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.

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. 

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.

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???

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.

do you really think that all those downloads would have been made at full price if if the images weren't available on subs?

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

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. 

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.