...
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.

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 ?

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 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? 

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 15, 2015, 16:06

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

Quote from: tickstock on March 15, 2015, 19:32

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 15, 2015, 16:06

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.

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.

Well, after the worst weekend in years, with a total of 6 downloads over 2 days, I hope its not the new trend

Quote from: hatman12 on March 15, 2015, 22:08

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.

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

Quote from: tickstock on March 16, 2015, 10:10

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