MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: tickstock on March 15, 2015, 11:13
-
It looks like Shutterstock is selling subscriptions to some customers without the 25/day restriction and instead doing 750/month. This should mean more downloads for contributors and lower margins for SS. Will they raise prices, lower royalties, or take the hit to their profits? Or is this a short term test that most customers won't have access to?
-
without the 25/day restriction and instead doing 750/month. This should mean more downloads for contributors and lower margins for SS
I doubt it will make much difference. Except that it sounds like a much better offer. AFAIK the whole point of all you can eat is that most people tend not to pig-out.
-
You don't think there will be more downloads? I would expect there to be more, otherwise why would they put in the restriction in the first place?
-
Shutterstock tests their offers in an A/B split before extending them to everyone. I'm sure their test showed this offer was more attractive and would get more people to sign up. The number of DLs per month has stayed the same. It sounds more exciting to have no daily limits, but what difference does it make, other than that verbiage leading to better ROI in customer acquisition? The goal here is more market share, would be my guess.
(This is in direct opposition to iS, who just tosses stuff against the wall hoping something will stick.)
-
You don't think there will be more downloads?
I don't believe that there will be more downloads because of the limits are lifted. But I do believe it is possible that there will be more downloads as a result of them attracting more customers with what seems like a more attractive offer.
People can only use so much content - and in most ways subscription is about the service rather than a specific quantity of images. ie for most people subscription is probably about getting all you need - not all you can get. Even if they offered unlimited downloads I doubt that many more images would be downloaded per genuine subscriber.
(The case against unlimited downloads is that it would be difficult to stop contributors working together to download each other's images)
-
I'm sure their test showed this offer was more attractive and would get more people to sign up. The number of DLs per month has stayed the same.
Yes I'm sure it's more attractive because customers will download more. I doubt you know what downloads per customer are for these new subscriptions since they just started. Over the next few months, if it is rolled out to most customers then I would expect downloads to go up. I don't think you will see anything on the first few days it's rolled out to a small percentage of customers.
-
It looks like Shutterstock is selling subscriptions to some customers without the 25/day restriction and instead doing 750/month. This should mean more downloads for contributors and lower margins for SS. Will they raise prices, lower royalties, or take the hit to their profits? Or is this a short term test that most customers won't have access to?
It looks like…
This should…
New conspiracy theory?
But I must admit that these last weeks I have seen less and less SOD :(
-
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.
-
Wait a second, what test are you all talking about? What am I missing? ???
-
I see nothing on their forum. Strange, such a change should generate a very active discussion I think
-
If I go and try to renew, it currently still says that my subscription would be a 25/day deal. Maybe they're not rolling this out across the board yet?
You don't think there will be more downloads? I would expect there to be more, otherwise why would they put in the restriction in the first place?
People who max out their subscription quotas daily are a very small percentage of subscribers. I've known a good number of subscribers personally and been one on and off myself, and I've never encountered anyone who frequently used up the entire day's quota. Or came close to 750 per month. I'm sure some people/companies do it, but they must be the exception, not the rule.
Keep in mind that the point at which the cost of a subscription makes sense over On Demand packs is pretty low. If you need more than 25 images per month, it makes sense to just subscribe instead of buying images individually or in packs. So there will be a lot of people who never even come close to downloading 750 per month or 25 per day. You could literally download 1 image per day and the subscription would still be worthwhile.
Releasing the 25/day limitation isn't going to change the buying behavior of most subscribers.
-
I'm sure their test showed this offer was more attractive and would get more people to sign up. The number of DLs per month has stayed the same.
Yes I'm sure it's more attractive because customers will download more. I doubt you know what downloads per customer are for these new subscriptions since they just started. Over the next few months, if it is rolled out to most customers then I would expect downloads to go up. I don't think you will see anything on the first few days it's rolled out to a small percentage of customers.
Well, I hope you're right and customers will make more DLs, but I doubt it. It seems to me SS would lose money that way, since they pay us a flat rate for subs. And I doubt they'd roll out something that didn't make them more money.
-
I see nothing on their forum. Strange, such a change should generate a very active discussion I think
Might be that new or a small trial?
-
...I doubt they'd roll out something that didn't make them more money.
Exactly. They already know that most people don't use up their daily quotas. This has to be a pretty low-risk move, lifting the daily restriction. They wouldn't do it if they thought a lot of people would alter their downloading behavior.
-
The offer could very well still be in testing if not everyone's seeing it. Though if people are tweeting about it, the cat's halfway out of the bag.
-
if people are tweeting about it, the cat's halfway out of the bag.
1 person seems to have Tweeted about it from what I can see.
-
It could result in FEWER downloads! (more $ for SS) :P
Imagine you're a designer working on a project and not sure of which images you'll be using. You have this 25 a day quota so at the end of the day you fill it up with possible images you may use in the next few days so you don't run out of choices.
Instead, now (other than near the end of the month) you're working away. Tomorrow you may need a bunch of images, so you no longer have to download 25 possible images, you simply wait and download the exact images you need tomorrow while working on the project.
-
if people are tweeting about it, the cat's halfway out of the bag.
1 person seems to have Tweeted about it from what I can see.
I had searched a little while ago on Twitter and couldn't find anything about that. I did find a couple of interesting tid bits, including one person wanting to know if anyone had 5 spare SS downloads they'd be willing to give him! No replies (but then you'd have to be daft to admit publicly to doing that).
Any links to these tweets about changes in subs?
As far as encouraging more subs, I don't see that as being very interesting for contributors. The good months are those in which the OD/SOD/EL numbers are good - that's the business I'd like to see continue to grow
-
if people are tweeting about it, the cat's halfway out of the bag.
1 person seems to have Tweeted about it from what I can see.
I had searched a little while ago on Twitter and couldn't find anything about that. I did find a couple of interesting tid bits, including one person wanting to know if anyone had 5 spare SS downloads they'd be willing to give him! No replies (but then you'd have to be daft to admit publicly to doing that).
Any links to these tweets about changes in subs?
As far as encouraging more subs, I don't see that as being very interesting for contributors. The good months are those in which the OD/SOD/EL numbers are good - that's the business I'd like to see continue to grow
https://twitter.com/AdamParks/
SS replied:Shutterstock @Shutterstock Mar 13
@AdamParks We're excited too! Thanks for the shout-out, Adam. :)
-
if people are tweeting about it, the cat's halfway out of the bag.
1 person seems to have Tweeted about it from what I can see.
I had searched a little while ago on Twitter and couldn't find anything about that. I did find a couple of interesting tid bits, including one person wanting to know if anyone had 5 spare SS downloads they'd be willing to give him! No replies (but then you'd have to be daft to admit publicly to doing that).
Any links to these tweets about changes in subs?
As far as encouraging more subs, I don't see that as being very interesting for contributors. The good months are those in which the OD/SOD/EL numbers are good - that's the business I'd like to see continue to grow
https://twitter.com/AdamParks/
SS replied:Shutterstock @Shutterstock Mar 13
@AdamParks We're excited too! Thanks for the shout-out, Adam. :)
I look forward to the increase income. How many subscribers will make 25 downloads a day. When SS does this you can be sure they tested the plan 1st. As I make more for more downloads I will like it more.
-
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.)
On the other hand, it looks to me like iS HAS lowered credit pricing. And if you're not sure whether iStock is doing poorly, here's a Bloomberg interview posted by jjneff in the iStock forums:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-03-02/why-the-blurry-outlook-for-getty-images- (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-03-02/why-the-blurry-outlook-for-getty-images-)
-
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?
-
Probably won't make any difference to me, I don't have any buyers who DL their 25-A-Day of anything I do. Might be good news for designers and people who shoot popular and topical things and especially vector artists.
If I get more subs, I'm all for it. What I'd like to watch is someone who's warehousing images, (not that it's legal in the contract) come and spend a day downloading their entire quota. Then they have nothing to use for a month. A project comes in and there's something they "must have" so they have to pay for a SOD or ODD. :)
This is all based on IF, since it's you and one guy on Twitter so far. Maybe tomorrow it will roll out officially or maybe it's something that needs to be programmed in a rolling change, so the whole system doesn't come to it's knees.
Looks like a positive change, allowing people to access what they need, when they need it and since we still get paid the same and the price seems to be the same. Good News. Some people will be making more on their subs. Could be that pay increase that people have been looking for?
Unlike IS that just announced reduced price credits and a 20% discount which means, we'll all make less on every credit sale... :-\
It looks like Shutterstock is selling subscriptions to some customers without the 25/day restriction and instead doing 750/month. This should mean more downloads for contributors and lower margins for SS. Will they raise prices, lower royalties, or take the hit to their profits? Or is this a short term test that most customers won't have access to?
-
Looks like a positive change, allowing people to access what they need, when they need it and since we still get paid the same and the price seems to be the same. Good News. Some people will be making more on their subs. Could be that pay increase that people have been looking for?
I think it is positive right now but only if they take the hit for the increased payouts. They've said they like to keep the payout rate consistent, in order to do that they will need to adjust royalties down or increase the subscription cost otherwise margins will be down. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories but they could also push sales to lower royalty contributors, which I doubt they would.
-
I think it will mean lower pay for contributors, on the one hand it can mean more downloads of contributors images but that means more pay out from SS to contributors even though they are collecting the same amount of money by consumers so the only advantage would be trying to take costumers from iStock to compensate for everything. In the end when profits drop for SS and their Stock Holders the contributors will end up with lower compensation.
At some point there is a bottom before the entire thing comes apart and the industry falls apart. I personally think we are getting close to that bottom before veteran photographers and even new photographers say "it's not worth my time, effort and capital to produce images for these agencies anymore."
When that happens is the time photographers will have the opportunity to step in with their own sites, so start making yours now and join forces with other photographers.
-
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.
-
...
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.
-
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.
-
25 a day for 30 days is 750.
And nowhere has SS said anything.
-
Not yet and here's what it still says in the site FAQ: http://www.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml (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.
-
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 ?
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Well, after the worst weekend in years, with a total of 6 downloads over 2 days, I hope its not the new trend
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pclp?id=FBUSSAVE)
-
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!"
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pclp?id=FBUSSAVE[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pclp?id=FBUSSAVE[/url])
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.
-
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!"
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pclp?id=FBUSSAVE[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pclp?id=FBUSSAVE[/url])
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
-
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.
-
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.
The part I was pointing out was where they say every member has access to all the content and then say no daily limits. You don't have to get riled up at all. If you think this is no news then you can just move on. Some people might be interested in this change, it seems like a big one to me.
-
...Some people might be interested in this change, it seems like a big one to me.
It's really not. This change will possibly only impact a small percentage of customers who previously maxed out their daily quotas with any frequency. For probably 99% of customers and a similarly large percentage of contributors, this isn't going to change anything.
-
...Some people might be interested in this change, it seems like a big one to me.
It's really not. This change will possibly only impact a small percentage of customers who previously maxed out their daily quotas with any frequency. For probably 99% of customers and a similarly large percentage of contributors, this isn't going to change anything.
I've asked this before but I don't think anyone answered so maybe you can: I think most people agree that as a buyer you would rather have the flexibility to download 750 images at any time throughout the month rather than be limited by 25/day right? If it won't result in buyers downloading any more images on average why would shutterstock keep the 25/day limit? Is the argument that no buyers ever wanted flexibility? Is the argument SS never realized buyers might want it? Is the argument it doesn't really matter and SS is wasting time and energy changing? I think it will obviously result in more downloads and that's why there was the limit but I'm open to another explanation.
BTW you're in the US are you getting the new plans at: http://www.shutterstock.com/pclp?id=FBUSSAVE (http://www.shutterstock.com/pclp?id=FBUSSAVE)
-
I think Jo Ann covered it pretty well. Read the thread.
-
I think Jo Ann covered it pretty well. Read the thread.
So you think it just sounds good to buyers but they won't won't download more than 25 in a day or if they do they will download less on other days so it balances out? Even if they see they have 300 downloads left at the end of the month that they can download they'll just leave them and not try to get a few extras in. Personally I think I would download a few extras at the end of the month if I had hundreds of unused ones left.
-
they won't won't download more than 25 in a day or if they do they will download less on other days so it balances out?
Exactly. Because at $199 pm Shutterstock would be losing money on accounts which downloaded the full quota. And they aren't stupid.
-
they won't won't download more than 25 in a day or if they do they will download less on other days so it balances out?
Exactly. Because at $199 pm Shutterstock would be losing money on accounts which downloaded the full quota. And they aren't stupid.
So I'll ask it one more time. If it looks good for buyers (which I assume it does or they wouldn't be doing it, right?) and it wouldn't affect their margins at all then why didn't they do this before? It seems like a no brainer, buyers like it better and profits stay at the same level.
JoAnn said they tried it ten years ago and decided to go with the 25/day limit, why would they do that if downloads would be the same either way? All they would be doing is giving buyers less flexibility for no reason?
-
Ah, I see. You want insider secrets to pass on to iS management. Unfortunately none of us is an insider.
-
Ah, I see. You want insider secrets to pass on to iS management. Unfortunately none of us is an insider.
If I wanted insider secrets about Shutterstock I probably wouldn't be asking an iStock exclusive for them now would I?
-
I hate to say it nut I think this has a couple of implications.
As mentioned, they think people will download less if they have a monthly limited rather than daily, good for them bad for us.
Second, one problem with the old unlimited model back at the start of micro was that someone could download a sizeable percentage of the library to give away for free and make money from ads or just stockpile. That used to be a problem, now with 50 million plus images SS is probably not as concerned about that, our work is so effectively devalued.
-
If it looks good for buyers (which I assume it does or they wouldn't be doing it, right?) and it wouldn't affect their margins at all then why didn't they do this before?
I think it is reasonable to conclude that they have decided that in most circumstances, and for most users, a limit described as 25 per day is a number that people can get their heads around. Subscribers would probably look at that and think - that's going to be more than fine. That this has been the best way of describing the offer.
Routinely describing the same amount of content as 750 per month would probably underline the huge quantity of images actually involved - probably way more than most people would ever need. And you would likely get people asking for, say, subs at half the price for half the content. The point is that most subscribers are not really buying 25 images per day or 750 per month. They are buying a service which offers so much that you never use your quota.
But clearly they have identified that a few users may actually need more than 25 per day and they are being flexible about it. It seem obvious.
-
But clearly they have identified that a few users may actually need more than 25 per day and they are being flexible about it. It seem obvious.
I thought it seemed obvious too.
-
If I wanted insider secrets about Shutterstock I probably wouldn't be asking an iStock exclusive for them now would I?
As an iStock exclusive I am in awe of how well Shutterstock has been run over the years and how well they have behaved towards their contributors.
ETA: my iStock RF is mostly very old legacy stuff. It's nothing special and very long in the tooth.
I am in the middle of a coding project at the moment. After that I might well drop the crown since there is other stuff I would like to do when I have time. Unless they change drastically. With iStock - well it feels like Apple in the dreadful mid 1990s - when Apple was drifting lost in the wilderness and seemed certain to fail. But you kind of still wanted to like them despite the crappy products they were churning out - because they had once been cool.
-
I've asked this before but I don't think anyone answered so maybe you can: I think most people agree that as a buyer you would rather have the flexibility to download 750 images at any time throughout the month rather than be limited by 25/day right? If it won't result in buyers downloading any more images on average why would shutterstock keep the 25/day limit? Is the argument that no buyers ever wanted flexibility? Is the argument SS never realized buyers might want it? Is the argument it doesn't really matter and SS is wasting time and energy changing?...
Since it's probably a zero-sum change for most people, gaining the freedom of the removed daily limit but most people not needing 25 images every day anyway. You'd have to ask Shutterstock why they didn't remove it before. Only they know the answer to that.
My point has been that this isn't the big deal you're making it out to be. If this even affects 5% of users I'd be amazed the number of people utilizing the removed daily limitation is even that high. Most people don't use 25 DLs per day. Most people don't come close to 750 DLs per month. That's how SS stays in business and stays highly profitable. This change gives an extremely small number of users who sometimes needed more than 25 images in a single day the freedom to get those images as long as they still stay within 750 total in the month. That's all. This is a largely inconsequential change for the vast majority of buyers and contributors.
-
I've asked this before but I don't think anyone answered so maybe you can: I think most people agree that as a buyer you would rather have the flexibility to download 750 images at any time throughout the month rather than be limited by 25/day right? If it won't result in buyers downloading any more images on average why would shutterstock keep the 25/day limit? Is the argument that no buyers ever wanted flexibility? Is the argument SS never realized buyers might want it? Is the argument it doesn't really matter and SS is wasting time and energy changing?...
Since it's probably a zero-sum change for most people, gaining the freedom of the removed daily limit but most people not needing 25 images every day anyway. You'd have to ask Shutterstock why they didn't remove it before. Only they know the answer to that.
My point has been that this isn't the big deal you're making it out to be. If this even affects 5% of users I'd be amazed the number of people utilizing the removed daily limitation is even that high. Most people don't use 25 DLs per day. Most people don't come close to 750 DLs per month. That's how SS stays in business and stays highly profitable. This change gives an extremely small number of users who sometimes needed more than 25 images in a single day the freedom to get those images as long as they still stay within 750 total in the month. That's all. This is a largely inconsequential change for the vast majority of buyers and contributors.
My assumptions are that the average is about 400dls per month for subscribers, if that number moved to 440dls per month it would be a big deal. I'm not talking about increases of hundreds just 30 to 40 per month.
-
My assumptions are that the average is about 400dls per month for subscribers, if that number moved to 440dls per month it would be a big deal. I'm not talking about increases of hundreds just 30 to 40 per month.
Someone who downloads 400/month is doing about 13 per day on average. Maybe closer to 20 a day if you only look at weekdays. Even if a few days a month they hit 25 and needed a few more, in most cases they probably could have just easily waited until the next morning to get the rest of what they needed.
If we were talking about a subscriber who on a weekly basis has days where they hit 25 DLs, then sure, this makes a difference. But besides those rare cases, I just don't see this changing behaviors for average customers. Definitely not for the middle-of-the-road 400/month folks.
-
Yes it's a coding error, the link internally is generating the site name twice. As: http://www.shutterstock.com/www.shutterstock.com/subscribe instead of http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe (http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe) which by the way is the identical page you linked to when starting this thread.
No it (still) doesn't say what you claim "New Flexible Plans. No daily download limits!". You could just do a screen capture and end the chase. Could be a location matter, limited roll-out. Only shows to negative minded IS Exclusives. ;)
But the "Our price plans tell no lies. No hidden fees or vague credit system. Our plans are simple, flexible, and we offer the lowest price per image in the entire industry. Can't beat that." is interesting as it targets agencies that sell credits.
As for the conversation, and opinions, I think enough people have convinced me, it won't change anything. The people who run into the 25-A-Day limit are small and the people who would be tempted to abuse the system, which could have been an issue in the past, aren't motivated.
I expect nothing to change for any of us, if this change is implemented.
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!"
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pclp?id=FBUSSAVE[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pclp?id=FBUSSAVE[/url])
-
No it (still) doesn't say what you claim "New Flexible Plans. No daily download limits!". You could just do a screen capture and end the chase. Could be a location matter, limited roll-out.
It doesn't say it for you. Do you think they just let me see that and no one else? I'm sure more people will see it as time goes on. There is a facebook ad right now that says:
"Now with no daily limits
Get all of the images you love with an annual subscription"
-
No that was a ;) in there for, only you and one guy in FL can see it. ;D
No it doesn't say that for me. Maybe later today or tomorrow?
What I was trying to point out is this. Links will only show us what we already see. A screen capture will show us what you see. Otherwise your links are a waste of time.
Back to the topic, I see this as nothing more than a line painted on the roadway. It won't even make a bump in the way we individually earn. It could make a larger difference to buyers, to remove limits. And in fact, as others have pointed out, these limits are nearly meaningless.
I believe the other way to describe it would be "Tempest in a Teapot".
No it (still) doesn't say what you claim "New Flexible Plans. No daily download limits!". You could just do a screen capture and end the chase. Could be a location matter, limited roll-out.
It doesn't say it for you. Do you think they just let me see that and no one else? I'm sure more people will see it as time goes on. There is a facebook ad right now that says:
"Now with no daily limits
Get all of the images you love with an annual subscription"
-
Back to the topic, I see this as nothing more than a line painted on the roadway. It won't even make a bump in the way we individually earn. It could make a larger difference to buyers, to remove limits. And in fact, as others have pointed out, these limits are nearly meaningless.
If they were meaningless then they would have already allowed 750dls per month instead of having a 25/day limit. Buyers would rather have 750 dls they can use anytime during the month than 25/day. I don't think anyone will disagree that as a buyer you would rather have the monthly plan than the daily one, right?
-
I am guessing the average subs buyer uses more like 200 a month, so nowhere near 750. I don't know if their habits will change if they change the daily limit or not. Probably not much. It might make for a bulge at the end of the month though.
-
I am guessing the average subs buyer uses more like 200 a month, so nowhere near 750. I don't know if their habits will change if they change the daily limit or not. Probably not much. It might make for a bulge at the end of the month though.
It doesn't have to change much, 1 dl a day more on average is actually a big deal even though it might not seem like it at first glance.
Edit: I think you are correct about the 200 dls per month, I made an error before when I said 400.
-
If they were meaningless then they would have already allowed 750dls per month instead of having a 25/day limit. Buyers would rather have 750 dls they can use anytime during the month than 25/day. I don't think anyone will disagree that as a buyer you would rather have the monthly plan than the daily one, right?
You are going around in a circle with this (and flogging a dead horse too).
If you were to advertise 750 dl/month lots of people would likely ask for half of that at half the price. Because it seems like a crazy big number. Where as, for most people, 25 per day sounds like more than they will need - but not massively so.
It's just two different ways of describing more or less the same thing.
-
If they were meaningless then they would have already allowed 750dls per month instead of having a 25/day limit. Buyers would rather have 750 dls they can use anytime during the month than 25/day. I don't think anyone will disagree that as a buyer you would rather have the monthly plan than the daily one, right?
You are going around in a circle with this (and flogging a dead horse too).
If you were to advertise 750 dl/month lots of people would likely ask for half of that at half the price. Because it seems like a crazy big number. Where as, for most people, 25 per day sounds like more than they will need - but not massively so.
It's just two different ways of describing more or less the same thing.
There are lots of different buyers, some want to download as many as possible but it's not really possible with vacations, weekends, or other things that keep them too busy, it will be easier for them to get more images. Some only need a couple images a day and are paying for the service for when they need them and won't change their buying habits at all. Some need a lot of images one week and not so many the next, they might download 200 in a couple days now instead of being more choosy because of the 25/day limit. Some buyers might see they have 400 downloads left at the end of the month and decide to download some more because they'll be wasting them if they don't. My point is not that all buyers will download the max now, I don't think that will happen. I think buyers on average will download a higher but relatively small amount more images, like 1 per day or something like that.
-
I think buyers on average will download a higher but relatively small amount more images, like 1 per day or something like that.
We can only guess.
The only way to assess the impact of greater flexibility on buying habits and income would be to see how it went with a small sample selection.
-
I'd guess they did this because it was one of the top obstacles they were hearing from prospective large corporate accounts. They were probably interested but were hesitating because of the inflexibility of the limits. I'm sure SS ran the numbers and saw that the benefit of more quickly converting stalled large prospects into customers outweighed the potential negatives.
-
I'd guess they did this because it was one of the top obstacles they were hearing from prospective large corporate accounts. They were probably interested but were hesitating because of the inflexibility of the limits. I'm sure SS ran the numbers and saw that the benefit of more quickly converting stalled large prospects into customers outweighed the potential negatives.
Yes. Historically SS are very cautious about running numbers and test new programs and changes before introducing to the whole site and buyer market. Such carefulness us probably a good part of their success.
-
Why dont you post a screenshot tickstock, whats holding you back doing that. I dont get it. If you see it, take a screendump and post it here. It will be the end of discussion if it exists or not.
-
Why dont you post a screenshot tickstock, whats holding you back doing that. I dont get it. If you see it, take a screendump and post it here. It will be the end of discussion if it exists or not.
You can go on twitter and see that SS has acknowledged it.
"I really like the new format from @Shutterstock! 750/month instead of 25/day is awesome!"
SS said in response:
"@AdamParks We're excited too! Thanks for the shout-out, Adam. :)"
-
"To provide greater flexibility and to meet our customers’ needs, we recently changed our monthly subscription from 25 image downloads per day to 750 per month for customers in the U.S. and Canada."
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/announcing-changes-shutterstocks-license-terms-and-payment-options (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/announcing-changes-shutterstocks-license-terms-and-payment-options)
-
Oh God, you couldn't just let this one die? :) USA and Canada, that's kind of interesting isn't it?
Announced at the same time as the 500,000 replaces 250,000 change.
(http://s5.postimg.org/88y58xnqb/popcorn.gif)
"To provide greater flexibility and to meet our customers’ needs, we recently changed our monthly subscription from 25 image downloads per day to 750 per month for customers in the U.S. and Canada."
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/announcing-changes-shutterstocks-license-terms-and-payment-options[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/announcing-changes-shutterstocks-license-terms-and-payment-options[/url])
-
Oh God, you couldn't just let this one die? :) USA and Canada, that's kind of interesting isn't it?
Your last posts accused me of making this up. I think posting the official SS release on it is completely relevant, now you and the others that thought this was fake can move on and begin thinking about what it means.
-
True! I was skeptical. But what you contend is not exactly accurate. I never said you were making it up. I said you were interpreting it from one tweet, and we had no confirmation that it was true. There's a large difference.
You also wouldn't admit that the page I linked to, still said 25 a day and you kept pointing to the subscription page, listing programs, that neglected to mention any daily limits. Not that the new program was 750 a month.
Deal in facts please.
Yes it is a fact, now for USA and Canada, and I guess we'll have to see if it changes anything or not. Or if we can even see a change? I'd say this is more of something good for customers, encouraging them to subscribe to SS vs a competitor. More new buyers is good.
Whether they take 25 a day or 750 in one day, won't change anything. Might increase downloads?
Oh God, you couldn't just let this one die? :) USA and Canada, that's kind of interesting isn't it?
Your last posts accused me of making this up. I think posting the official SS release on it is completely relevant, now you and the others that thought this was fake can move on and begin thinking about what it means.
Please quote where I said you were "making it up" or I said it was fake. Thanks
-
True! I was skeptical. But what you contend is not exactly accurate. I never said you were making it up. I said you were interpreting it from one tweet, and we had no confirmation that it was true. There's a large difference.
You also wouldn't admit that the page I linked to, still said 25 a day and you kept pointing to the subscription page, listing programs, that neglected to mention any daily limits. Not that the new program was 750 a month.
Deal in facts please.
Yes it is a fact, now for USA and Canada, and I guess we'll have to see if it changes anything or not. Or if we can even see a change? I'd say this is more of something good for customers, encouraging them to subscribe to SS vs a competitor. More new buyers is good.
Whether they take 25 a day or 750 in one day, won't change anything. Might increase downloads?
Oh God, you couldn't just let this one die? :) USA and Canada, that's kind of interesting isn't it?
Your last posts accused me of making this up. I think posting the official SS release on it is completely relevant, now you and the others that thought this was fake can move on and begin thinking about what it means.
The page you linked to that said 25/day was not showing up for me that's why didn't admit to it. In fact I haven't seen anything about 25/day since I started this thread. Also the other links I had, like the one from the Facebook ad explicitly said no daily limits. You might not have been able to see that but some other people could, it was linked on Shutterstock's forum so I know someone else could see it.
Like you said "Might increase downloads?" That's why I started this thread if downloads increase then SS will make less money per subscription and if the margins for subs are cut how does SS respond? Do they do nothing then and take the hit to their margins or do they try to make up for that cut by raising subscription prices or cut contributor royalties? I think those are basically the only options if downloads increase. My guess is downloads will increase and just a tiny increase will be significant for shareholders, it will be interesting to see the next investor call. I bet there will be some questions from the shareholders on this.
-
Everything is for the business and that eventually means the shareholders. I doubt that SS would do anything without looking at how it improves the earnings - bottom line. If this will give us more DLs and more money, it's an unintended benefit. :)
When you look at this page, http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml (http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml) what do you see on the upper left? Just have to ask, because I still see this.
(http://s5.postimg.org/lkcxv73vr/ss_25_a_day_1_april.jpg)
Kind of odd, isn't it? Now you understand what I'm seeing.
-
When you look at this page, [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml[/url]) what do you see on the upper left? Just have to ask, because I still see this.
I don't see that, I'm not sure why you see that it looks like a very old version to me. SS image 177752849 from last year is the same page I see with a different background photo. Improving earnings isn't always the goal sometimes keeping market share is.
-
When you look at this page, [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml[/url]) what do you see on the upper left? Just have to ask, because I still see this.
I don't see that, I'm not sure why you see that it looks like a very old version to me. SS image 177752849 from last year is the same page I see with a different background photo. Improving earnings isn't always the goal sometimes keeping market share is.
Shutterstock has stated many times that they do not roll our changes in all of their markets. If the test market changes are beneficial to them they roll them out everywhere.
-
When you look at this page, [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml[/url]) what do you see on the upper left? Just have to ask, because I still see this.
I don't see that, I'm not sure why you see that it looks like a very old version to me. SS image 177752849 from last year is the same page I see with a different background photo. Improving earnings isn't always the goal sometimes keeping market share is.
Shutterstock has stated many times that they do not roll our changes in all of their markets. If the test market changes are beneficial to them they roll them out everywhere.
They announced it's been rolled out in the US and Canada so Pete shouldn't be seeing the 25/day anymore.
-
Maybe delete cache and cookies?
-
Yes to both of you, that's why I did a screen capture. The other page for subscriptions has changed, it just doesn't say 25-a-day any more. Interesting that I'm still seeing the same graphic on the main page, in the upper left.
Cleared cache. Did a forced page reload. Nope still the same.
After that, it's not important. Just interesting. :)
When you look at this page, [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml[/url]) what do you see on the upper left? Just have to ask, because I still see this.
I don't see that, I'm not sure why you see that it looks like a very old version to me. SS image 177752849 from last year is the same page I see with a different background photo. Improving earnings isn't always the goal sometimes keeping market share is.
Shutterstock has stated many times that they do not roll our changes in all of their markets. If the test market changes are beneficial to them they roll them out everywhere.
They announced it's been rolled out in the US and Canada so Pete shouldn't be seeing the 25/day anymore.
-
I have in avarage 30-40 sold photos a day on SS. Yesterday (thursday) almost ZERO. Anybody else? Weird. :-\
-
It's Easter weekend. Things could slow down. Certainly this weekend.
-
Yep, me too, I had an average 4.3 downloads a day in March, then on 1st of April 7 downloads (4 of them ODD), and then, yesterday nothing. 0.
I thought this was due to holidays.
I have only about 500 files though.
-
Comes back to the reporting question. We don't know if they process earnings one day and do something else on Fridays. Watching the map or the earnings, is not proof that the DL took place that same day or same hour.
This could also make Monday or Tuesday more attractive as the weekend DLs get reported then.
No I have no evidence of this. Same as no one has proof that reporting is close to real time.
Anyway, removing 25 a day is fine with me. I hope it frees up buyers to DL more of my work more often.
I have in avarage 30-40 sold photos a day on SS. Yesterday (thursday) almost ZERO. Anybody else? Weird. :-\
-
Maybe this will make a difference in the number of downloads we get (from Europe). No more 750/month for us, we've been downsized to 350/month.
-
Maybe this will make a difference in the number of downloads we get (from Europe). No more 750/month for us, we've been downsized to 350/month.
Its also only 34 euro per month cheaper.
199 euro for 750 month = 0.27 c/i
165 euro for 350 month = 0.47 c/i
Shutterstock gave themselves a 20 cent raise per image. And nuttin' for us. So it seems.
-
Maybe this will make a difference in the number of downloads we get (from Europe). No more 750/month for us, we've been downsized to 350/month.
Its also 74 euro per month cheaper.
199 euro for 750 month = 0.27 c/i
165 euro for 350 month = 0.47 c/i
Shutterstock gave themselves a 20 cent raise per image. And nuttin' for us. So it seems.
I make it €34/less at the 1 month rate. When you take out a subs package for 12 months, the price/month drops below €199/month I thought. Anyway, not surprising that dls have dropped.....Europeeins get 400 dls less/month that they used to.
-
I edited a calc error
-
They added the 350 image option for the US too. Expect more changes to combat lower margins with the new monthly limits.
-
They added the 350 image option for the US too. Expect more changes to combat lower margins with the new monthly limits.
But their margin on a month subscription went up by 81%
-
They added the 350 image option for the US too. Expect more changes to combat lower margins with the new monthly limits.
But their margin on a month subscription went up by 81%
Yep, I don't think that's the end of the changes though. Did they get rid of 750 dls altogether in Europe? If they do that everywhere else what will that do your sales numbers? I think a lot of their sales come from Europe so I would expect dls to start decreasing a little in the coming months.
-
They added the 350 image option for the US too. Expect more changes to combat lower margins with the new monthly limits.
But their margin on a month subscription went up by 81%
Yep, I don't think that's the end of the changes though. Did they get rid of 750 dls altogether in Europe? If they do that everywhere else what will that do your sales numbers? I think a lot of their sales come from Europe so I would expect dls to start decreasing a little in the coming months.
I am in Ireland, still seeing 750. I dont know where the other screenshot was taken.
-
Did they add the option for a cheaper/higher margin 350/month plan in Ireland?
-
Did they add the option for a cheaper/higher margin 350/month plan in Ireland?
-
That's what I see in Germany. Only the 350 / month option.
-
I have no idea why 25/day subs were sold for ~$200 in the first place. If a 'customer' were to download their full quote of 750 images, then at 38 cents paid to the contributor Shutterstock would pay out to contributors @38 cents $285.
Now, with only 350 images, SS can never pay out more than $133 to the contributors.
-
I have no idea why 25/day subs were sold for ~$200 in the first place. If a 'customer' were to download their full quote of 750 images, then at 38 cents paid to the contributor Shutterstock would be $85 out-of-pocket on the deal.
Now, with only 350 images, SS can never pay out more than $133 to the contributors.
No one downloaded their full quota because it was too inconvenient to download every day including vacation days, sick days, holidays, and weekends. Now with monthly limits buyers can easily download the full quota in an hour or two if they like. It seemed obvious to me that downloads would go up (contrary to what most people here said) and it looks like SS has acknowledged that fact by cutting the amount of possible downloads and the amount they might have to pay out.
I wonder what buyers in Europe are going to think when they see that people in other countries are getting a better deal or if it's just a matter of time before they switch over to 350 for all buyers?
-
I only see the 750/month deal in the UK:
(http://www.lizworld.com/SSPrices.jpg)
They must be testing / rolling out the changes in different markets, or just randomly.
-
They added the 350 image option for the US too. Expect more changes to combat lower margins with the new monthly limits.
But their margin on a month subscription went up by 81%
Yep, I don't think that's the end of the changes though. Did they get rid of 750 dls altogether in Europe? If they do that everywhere else what will that do your sales numbers? I think a lot of their sales come from Europe so I would expect dls to start decreasing a little in the coming months.
I am in Ireland, still seeing 750. I dont know where the other screenshot was taken.
NL.