Quote from: ale1969 on January 09, 2008, 02:04

Hmmm... You basically say that because SS successfully introduced subscriptions and was copied from other agencies now it can't modify its commercial strategy because otherway it would lose customers to the copied subscription planes elsewhere.

The perfect lose-lose situation where all the commercial costs are pushed down to whom produce the goods they sell, basically us, till the limit when the game is too much stretched out and it breaks up.

When the revenues don't cover the production costs talking about how much StockXpert is nice or SS is fair while others are the really evil ones becomes pretty futile, don't you agree?

The choices are limited to both of us and the agencies.

If they want quality images they have to pay more because producing those images cost money.

Microstock is coming out of its infancy when it was solely based on old portfolios kept unused in hard disks (the infamous  "better 20 cents than your images just collecting dust in your hd!") or hobbyist that can be pleased by the "buzz".

Now I can sustain to work without a real gain because at the moment I'm trying to learn to be a commercial photographer-illustrator and the microstock market is a good school.

Other people who already are at that level and well over simply can't, they'd better go out shooting weddings, it's far more profitable.

Can agencies survive just with people like me? I doubt it.

Well, you didn't offer any solution to the problem now did you? Do you submit to Dreamstime still? Did you opt out at StockXpert? That's the problem we're talking about here. If you're like grp_photo and don't submit to any of the subscription sites, then I respect that, if you  are ONLY opting out at StockXpert, then you are not contributing to a solution.

I am submitting to most of the subscription site so I'm not helping matters either, but it's because I don't know a way out of this subscription mess. Right now it's making me money, and if I hear a good plan of how to increase our commissions at ALL the subscripion sites, then I am in. Opting out at StockXpert alone, is not the answer.

And yes, agencies will survive without you, and without everyone who opted out above, and me for that matter.

When StockXpert first said they were introducing subscription, there was a big fuss, everyone said they didn't want it.
The solution was there for the taking, StockXpert said if not enough people joined, they would abandon it. What happened? Just about everyone opted in.
I said from the beginning that if subscription was introduced with no opt out, I would delete our portfolio. I'm still prepared to do that. I understand perfectly that my decision is of no importance to StockXpert, but it is to me.
When it comes to DT, I haven't uploaded there for a while. I'm still hopeful that they will abandon the idea. If they don't, I'm prepared to give them up too. Again, I realise that my decision is irrelevant.
But Steven, your decision is not irrelevant.  Yuri and Andres have had the guts to take some action. You, and a few others, could make a difference, but you aren't prepared to do that. I don't really understand why.
As for punishing the good guys, I don't see what you see. I see a company trying to grab a slice of a pie baked by someone else. When this first came up, Steve-oh talked about new customers. I asked if they were new to StockXpert, or new to Microstock. No answer was given.
Now we see people claiming that SS sales are down. Is it a coincidence?
Please don't say that you don't see a way out of this mess. You were partially to blame and you know it. You also know what the answer is.
Linda

FWIW, we just sold a photo on a trad for GBP824, of which we got half. We have only 4 photos on this particular site, and they have been there for three years, but none of them would ever have been accepted on the micros, and they sure would not have sold.

We also made about $US1000 on Alamy. Not much from around 300 images, but they also have been there for a while, and the great thing is, they don't seem to age anything like so fast as they do on the micros.

We have decided to add more to the trads.  Anything that you think will sell only a few times isn't worth putting on the micros.

Hmmm, when I think about it, that means most of ours should never have gone to the micros:-)

Linda

Opted out.

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light

We opted out of StockXpert subs from the start.
We also downsize to SS.
We are thinking hard about DT, which used to be a favourite site. Haven't uploaded anything to them, so far this year.

Yuri may have a point as to how many DL SS customers make, but his arithmetic is wrong.
A subscription costs $199 for one month.
For that, you can DL up to 750 images.
Let's say you take Yuri's lowest guess, 15%.
That means you DL 112 images in a month.
$199 /112 = $1.78 per image, NOT $5/$6.

If you take more than 15%, you pay less per image.
If you take a subscription for more than one month, you pay less.
So if Yuri is correct, the least subscribers pay for an image is $1.78.
We get 30 cents, which is 17%.
Obviously, the more a subscriber DL's, the higher is our per centage.

It's that time of year for stats, so I took a look at ours, and was surprised at my results.

I separated SS from all the other sites, and calculated the average amount per DL for the other sites, against SS payout:-

2005  All sites except SS, average per DL   39 cents
          Shutterstock                                       20 cents - just over half 

2006  All sites except SS, average per DL    54 cents
          Shutterstock                                        26 cents - just under half

2007 All sites except SS, average per DL      83 cents
         Shutterstock                                          31 cents - a lot less than half 


So, Shutterstock is definitely falling behind on returns per DL.  I was very surprised to get these results. Has anyone else got similar?

Linda
 

This comment from Steve-oh in the original thread is interesting:-

"We get feedback to the site about offering subscriptions, and at the tradeshows I've attended people ask about subscription. When we say no we don't offer it, they go somewhere else. They don't just go PPD with us."

Where do they currently go?

I hope Jo Ann is right and that everyone does make more money with this scheme, but that isn't happening at DT. Still, thanks to StockXpert for giving the option to opt out.
Linda

Guys,

to address your concerns about your XL and XXL files, our experience has been (with Photos.com and LiquidLibrary subscription offerings) that the most popular download size for subscribers is medium size. Very few download the larger file sizes.

-Steve

Steve, this has not been our experience at DT.  Almost all subscription DL there are maximum size.
DT ignored most photographers' wishes when they brought in their subscription plan - many of us would have found it more acceptable if they had limited the size of DL allowed by subscription. Hopefully you will not go the same route.
I don't believe this will increase earnings for photographers.  It may grab a slice of Shutterstock's pie for StockXpert, but it won't be good for us.
We will not be uploading to StockXpert until we hear more details. If we don't like what we hear, we will delete our portfolio.
Linda & Colin