At least one agency that didn't present an awful new strategy. Wait, let me read that again, there must be something evil lurking behind this news.

Definitely a good thing in my opinion, good decision 

Hopefully they will get some new customers and not just those leaving the other sites.  SS had to do something after istock, DT, StockXpert and fotolia all introduced subscriptions.  This looks like a good way of exploiting some of the pay per download market.

As SS have been my No.1 site every month since I started, I hope this does very well.

It seems they've covered many potential issues in their statement. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out for everyone ...

-Mark

This is the commission % we are getting from these new packages which can be seen here. As lilcrazyfuzzy showed, the commission we receive is even worse when buyers purchase in Euros.

I am going to assume that the average commission given out is the $500 - $3000 tier.

All Resolution
5 images for $49
+ 2.48 commission for photographers per image = $36.60 profit for SS = 25.3% commission for us.
25 images for $229
+ 2.48 commission for photographers per image = $167.00 profit for SS = 27.1% commission for us.

Lower Resolutions
12 images for $49
+ 1.07 commission for photographers per image = $36.16 profit for SS = 26.2% commission for us.
60 images for $229
+ 1.07 commission for photographers per image = $164.80 profit for SS = 28.0% commission for us.

---

So 2nd lowest commission in the industry after Istock non-exclusive. Yay?

They have a pretty attractive package for designers who need short term or project by project images at a reasonable price for the designers.  It pays out more money for the same license that they currently get via the standard subscription that you receive .36 for.  So you want even more than 25%, even though it is three times what you would normally get for the same license terms?

Yeah, SS takes a bigger cut on those, but they also have to pay for a whole new advertising campaign for it, pay the programmers who probably had to make some pretty severe code changes to allow multiple subscriptions on the same account, most likely add server hardware to manage a more complicated system, etc.   I suppose ideally they would pay the same percentages, but at the most basic level you are receiving more money for licensing the same photo under the same restrictions as you would have if they bought one of the original packages.  And possibly having more sales, as this should attract a tier of designers who didn't need 25 a day, but might have needed ten or fifteen for a specific project this week.

Doesn't seem like a big deal.  More like a new pay per download program.  Credits good for a year like iStock - check.  $50 for 5 large images, like iStock - check.  Less than %20 - %30ish percent to contributor.

Not a bad plan, but nothing groundbreaking.

Well, it would be kind of silly for SS to take that into consideration :-) - but I am glad I didn't go to the trouble of downsizing everything to 4MP before uploading to them.  Could pay off a bit now.

c h e e r s
fred

Why would that pay off??

All images in SS have a SMALL/MEDIUM/LARGE/SUPER format, regardless of the original size.

In my case I always downsize to 3 or 4MP, so my large version of the image is 3 or 4MP, and this will most likely result in having the buyer buying the large version, hence making me more money 

Quote from: Fred on August 06, 2008, 00:53

Well, it would be kind of silly for SS to take that into consideration :-) - but I am glad I didn't go to the trouble of downsizing everything to 4MP before uploading to them.  Could pay off a bit now.

c h e e r s
fred

Why would that pay off??

All images in SS have a SMALL/MEDIUM/LARGE/SUPER format, regardless of the original size.

In my case I always downsize to 3 or 4MP, so my large version of the image is 3 or 4MP, and this will most likely result in having the buyer buying the large version, hence making me more money 

Or look elsewhere, for bigger photos, cheaper...

Why would that pay off??

All images in SS have a SMALL/MEDIUM/LARGE/SUPER format, regardless of the original size.

In my case I always downsize to 3 or 4MP, so my large version of the image is 3 or 4MP, and this will most likely result in having the buyer buying the large version, hence making me more money 

Shutterstock's "Super" size is 3888 x 5184 (20MP). I have photo's on there that were taken at 1944 x 2592 (5MP) and less. I can't imagine how they'd come out.

Congrats!

Good to see that it's moving.
Hopefully I will get my first soon!

Just had my first on demand sale which earnt me $2.85 the uploaded file was 4mp (a 9mp file went elsewhere and SS are selling a uprezzed 16mp version). I only ever had one $5.99 sale at SS sister site.

Not a great % for us but I prefer getting $2.85 instead of 38c rather than 30c instead of $7.50 at another site that a few of us have been complaining about recently.

I agree Sharpshot.

Yes!, so heavily biased towards new images and the new ones are not necessarily the best!

Also, the constant demand of having to "feed" I think can be off putting for new contributors who could be very talented, but don't need the pressure of having to constantly shoot for SS.
Should be more balanced I feel.

I just had my first one for $2.85 as well.  SS need to find a way to bring some of our older images back to life now.  The heavy bias towards new images leaves a lot of older images that once sold well doing nothing.  I liked the Lucky Oliver sideshow and I am surprised the other sites haven't copied that idea.