MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Subscription revenue low? (Fotolia, Shutterstock etc)  (Read 2796 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SME

« on: June 14, 2013, 10:14 »
+2
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.


« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2013, 10:20 »
+2
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

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2013, 10:30 »
+1
Welcome to Microstock world!
If you think that you can sell your files for more $$$ somewhere else (Alamy, Getty FAA.....) just leave it.

SME

« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2013, 22:17 »
0
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?

« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2013, 22:28 »
0
...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.

SME

« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2013, 23:16 »
0
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.

« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2013, 23:59 »
0
an unusual but very pleasant month at SS with only 34% subs

all time 61% subs

« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2013, 03:32 »
0
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.

« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2013, 04:14 »
-1
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.

« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2013, 17:01 »
+3
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.

« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2013, 04:01 »
0
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.

shudderstok

« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2013, 04:16 »
0
the only reason this business model is in place is because the people who contribute to such low paying sites do just that - contribute.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
35 Replies
9320 Views
Last post March 26, 2008, 15:33
by massman
3 Replies
3050 Views
Last post February 24, 2011, 14:58
by bad to the bone
36 Replies
12473 Views
Last post August 05, 2013, 09:16
by gbalex
134 Replies
30997 Views
Last post September 19, 2013, 12:13
by Batman
195 Replies
25693 Views
Last post July 31, 2018, 20:05
by obj owl

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results