions and per-image sales.

1) SS only does subscriptions, so if you upload a reduced size image (those with 12 - 21MB images sometimes offer only a scaled down version at SS) you don't lose anything. With sites that do both, and don't limit the size or level (DT) that's available via subscription, you lose out on the larger commissions for per image sale when you try to limit what a buyer gets for a subscription

2) SS is the only site that has developed the kind of volume that makes sense of the subs model. Everywhere else it's dribs and drabs - just enough to be irritating but not enough to really add to the bottom line each month.

i agree also

but...

SS is the inventor and the others try to get something (earnings) from SS on US!!!
as one friend of mine said "don't try to make a new circle just try to reproduce the original" this is the spirit among the sites....

it's time to sub out from sites that they don't wearth to have subs

last month i sub out from SV (very small amout for my earnings) and had no dls since.

SV is a VERY GOOD EXAMPLE better than others who are trapping us in subs  with no way out than to leave the site.

The stock business was a clever one throuth internet but i think that the guys who runs the sites are not so clever!!!!

If they where photogrphers and selling their own work they will find the prices rediculus - i find them also as graphic artist 20 years -

example:

if i want one image for a client

i will search for few hours,

i will download the image (low res preview or hires depenting on nthe client)

i will do the designs the the defferent images!!!!

and finaly

beside the cost of design (guess the amunt ) i will ad the cost of images,

and guess...

i dont care if the cost is 0.20  or 30 USD

BECAUSE

I WILL GET

100 at least for the image (for searching and etc)

conclusion

they can see the forest

but...

they can't see

a tree

bye

opps i forget one example

i find one of my images cover page (1/4) in a sunday new paper a month ago and for this i get 0.33!!!

do you think that they would have a problem pay ... what ever for this image since it was according to theys main issue???

« Last Edit: August 02, 2008, 20:22 by lobby »

Microbius

« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2008, 05:42 »
0
Thing is you haven't actually sold that image, just a license for it, you still have copyright for it so can sell it again. You could easily make the same amount in repeat sales as you would for the couple of sales you can expect from the traditional agencies. You should be thinking about your earning per image (or even for your whole portfolio) not per image use.

My problem is not with the price offered but with the business models of some of the sites. I think the sites that represent the "monkeys typing Shakespeare" philosophy (SS being the prime example) can only lead to bad news for the contributors.   

Microbius

« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2008, 05:52 »
0
There are two big differences between SS and every other microstock that does subscriptions and per-image sales.

1) SS only does subscriptions, so if you upload a reduced size image (those with 12 - 21MB images sometimes offer only a scaled down version at SS) you don't lose anything. With sites that do both, and don't limit the size or level (DT) that's available via subscription, you lose out on the larger commissions for per image sale when you try to limit what a buyer gets for a subscription

2) SS is the only site that has developed the kind of volume that makes sense of the subs model. Everywhere else it's dribs and drabs - just enough to be irritating but not enough to really add to the bottom line each month.

I'm not convinced that this makes sense, I haven't noticed any drop off in per image sales due to subscriptions on sites offering both. The two are different markets with different sorts of buyers. Offering both on the same site doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference. Those who wanted subscriptions in the past would not have been buying per image on DT, for example, they would have been using SS.  Now there is more competition but the problem is that SS is in a position to undercut any of the other sites if things hot up. Their model is one where they can screw contributors to their hearts content. Everyone else primarily depends on per image sales so has to worry when talented or high earning contributors kick up a stink.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2008, 04:51 by Microbius »

« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2008, 10:18 »
0
Fotolia really sucks!

...till they introduced subscription downloads. Last 10 downloads there I've 6 subscription downloads for 0,31 credits for L or XL. That means 60% subscription DL and a loss of 10 credits (average) per 10 downloaded Picts. What a fake!!!

Think I'll cancell the account there or use it as my phototrash.

Microbius

« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2008, 11:51 »
0
do you really think that all those downloads would have been made at full price if if the images weren't available on subs?

Tuilay

« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2008, 14:20 »
0

My problem is not with the price offered but with the business models of some of the sites. I think the sites that represent the "monkeys typing Shakespeare" philosophy (SS being the prime example) can only lead to bad news for the contributors.   

Monkeys typing Shakespeare???
can you explain that . I'm curious to know what you mean.
Sounds interesting , though  ;)

abimages

« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2008, 15:37 »
0
I dont have a major problem with subs. I dont see that many, and they add to the monthly figure. Besides they earn me more than the XS size at IS which pays a whopping 0.26$, too many of those every month >:(

Microbius

« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2009, 05:48 »
0

My problem is not with the price offered but with the business models of some of the sites. I think the sites that represent the "monkeys typing Shakespeare" philosophy (SS being the prime example) can only lead to bad news for the contributors.   

Monkeys typing Shakespeare???
can you explain that . I'm curious to know what you mean.
Sounds interesting , though  ;)

As in "the infinite monkey theorem", that a monkey hitting keys at random for an infinite amount of time, or an infinite number of moneys hitting keys will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare (you can google this or check it in wikipedia)
I just mean that they do not value individual contributors. They have so many new images from so many contributors it makes no difference to them if they have one Yuri producing 1000 excellent images or 1000 poor contributors submitting one decent image each. So we are all totally disposable to them. They'd rather take the infinite monkeys then the one Shakespeare, for one thing it would be a hell of a long time before the monkey hit payout!

And don't get me started on the fact that the more money we make the less they do. Precisely the opposite model to traditional sites; where the site takes a percentage of our earnings so our interests are aligned rather than opposed.

RacePhoto

« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2009, 13:08 »
0

SS only does subscriptions, so if you upload a reduced size image (those with 12 - 21MB images sometimes offer only a scaled down version at SS) you don't lose anything.


Selective quote. Downsize everything for SS to just above minimum. You don't lose anything, with the added benefit that more will pass QC.  ;D

I treat SS as a subscription site and upload files to them based on that. It works! With my small Micro portfolio, selective uploading to sites, SS is still the best dollar volume.

I joked about this last year, but I'm really thinking of going "exclusive" on SS to save time and trouble with all the other sites. Exception being one full size site, Alamy, exclusive for my editorial shots. I'm only doing this because of time spent vs returns. It takes a lot of time to get things entered into Alamy with all those boxes and buttons. SS is very fast, uploading, fast reviews, fast editing to make them ready for sale.

« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2009, 08:25 »
0

SS only does subscriptions, so if you upload a reduced size image (those with 12 - 21MB images sometimes offer only a scaled down version at SS) you don't lose anything.


Selective quote. Downsize everything for SS to just above minimum. You don't lose anything, with the added benefit that more will pass QC.  ;D

I treat SS as a subscription site and upload files to them based on that. It works! With my small Micro portfolio, selective uploading to sites, SS is still the best dollar volume.

I joked about this last year, but I'm really thinking of going "exclusive" on SS to save time and trouble with all the other sites. Exception being one full size site, Alamy, exclusive for my editorial shots. I'm only doing this because of time spent vs returns. It takes a lot of time to get things entered into Alamy with all those boxes and buttons. SS is very fast, uploading, fast reviews, fast editing to make them ready for sale.


I have heard that this at least has the potential of costing you EL sales from SS.  I used to get over 20% of my income from ELs there - has dropped off in recent months, like everything else.    Do you think downsizing has affected your EL sales there?

fred


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
6630 Views
Last post May 01, 2013, 18:14
by lisafx
37 Replies
6370 Views
Last post March 25, 2014, 16:30
by Ron
27 Replies
7336 Views
Last post June 27, 2014, 16:14
by EmberMike
1 Replies
1719 Views
Last post July 28, 2014, 05:44
by MxR
11 Replies
2540 Views
Last post March 10, 2020, 07:54
by Mumut Greenstripe

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle