Don't you think it's strange that if a buyer downloads more than 9-12% of their allowance Bigstock (Shutterstock) loses money?  They are clearly pricing this at below cost.  Anyone know much about predatory pricing?

If they're targeting this at UK customers then, as far as I'm aware, there is no law in the UK against 'predatory pricing'. It's well known that supermarkets for example sell popular items as 'loss leaders' all the time.

On that subject does anyone from outside the UK have that deal available and/or in any other currency than GBP?

.

I'm increasingly feeling like I'm being backed up against a wall with Bigstock. They are pretty clearly pushing hard on their new subscription offerings, and not relenting on the terrible RC-style structure for contributors. I emailed Ben Pfeifer when that announcement went out about continuing with the existing RC tiers and benchmarks asking for him or someone else in the office to call me. I just got a generic "we'll continue to evaluate this" response.

It's nearly impossible for anyone to be getting $0.38 per subscription sale on their own merit. Who gets 50k sales a year at Bigstock? Maybe Yuri did but he's not even there anymore. I just think I'm sending a really bad message to agree to a $0.29 royalty from a company that shares space and employees with a company that pays $0.38. And not because I think the $0.38 company will influence the $0.29 company. Quite the other way around really.

It's only a matter of time before enough management folks at SS start asking why one side of the office is paying out so much more per download than the other side of the office. And I know I'm only making it easier for them to decide not to pay out $0.38 to anyone, ever, when I continue to accept less at Bigstock.

I've been kicking this issue around for months now and I really feel like my hand if being forced here.

Price war. As predicted

I'm increasingly feeling like I'm being backed up against a wall with Bigstock. They are pretty clearly pushing hard on their new subscription offerings, and not relenting on the terrible RC-style structure for contributors. I emailed Ben Pfeifer when that announcement went out about continuing with the existing RC tiers and benchmarks asking for him or someone else in the office to call me. I just got a generic "we'll continue to evaluate this" response.

It's nearly impossible for anyone to be getting $0.38 per subscription sale on their own merit. Who gets 50k sales a year at Bigstock? Maybe Yuri did but he's not even there anymore. I just think I'm sending a really bad message to agree to a $0.29 royalty from a company that shares space and employees with a company that pays $0.38. And not because I think the $0.38 company will influence the $0.29 company. Quite the other way around really.

It's only a matter of time before enough management folks at SS start asking why one side of the office is paying out so much more per download than the other side of the office. And I know I'm only making it easier for them to decide not to pay out $0.38 to anyone, ever, when I continue to accept less at Bigstock.

I've been kicking this issue around for months now and I really feel like my hand if being forced here.

It is annoying but I'm not going to leave BigStock and stay with other sites that pay under $0.30 for subs.  It would be a choice of leaving several sites for me and I can't afford to do that right now.  It does motivate me to work on non-microstock things though.

Quote from: gostwyck on October 17, 2013, 11:38

Quote from: grsphoto on October 17, 2013, 10:58

When a buyer buys a subscription they don't think to themselves, " I get these images for $.02"  they say to themselves I get access to the entire library for $xx per month/ year.  They have to really value all the images in the collection to commit to this amount.

From a business point of view subscriptions are great because you can budget cash flow.... they have a better idea of what they will receive in the following months.

Exactly.

Only a fraction of the average subscriber's allowance is ever downloaded (because otherwise the agency would lose money) and, most likely, an even smaller fraction of the downloaded images are ever actually used for anything more than comping.

A subscription, in the way that it is provided/used, is actually a service rather than a cost-per-item transaction. To talk of 'pennies per image' is to not understand the reality.

Don't you think it's strange that if a buyer downloads more than 9-12% of their allowance Bigstock (Shutterstock) loses money?  They are clearly pricing this at below cost.  Anyone know much about predatory pricing?

I'm tempted to buy one of these 99 dollar suscriptions and dedicate myself everyday to download all and each one of the 1.800 shots just for the h�ll. of it.

I'm tempted to buy one of these 99 dollar suscriptions and dedicate myself everyday to download all and each one of the 1.800 shots just for the h�ll. of it.

make a torrent after

Fotolia also has very cheap monthly subs, as little as 80 cents for full sized images.  http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Subscriptions

But those seem to have monthly quotas. With the DP promo, people just need to get their images within the space of a year. It's actually not even a subscription. Customers go to a different part of the site ("image packs").

How much do DP contributors earn per download under this offer?

I don't know. Never uploaded there.

Oh, I almost forgot. This is a super good deal for designers who make something called "premade book covers." Most agencies require an EL for a book cover that's made in advance and customized for an author (ETA: pretty much no one actually pays for the EL because they either don't know or don't care). This is different than a custom book cover not made in advance, which only requires a SL. DepositPhotos, however, allows premades under an SL, at least according to the rep I spoke to.

So, yeah, this is a really popular offer.

1 cent! My images are worth double that!

(Just my 2 cents)

A guy goes into an "all you can eat" restaurant and pays 5 bucks.  In the very unlikely event that he eats an entire cow, does the farmer who raised the animal and for which he received payment at the market rate, feel that is work has been devalued?

I don't and that is why I am concerned, not with 20$ / month at BigStock

MINUS folk, why don't you quote me and reply like an adult? you are pathetic!

big boys I can tell you one thing, when I put a minus I post a reply as well

only? minus 10 guys!

Quote from: stockastic on October 17, 2013, 17:35

Quote from: EmberMike on October 17, 2013, 15:26

It's only a matter of time before enough management folks at SS start asking why one side of the office is paying out so much more per download than the other side of the office...

I doubt it's even 2 sides of the office, or 2 groups of people.  I'm guessing that at this point BS is just another 'brand' and associated marketing plans.   Basically just a way to sell cheaper and pay us less, while avoiding a big public kickback that might occur if SS openly cut royalties.

agree

I wonder when the anger against BS jumps over to SS. While we all praise SS we seem to forget its the same CEO who is running the show over at BS.

Good cop/bad cop?   

It is annoying but I'm not going to leave BigStock and stay with other sites that pay under $0.30 for subs.  It would be a choice of leaving several sites for me and I can't afford to do that right now...

I view it as more harmful to take $0.29 from Bigstock than it is to take the same (or less) from other companies. Bigstock and SS are in the same office. It's one thing to take a bad rate from an independent company and send a bad message to the industry at large. It's an entirely different thing to take a bad rate from a company that shares space and employees with the company that keeps most of us in this business. That message is potentially far more harmful, I think. And far more costly to us if it ever comes to fruition than the negative effects of a few smaller companies cutting rates because they saw someone else doing it. 

I doubt it's even 2 sides of the office, or 2 groups of people.  I'm guessing that at this point BS is just another 'brand' and associated marketing plans.   Basically just a way to sell cheaper and pay us less, while avoiding a big public kickback that might occur if SS openly cut royalties.

True. I know for a fact that there are some people in the SS/BS office that are officially part of both companies.