MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: fotografer on August 05, 2008, 14:33
-
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt43615.html
Sounds great :)
-
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.
-
Yes, but I wish our commission would be more than 30%. Other than that great idea!
-
Definitely a good thing in my opinion, good decision ;)
-
Just a test, 25 large images OD are 179€ = 289$
=> 12$ per image
we get between 15,66% and 23,75%
-
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.
-
Looks good.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the next few months. It seems like lots of the sites are getting a game plan for the fall.
Dreamstime - new prices
Fotolia - subscription
stockxpert - photos.com
shutterstock - SS on demand
123rf - their special photos area (i forget what it is called)....
I wonder who will gain the most market share.
-
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
-
Yeah, this should be interesting, they've already updated their stats page. I could see this being popular with smaller design firms, especially since you can run multiple subscription programs at once now. That might mean buying an on demand subscription for a single project as a way to set a specific cost for their customer.
-
This is the commission % we are getting from these new packages which can be seen here (http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml). 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?
-
Ummmm.... yawn.....?
This has been suggested to them a number of times since they discontinued their sister site which had pay-per-dl, but only when they are developing negatively (surprise, surprise... that's what competition do to you if you aren't innovative enough), they are able to react.
The pay is more or less the same as with other pay-per-dl agencies, and guess where the customers will come from. Oh well, it's positive that they finally do it, and very nice to have something new that is not subs :)
-
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.
-
Yeah, SS takes a bigger cut on those, but they also have to pay for a whole new advertising campaign for it, .....
The problem is that none of us are making any extra profit when a customer moves from one agency to another, since most of us are represented at all the major agencies anyway. So all the money spent on advertising will make a difference for each agency, but for us, it's just an unnecessary cost.
-
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.
-
Yeah, SS takes a bigger cut on those, but they also have to pay for a whole new advertising campaign for it, .....
The problem is that none of us are making any extra profit when a customer moves from one agency to another, since most of us are represented at all the major agencies anyway. So all the money spent on advertising will make a difference for each agency, but for us, it's just an unnecessary cost.
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
-
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 ;D
-
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 ;D
Cphoto is right.
-
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 ;D
Or look elsewhere, for bigger photos, cheaper...
-
Well, the image price for buyers isn't astonishing and I could bet that those already purchasing "our" images on other sites are not swapping agencies at all.
p.s.: Let's not forget there are other competitors out there with, imho, better site structure, better buyer experience browsing-wise and primarily lower prices.
p.p.s.: The good news is that we don't lose a nickle. SS subscribers will definitely not change plan (from sub to sod), which means this is mostly a marketing boost for SS.. They now offer the complete package (that is nevertheless less competitive in the "credit" department than what most other agencies offer).
-
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 ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
wow, that was quick.
Nice to see that it has been to work quickly. Now I just have to wait patiently to be able to report my first sale :(
-
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.
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.
It is weighted less strongly towards new images than what it used to be. Previously the default search was new images, now it is most popular.
The most popular also has a sprinkle of new images in it, but the oldies but goodies are there as well. I think it is a fair system.
What I think is more frustrating is sites that bury new images on page 50 and they never get a chance.
With shutterstock, new images are given a chance to shine, if they are good, they will stay at the top, if they aren't popular they will sink to the bottom like a rock.
-
Good to know that Leaf.
Thanks!
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.
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.
It is weighted less strongly towards new images than what it used to be. Previously the default search was new images, now it is most popular.
The most popular also has a sprinkle of new images in it, but the oldies but goodies are there as well. I think it is a fair system.
What I think is more frustrating is sites that bury new images on page 50 and they never get a chance.
With shutterstock, new images are given a chance to shine, if they are good, they will stay at the top, if they aren't popular they will sink to the bottom like a rock.
-
... 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 ;D
Guess I misunderstood a previous thread where everyone was considering downsizing to minimums for subscription sites so that they did not give away the larger size images.
This is good news though - lets me downsize to improve quality without losing the bigger sales.
c h e e r s
fred
-
I just got my first On-Demand sales too. Very exciting stuff!
-
This motivates me to start uploading again. I was really getting bored with the whole thing (microstock that is).
-
Just got my first OD sale for $2.48 :-)
I have also noticed a recent increase in sales of older images. Most of which were forgotten about, but like an old friend, sometimes nice to see, and sometimes not ;)
-
I'm not sure the whole downsizing thing is not detrimental to SS with this new SOD programme. I might me wrong (and please someone correct me if I am), but does that mean that SS sells on demand inflated photos? 4Mpix uploaded pictures interpolated to bigger sizes and sold at the highest price tier?
p.s.: If that's true, buyers won't like it.
p.p.s.: I understand the upsizing for subscription sales is acceptable (pricewise), but definitely not for "credits". If a buyer goes off to buy a "super" size, he * sure wants it to be an original 1:1 pixel format.
-
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.
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.
It is weighted less strongly towards new images than what it used to be. Previously the default search was new images, now it is most popular.
The most popular also has a sprinkle of new images in it, but the oldies but goodies are there as well. I think it is a fair system.
What I think is more frustrating is sites that bury new images on page 50 and they never get a chance.
With shutterstock, new images are given a chance to shine, if they are good, they will stay at the top, if they aren't popular they will sink to the bottom like a rock.
Didn't they change the default search over 2 years ago? I think it was before I started there. Images that continually get downloads stay on the first few pages but I have lots that do well on other sites but end up out of site on SS. They have the fastest sales slow down when I stop uploading for a while. A nice side bar where we could select some images to display might work. I would also like to be able to charge more for some images.
-
Agree, this looks pretty good. just got 2 sales for 2.85 each which is pretty much on par with everywhere else. I hope this just the beginning of plans to offer a pay per download system??
-
... I hope this just the beginning of plans to offer a pay per download system??
Me too. Would only be fair considering all the other sites have poached on their subscription model...
-
Very interesting news, I would like to see how it unfolds. Would it take away regular subscription sales from individual contributors, as someone projected on SS message board, or improves the direction microstock industry is taking with its Wal-Mart tendencies? So far, I gravitate to idea that SS is moving in right direction.
-
Would it take away regular subscription sales from individual contributors, as someone projected on SS message board...
Can't see how taking away regular subscription sales for .38 and turning them into 2.85 sales could possibly be a loss?
-
Perfect! I have just come back after a few days, seen this notice and checked my account - and I have had OnDemandSale today!!! I have more money from this one than from the other nine sales! Well done SS! I hope there will be much more of them!
-
Had one yesterday, my share 81 cents my share.
-
I hade one on demand today :) 1.88$
-
for those who dosen't understand.....
i mean those to whom LIKE the hole idea...????
the whole thing... ( might be not so good in english but i can understand of business tricks easily)
MEAN
1. the site is under pressure afterwards the other sites start all together their sub programs
2. Before clients leave the site and go elsewhere with subs and better and bigger images (istock ???) they decide to sacrifice US....
The multiple downloads in SS was because of the "pressure" of 25 / day images
since this stops little by little guess WHAT????
NO MORE
DOWNLOADS (at least no "big" numbers of downloads)
UNDERSTOOD ?
-
understood. the end of the world is near. the number of downloads have fallen. still July was my my best month at SS.
-
I have had a great start in August and even had one on demand sale yesterday for 2.48. I also just reached the $500 mark and I'm now getting 0.33 per download. And with higher numbers this august.. that was really nice. The high downloads was probably a result of a change in upload style. I am now uploading JPEGs as well as vectors and I spread it out throughout the week so every time there are images/vectors approved, I upload a new set on the same day. Probably helped the downloads.
-
Yes, surprisingly we actually DO understand the "hole" thing. Yet many disagree with you and see this as a positive step. We must all be idiots ;)
for those who dosen't understand.....
i mean those to whom LIKE the hole idea...????
the whole thing... ( might be not so good in english but i can understand of business tricks easily)
MEAN
1. the site is under pressure afterwards the other sites start all together their sub programs
2. Before clients leave the site and go elsewhere with subs and better and bigger images (istock ???) they decide to sacrifice US....
The multiple downloads in SS was because of the "pressure" of 25 / day images
since this stops little by little guess WHAT????
NO MORE
DOWNLOADS (at least no "big" numbers of downloads)
UNDERSTOOD ?
-
FINALLY i got my first SS on demand download. It was about time.
And yes, if you were wondering, it felt good ;)
-
I have had 4 now. Looks like this is catching on much better than when SS had a separate site to sell pay per download.
-
I must be doing something wrong. Still no ppd at SS, and 8 days into August, my earnings there are behind those at DT. The latter is performing like never before, with no subs whatsoever, but still it looks a bit weird ???
-
I am still awaiting my first OD sale. However, the reason for that may be that I only have 137 images online at SS so far ...
-Mark
-
I got my second one today! :D It looks like On Demand might breathe new life into older images.
-
yeah, this seems like something very well implemented by shutterstock.
It is basically a pay per download, the subscriptions are so small and it is worked into their site.. and we get paid a decent comission. Hopefully the number of sales only increases.
-
I still have 0 on demand downloads. :(
-
August is a slow month and I don't expect to see many pay per download sales at the moment. Hopefully they will pick up in the Autumn.
-
I still have 0 on demand downloads. :(
Me too.
-
zero
for me 2
all i got less downloads
-
I had on demand downloads for the first two days it went live and then nothing since, Regular sub sales have been normal, so no impact there for me.
-
My experience is the same as Stu99's. Subscriptions sales are normal and no on demand sales in a few days.
-
...
-
innocent, naive, environmental, embracing the whole world, smile on a politician face.
-
I had one OD sale on 8-7-08 for $1.07
-
Did you guys see the new Sutterstock logo
([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/images/ss_logo_r_rev2.png[/url])
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,5505.msg59184/topicseen.html#new
-
Had my first SS OD - $.81. Also had my first subs on IS - $.19! Hmmmmmmm.
-
Did you guys see the new Sutterstock logo
([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/images/ss_logo_r_rev2.png[/url])
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,5505.msg59184/topicseen.html#new[/url]
I noticed that. Very attractive. :)
-
Had my first SS OD - $.81. Also had my first subs on IS - $.19! Hmmmmmmm.
LOL. I had my first SS OD 2 weeks ago for $2.38. The same day, I sold an XS on IS for $0.18. I think my reaction was more colorful than "hmmmmmmm."
-
At last, I've had my first two ppd dl's at SS as well at 2.7 each. They really saved my day, and it will absolutely help keep SS on top, which hasn't been as obvious as it used to be the last 6 months. This seems to be all good to me. It will be interesting to see how it develops long-term. I'm all hopes ;D
-
Only had one OD sale since it started... i thought it would be like a regular thing with at least one OD per week or something.. so not really much difference for me.. normal sub sales also.. nothing great.. hope the OD sales pick up soon
-
whee. sold my 1st OD for $2.7
kewl.
-
finally! congrats.
-
tnx
-
Still haven't "OD'd" yet at SS or on stock photography ;D
-Mark
-
Finally got some OD downloads on the 19th & 20th of this month.
How cool would it be to contribute to a site that gets you constant OD downloads while being the only site where subscription downloads pay significantly!
-
I didn't get any OD sales until today when I got 3 in a row. Not bad for a sunday :D
-
I like this feature - got about 4 sales so far this month with OD. Nothing to make me say HOLY CRAP like an EL sale...but it's better than nothing. SS is finally getting smart, similar to how you can purchase credit packages with iStock. Designers don't always want to pay a lot of money for an entire month's subscription. Sometimes they just need a handful of photos.
-
I got 3 SS on demand this month ..... it's good
-
Sold my 1st OD for $2.48 this month! ;D
-
.... so I guess it's nothing like HBO on demand? 8)=tom
Hey... is anyone else experiencing increase EL's on SS.
-
Yes, I've had 5 or 6 this month, I usually average about 2 a month.
I've had 14 OD sales so far which gives me over 30$ extra as a large percentage of them were for 2.48$ :)
Hey... is anyone else experiencing increase EL's on SS.
-
up to $27 so far, not about to retire :) but I aint complaining :)
-
I eventually read the forum post where it explained the variation in prices for members so time for a new table for my microstock guide.
SS on demand earnings table (http://www.fintastique.com/shutterstock.htm#Total_Earnings)
scroll up that page for more info