MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => Newbie Discussion => Topic started by: SME on June 14, 2013, 10:14

Title: Subscription revenue low? (Fotolia, Shutterstock etc)
Post by: SME on June 14, 2013, 10:14
With their monthly subscriptions these places let people download full resolution (XXL) images for $0.33/image. iStock on the other hand charges on average $6/full resolution image, even on a subscription account (as far as my math works out).

Doesn't that seem ridiculous? Do most of your sales come from these low end purchases? I wouldn't mind if the small or web sized images were being sold at that rate but 6000x4000 images for $0.25 a pop seems like robbery.
Title: Re: Subscription revenue low? (Fotolia, Shutterstock etc)
Post by: luissantos84 on June 14, 2013, 10:20
that is a subject we never discussed ;D

believe you know the options already but I will tell you:

- IN
- OUT

same goes with 15% royalties at iStock
Title: Re: Subscription revenue low? (Fotolia, Shutterstock etc)
Post by: fritz on June 14, 2013, 10:30
Welcome to Microstock world!
If you think that you can sell your files for more $$$ somewhere else (Alamy, Getty FAA.....) just leave it.
Title: Re: Subscription revenue low? (Fotolia, Shutterstock etc)
Post by: SME on June 14, 2013, 22:17
I guess that's not really my point. I'm not complaining persay - I'm surprised that this is the business model.

For people who make a reasonable amount each month - is it mostly subscription or on demand revenue?
Title: Re: Subscription revenue low? (Fotolia, Shutterstock etc)
Post by: michaeldb on June 14, 2013, 22:28
...For people who make a reasonable amount each month - is it mostly subscription or on demand revenue?
I make what I think is a reasonable amount at SS each month - four figures. So far this month, my income from subscription DLs is slightly more than the total from on-demand and and single-and-other DLs.
Title: Re: Subscription revenue low? (Fotolia, Shutterstock etc)
Post by: SME on June 14, 2013, 23:16
Cool, thanks for that stat. So about 50/50. That makes more sense to me. I guess I was concerned that the subscription sales are what the multiplier is... which is tough... do-able, but tough.
Title: Re: Subscription revenue low? (Fotolia, Shutterstock etc)
Post by: luissantos84 on June 14, 2013, 23:59
an unusual but very pleasant month at SS with only 34% subs

all time 61% subs
Title: Re: Subscription revenue low? (Fotolia, Shutterstock etc)
Post by: roede-orm on June 15, 2013, 03:32
The 33 cent with Shutterstock make sense if you have a high number of sales. Subscription prices, however, are meaningless if you only sold a few images.
Title: Re: Subscription revenue low? (Fotolia, Shutterstock etc)
Post by: fotografer on June 15, 2013, 04:14
Every month I make more on non sub sales than I do on sub sales at SS.   Dt have a much higher rpd than any of the other big 4 sites despite getting quite a few subs there.
Title: Re: Subscription revenue low? (Fotolia, Shutterstock etc)
Post by: heywoody on June 18, 2013, 17:01
a blockbuster movie costs hundreds of millions to make and you can buy a copy for a few bucks - you're not selling the product just a non-exclusive use and you can do it over and over so it's not about the unit price but about the volumes.
Title: Re: Subscription revenue low? (Fotolia, Shutterstock etc)
Post by: danienel on July 23, 2013, 04:01
To answer one of your earlier questions:

I sell mainly subscription, but the on-demand ones make up about 40% of my income, so ....

I sometimes swallow hard on getting 19c for an image, but considering that it's a license and not a tangible, I suppose it's economies of scale that determines my happiness.
Title: Re: Subscription revenue low? (Fotolia, Shutterstock etc)
Post by: shudderstok on July 23, 2013, 04:16
the only reason this business model is in place is because the people who contribute to such low paying sites do just that - contribute.