MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is Shutterstock ending 25 a day subs in favor of monthly limits?  (Read 43675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2015, 16:06 »
+5
Can I just point out how disingenuous the title of this thread is? If you're first reading it you might think SS is ending subs. All they're doing is lifting the 25-per-day-limit, but keeping the monthly limit, the pricing, everything else the same. In other words, it's just a marketing tactic to attract new customers. They're not lowering prices, they're not changing what we get paid, they're not ending anything, they're not giving any more content to customers. (In fact, this might just be a test.)
I think once customers know that some people are getting 750/month they will ask for that rather than the 25/day model.  It seems that once they start this they probably will have to do it for everyone.  How would you feel getting the worse subscription plan while other people are paying the same for the better one?

Seriously? It's the same subscription plan. You get 750/month either way. You're reeeeeeally stretching here.


« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2015, 16:06 »
+7
...
https://twitter.com/AdamParks/
SS replied:Shutterstock ‏@Shutterstock Mar 13

@AdamParks We're excited too! Thanks for the shout-out, Adam. :)

Thanks. If SS acknowledged it, then I guess they've decided to keep the change.

I can't see that, for most corporate customers anyway, it'll make any difference in their download quantities.

It sounds better (and it is, because it's more flexible) but if you're downloading what you need and it's only 500 a month of your 750 allowance, I can't imagine you'll start increasing your downloads just because you can. It is nice if you have a big project and want to download all 50 images for it on a particular day, you can now do that, so I imagine the change will make existing customers feel that SS is making their workflow smoother and easier.

For a small business that's decided to use it to stockpile, it certainly makes it easier to do that, but you were able to hit 750 a month before, if you were determined to.

I just don't see this as a big change for contributors or for existing customers; it does take one item off any checklists of those comparing iStock and Shutterstock when considering which subscriptions to buy, and that may be the primary goal - remove potential objections.

« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2015, 16:11 »
+6
I suppose there is some possibility of users burning through the 750 when there are no limits and having to get another subscription for the rest of the month. It doesn't strike me as very likely, though.
Jo Ann's thinking seems the most sensible interpretation.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2015, 16:26 »
-2
25 a day for 30 days is 750.

And nowhere has SS said anything.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2015, 16:49 »
+1
Not yet and here's what it still says in the site FAQ:  http://www.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml  "Website Navigation" > "What are the limits on downloads?"  Watch here for when it's updated?

What are the limits on downloads?

You may download up to 25 images per day. Your image-per-day allotment begins the minute your account is activated. In any 30 day-period, you can download up to 750 images! We also offer multi-seat licenses for those who need greater flexibility, and an Enhanced License for more commercial uses.


I'll wait until an official source says, they have removed the daily cap. And as far as I'm seeing it, this is a positive move which could help downloads and earnings and make the subscription less torture for buyers, so they can get what they want, when they need it, not having to plan daily downloads over the month.

Yes Barry 750 is still 750 and there's no price change.

25 a day for 30 days is 750.

And nowhere has SS said anything.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2015, 16:59 »
+4
25 a day for 30 days is 750.

And nowhere has SS said anything.

A client on Twitter mentioned he purchased a package and SS acknowledged it. Are you saying you missed that in your daily routine of reading the entire internet ?

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2015, 17:17 »
-1
Still is the same nothing changed except it doesn't say 25 a day.

Other than a frigging tweet where has SS the company said anything about it?

Not on the home page and not on the FB page or even the tiwtter page?

Hmmm?

 Basic
Pay As You Go

Great prices on
multi-image packs
2 Images $29
5 Images $49
25 Images $229

Images must be downloaded within one year of purchase
Professional
Subscribe and Save

Try our most popular plan and get 750 images a month, every month
1 YearSAVE 20% $199/month
3 MonthsSAVE 8% $229/month
1 Month $249
Free Browse Account

    Search our collection of over 50 million images

    Create and share unlimited lightboxes

All Images are Standard License. Need images for merchandise or print runs over 250,000? View Enhanced License Plans


25 a day for 30 days is 750.

And nowhere has SS said anything.

A client on Twitter mentioned he purchased a package and SS acknowledged it. Are you saying you missed that in your daily routine of reading the entire internet ?

Semmick Photo

« Reply #32 on: March 15, 2015, 17:21 »
+2
SS is known for rolling out tests for limited number of users. They do A/B tests, etc, you of all should know this. Before anything is rolled out globally, you wont see changes on the website. Tickstock could shut every body up here by posting a screenshot.

No conspiracy, they have already started selling them.  I have been offered this new subscription and people have been talking about it on twitter, so I know I'm not the only one.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2015, 17:25 by Semmick Photo »

« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2015, 19:24 »
0
SS is known for rolling out tests for limited number of users. They do A/B tests, etc, you of all should know this. Before anything is rolled out globally, you wont see changes on the website. Tickstock could shut every body up here by posting a screenshot.

No conspiracy, they have already started selling them.  I have been offered this new subscription and people have been talking about it on twitter, so I know I'm not the only one.
I think I have the same thing ruxpriencdiam has.  It says 750/month and when you click through it still says that with no mention of 25/day.  As I mentioned earlier SS already acknowledged it on twitter. 

« Reply #34 on: March 15, 2015, 19:32 »
0
I just don't see this as a big change for contributors or for existing customers; it does take one item off any checklists of those comparing iStock and Shutterstock when considering which subscriptions to buy, and that may be the primary goal - remove potential objections.
That's probably why they did it but I think it will definitely result in buyers downloading more, if it wouldn't then why would SS have this restriction in the first place? 

« Reply #35 on: March 15, 2015, 19:47 »
0
.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2015, 21:04 by Copidosoma »

« Reply #36 on: March 15, 2015, 19:58 »
+6
I just don't see this as a big change for contributors or for existing customers; it does take one item off any checklists of those comparing iStock and Shutterstock when considering which subscriptions to buy, and that may be the primary goal - remove potential objections.
That's probably why they did it but I think it will definitely result in buyers downloading more, if it wouldn't then why would SS have this restriction in the first place?

When they started, SS offered unlimited images - check the Wayback machine for November 2004 and you'll see this:

"Where stylish stock photography meets the subscription model! Just sign up for a plan, pay one low fee, and download as many images as you need. All of our photos are royalty-free and subject to a single licensing agreement"

The one low fee was $90 a month and they boasted that they added 2,878 images in the last week.

They quickly figured out this wouldn't work and by June 2005 they had the 750 a month limit. Price was $139 a month and they added 4,618 photos the prior week. The collection was just under 200K images. By October 2006 they added the 25 a day limit (price was then $159 and they were over 1 million images). I'm guessing with the growth came some heavy downloaders they needed to discourage.

Back then, they would put the price up, wait a few weeks and then decide what they'd pay us. They needed to see what happened with download patterns before they set our royalty.

At this point they have over a decade's worth of download numbers and the subscription part of their business is less and less important as time goes by. Back then it was 100% of their business and if they effed it up by overpaying contributors they'd have gone out of business.

I have no details on their data, but I'm guessing they see clients who regularly don't download their 25 a day as well as skip weekend downloads, so there's no reason to believe they'd change anything if the daily limit were lifted. And if their overall business in any way looks like my split between subs and everything else, subscriptions are now about 40% of their business. They can afford to give this a try and always put the cap back on if something bad were to happen
« Last Edit: March 15, 2015, 20:06 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #37 on: March 15, 2015, 20:01 »
+2
I think it will definitely result in buyers downloading more, if it wouldn't then why would SS have this restriction in the first place?

Subscription isn't about how many you can download. It's about providing you with a service with limits which exceed your expectations. The exact amount makes no difference. I don't listen to more music because I have unlimited ad free Spotify.

Sooner or later unlimited downloads will be the norm.

« Reply #38 on: March 15, 2015, 20:13 »
-2
I just don't see this as a big change for contributors or for existing customers; it does take one item off any checklists of those comparing iStock and Shutterstock when considering which subscriptions to buy, and that may be the primary goal - remove potential objections.
That's probably why they did it but I think it will definitely result in buyers downloading more, if it wouldn't then why would SS have this restriction in the first place?

When they started, SS offered unlimited images - check the Wayback machine for November 2004 and you'll see this:

"Where stylish stock photography meets the subscription model! Just sign up for a plan, pay one low fee, and download as many images as you need. All of our photos are royalty-free and subject to a single licensing agreement"

The one low fee was $90 a month and they boasted that they added 2,878 images in the last week.

They quickly figured out this wouldn't work and by June 2005 they had the 750 a month limit. Price was $139 a month and they added 4,618 photos the prior week. The collection was just under 200K images. By October 2006 they added the 25 a day limit (price was then $159 and they were over 1 million images). I'm guessing with the growth came some heavy downloaders they needed to discourage.

Back then, they would put the price up, wait a few weeks and then decide what they'd pay us. They needed to see what happened with download patterns before they set our royalty.

At this point they have over a decade's worth of download numbers and the subscription part of their business is less and less important as time goes by. Back then it was 100% of their business and if they effed it up by overpaying contributors they'd have gone out of business.

I have no details on their data, but I'm guessing they see clients who regularly don't download their 25 a day as well as skip weekend downloads, so there's no reason to believe they'd change anything if the daily limit were lifted. And if their overall business in any way looks like my split between subs and everything else, subscriptions are now about 40% of their business. They can afford to give this a try and always put the cap back on if something bad were to happen
I'm not saying I think everyone will download the maximum now and it will be a disaster for SS.  I'm saying their margins will be slimmer because there will be more downloads per user.  They've said many times that they like to pay out about 30% for all products, if this plan means they are paying out 40% what do shareholders say?  Do they eat the loss in profit or do they try to make it up by raising prices or cutting royalties?  Maybe buyers will only download 1% more but I doubt it, if it wouldn't make any real difference then SS would have had this more user friendly approach for a long time.  It will make a difference to their margins what they do in response will be what's interesting.

« Reply #39 on: March 15, 2015, 20:36 »
+6
I'm not saying I think everyone will download the maximum now and it will be a disaster for SS.  I'm saying their margins will be slimmer because there will be more downloads per user.

There is no particular reason to believe that subscribers will on average download more images per account because they can. The amount of work which professional people can do is not going to increase because theoretical download limits have been upped.

It's a service, like say broadband. We don't fit more hours in the day because our network got fatter.

« Reply #40 on: March 15, 2015, 22:08 »
+9
Shutterstock are very clever people.  The best in the business.  You can be absolutely confident that if they make a change like this they will have researched the impact very carefully indeed.  They certainly won't do anything that reduces their profit margin.  If they are removing the daily limit, it is either because they believe it will make no difference, OR because their detailed research suggests it will result in fewer downloads.  They certainly will not be doing it because of anything iStock does.  iStock's basic monthly subscription only gives 250 downloads per month (if paid monthly).  They are a declining business and it's very unlikely that SS sees them as a threat.

« Reply #41 on: March 15, 2015, 22:30 »
+2
If they are removing the daily limit, it is either because they believe it will make no difference, OR because their detailed research suggests it will result in fewer downloads. 
Hopefully they didn't devise this plan to make you get less downloads.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2015, 22:34 by tickstock »


Semmick Photo

« Reply #42 on: March 16, 2015, 02:52 »
0
Well, after the worst weekend in years, with a total of 6 downloads over 2 days, I hope its not the new trend

Semmick Photo

« Reply #43 on: March 16, 2015, 02:54 »
0
Shutterstock are very clever people.  The best in the business.  You can be absolutely confident that if they make a change like this they will have researched the impact very carefully indeed.  They certainly won't do anything that reduces their profit margin.  If they are removing the daily limit, it is either because they believe it will make no difference, OR because their detailed research suggests it will result in fewer downloads. They certainly will not be doing it because of anything iStock does.  iStock's basic monthly subscription only gives 250 downloads per month (if paid monthly).  They are a declining business and it's very unlikely that SS sees them as a threat.

There is only one strategy behind this, like you say, it either doesnt make a difference, or it helps their bottom line. If that turns out to be the case, it certainly is a pay cut. Period.

« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2015, 04:39 »
+5
Shutterstock are very clever people.  The best in the business.  You can be absolutely confident that if they make a change like this they will have researched the impact very carefully indeed.  They certainly won't do anything that reduces their profit margin.  If they are removing the daily limit, it is either because they believe it will make no difference, OR because their detailed research suggests it will result in fewer downloads. They certainly will not be doing it because of anything iStock does.  iStock's basic monthly subscription only gives 250 downloads per month (if paid monthly).  They are a declining business and it's very unlikely that SS sees them as a threat.

There is only one strategy behind this, like you say, it either doesnt make a difference, or it helps their bottom line. If that turns out to be the case, it certainly is a pay cut. Period.

There is more than one way to increase the bottom line.  Fewer downloads by customers is obviously one way, but that also means customers aren't making use of their subscription and perhaps will not feel the need for it (a bad thing).  However, if more customers sign up because the monthly limit looks better .. and everyone downloads the same amount (per account) then shutterstock's bottom line will be a lot better... and so will ours.

Shelma1

« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2015, 05:02 »
+3
I see this for what it is...a copy test. I've been doing A/B splits for decades. You have a control and you regularly test against it to see if you can get a better ROI on your advertising budget. If this brings in more customers but they make too many downloads, results are bad. If it brings in more customers and they act the same way as the average customer, great. Then you roll it out. It's a very considered way to grow business.

As iStock scrambles to try to catch up, they copy what they think works for SS without copying the thoughtfulness or methodology behind the decisions SS makes.

« Reply #46 on: March 16, 2015, 10:10 »
+2
New facebook ad from SS, unfortunately when you click through you get a 404 error "Doh!".  I guess they'll get that sorted out soon.  It will be interesting to see if the pricing has changed now that they say "we offer the lowest price per image in the entire industry."
"New Flexible Plans. No daily download limits!"
http://www.shutterstock.com/pclp?id=FBUSSAVE
« Last Edit: March 16, 2015, 10:22 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #47 on: March 16, 2015, 10:30 »
0
New facebook ad from SS, unfortunately when you click through you get a 404 error "Doh!".  I guess they'll get that sorted out soon.  It will be interesting to see if the pricing has changed now that they say "we offer the lowest price per image in the entire industry."
"New Flexible Plans. No daily download limits!"
http://www.shutterstock.com/pclp?id=FBUSSAVE

Does that link lead to the offer you're talking about?  If so, it's still in test. I see the 25-per-day pricing.

« Reply #48 on: March 16, 2015, 10:36 »
0
New facebook ad from SS, unfortunately when you click through you get a 404 error "Doh!".  I guess they'll get that sorted out soon.  It will be interesting to see if the pricing has changed now that they say "we offer the lowest price per image in the entire industry."
"New Flexible Plans. No daily download limits!"
http://www.shutterstock.com/pclp?id=FBUSSAVE

Does that link lead to the offer you're talking about?  If so, it's still in test. I see the 25-per-day pricing.

It does.  I would think you would get it or will very soon, this is some of the text and it says every member.  Maybe try clearing your cache first?:
Every member has access to our complete library of over 50 million royalty-free photos, illustrations, video clips, and music tracks - not to mention the largest vector collection in the industry.


One Collection
All Access
Unbiased Search
Flexible Plans
No Daily Limits
100% Royalty Free

Shelma1

« Reply #49 on: March 16, 2015, 10:45 »
+3
I'm not sure what your point is in this thread. Every member has access to all the content...that's a copy statement about SS vs. iS, where you need to pay more to get access to exclusive content. It has nothing to do with how many sub dls you get per day.

Perhaps you'd really like to get people riled up against SS so they don't notice iS has lowered prices again, but you're grasping at straws. There's no news here. It's an offer/copy test.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2091 Views
Last post August 29, 2007, 08:41
by souper
6 Replies
2949 Views
Last post March 02, 2012, 12:33
by Pixart
38 Replies
7577 Views
Last post November 18, 2013, 16:59
by Uncle Pete
62 Replies
8567 Views
Last post April 06, 2015, 20:37
by robhainer
43 Replies
12049 Views
Last post December 23, 2016, 22:37
by helloitsme

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results