But DT & FT aren't more expensive than SS; image prices at all 3 agencies are roughly similar. The main reason that there is a difference in RPD between them is their success or otherwise in selling subscriptions. SS is obviously the clear winner in that regard presumeably because buyers who require a subscription prefer their product/service over that of DT or FT. As it happens both DT and FT are actually cheaper than SS for long-term subscriptions and of course they both pay us less per sub-sale than SS. You can't knock SS for their success over the competition.

You're right DT & FT aren't more expensive than SS, and yet by your own admittance your RPD is higher there, as you said it's because they don't push to sell subs as much as SS, and you think SS selling more subs is a good thing!

However SS are also a substantial agency for OD's EL's and SOD's in their own regard. So far this month I've made more money at SS from non-sub sales than I have in total from DT & FT combined __ and that includes sub sales within DT and FT's total.

I haven't seen many others saying the same and it certainly isn't like that for me and nothing to indicate it will be, but believe me I would love to sell nothing but single image sales at SS, so subs are bad now then?
 

I've also made more money this month at SS from single-image sales, etc than I have in total at IS. Yes really.

I don't doubt it, shame though because iS would have paid you more.

The fact of the matter is that, even if you were to remove all sub sales, SS would still be my biggest selling agency for single-image sales. Single-image sales is where almost all the growth has been generated over the last couple of years and fortunately that shows no sign of slowing down.

So subs are bad now 

Btw, SS are often 'credited' on MSG (or 'blamed' if you prefer) for having invented the sub model. They didn't. There were several other sub-only agencies at the time however they invariably had wholly-owned content. SS just happened to be the first sub-only agency to open their doors to outside photographers. The huge risk Oringer took in doing so, by paying commissions, meant he could have lost money on every subscription if the customer downloaded anything like their full entitlement.

I know, there were also the 'CD collections' which were like subs on a disc, all Oringer did was copy two ideas, sell loads of images in one package (which he nicked from the trads) and sell them dirt cheap (which he nicked from Bruce), I guess he got the idea of paying the least amount possible to the creators himself, but in fairness he was targeting those who couldn't sell elsewhere with the 'upload the contents of your hard drive' campaign. To this day you'd be hard pushed to find anyone with a larger or even similar size portfolio on other sites as they do on SS and I'll hazard a guess there's a large amount of people who only sell on SS because of quality reasons.

I know you like SS because they nett you the largest monthly income, there's nothing wrong with that, and yes they're extremely successful in doing what they do (mostly thanks to iS giving them customers no doubt) which is why Jon Oringer has just got all that cash, all I ask is that you remove the blinkers every once in a while and see them for what they are which is a business intent on making as much profit from us as possible, which is exactly the same as iS although you get more insults there.

And there's the fact that istck, FT and DT have all cut their PPD commissions.  So their RPD could be much worse in years to come, as they haven't said that they have stopped cutting commissions.  I really wouldn't want more buyers going to those sites, giving them more power over us and making it easier for them to cut commissions.  I know some people think if istock had dominated the market, they wouldn't of needed to cut commissions but I think that's nonsense.

It is interesting to hear people say istock cut commissions.  Did they?  For everyone?  Or just people who weren't maintaining sales.    What was a large sale worth in commissions in 2006?  It was $1.00 now a large vetta pays $28.
Istock opened stock photography to the little guy.  Try getting into rm even today! SS took the price down to a new low.  Let's see I am going to crate a lower priced business model than subscription and call it "dickedover" for every 100 photos the buyer downloads they pay for 1 photo.  Now there is a large membership fee that the photographer does not get and that my site will keep.  But you will get your work "out there".  In 8 years I will be praised for selling this thing for $400 million.  I don't understand giving your work away so that you are not screwed over by an all too powerful high paying site. 

However SS are also a substantial agency for OD's EL's and SOD's in their own regard. So far this month I've made more money at SS from non-sub sales than I have in total from DT & FT combined __ and that includes sub sales within DT and FT's total.

I've also made more money this month at SS from single-image sales, etc than I have in total at IS. Yes really.

I just checked my numbers and I am seeing the same - I've made more just on ODs at SS so far this month than total earnings at DT and FT combined, and I already have a BME at FT.  It's also more than at iS, although not more than iS + DT + FT.  The past two months I was averaging an OD about every 20 sales at SS - way fewer than usual - but so far this month it is one out of every 7 so I hope it continues.

Quote from: ShadySue on October 18, 2012, 08:48

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on October 18, 2012, 08:30

... a large vetta pays $28.

They definitely cut the commissions for all exclusives on ELs, and I thought on Vettas too (maybe also Agency?).

Also it turns out that they've never been paying us the stated commission on non-dollar sales, whereas they've been doing a double ream; and when caught, they slyly changed the ASA to allow it.

To be fair, that wasn't technically a commission cut. It was a commission we thought we were getting according to the old ASA, but weren't. So, a scam.

So it was a down and out con?

Quote from: sharpshot on October 18, 2012, 03:18

Do you ignore the RPD for shutterstock pay per download, SOD's and EL's?  They're not a subs only site and my non-subs RPD there is probably better than most other microstock sites.  RPD is so meaningless to me, I can't be bothered working it out but I think if I did, I would want to compare subs with subs and PPD with PPD.  Surely if you do that, SS is going to have a good subs RPD and a good PPD RPD?

And there's the fact that istck, FT and DT have all cut their PPD commissions.  So their RPD could be much worse in years to come, as they haven't said that they have stopped cutting commissions.  I really wouldn't want more buyers going to those sites, giving them more power over us and making it easier for them to cut commissions.  I know some people think if istock had dominated the market, they wouldn't of needed to cut commissions but I think that's nonsense.

No 'average RPD' takes into account all sales whether it be Subs,SOD,EL,PPD or whatever fancy term a site uses for a sale. You should try, it's a two second job, just take your last months sales on SS, divide the cash amount by the number of downloads and you'll get your average RPD.
It will fluctuate slightly as obviously some months you'll have more EL's etc than others but that's the whole point of it, to gauge an Average. Year on year it gives you a good indication of which sites pay you more commission than others, trust me give it a go for the big 4 and then you'll see why I keep telling you that percentages mean nothing, and maybe you'll finally understand why I don't encourage buyers to go to SS. You will see why Jon is now a multi millionaire!

Doing it the way you describe is pointless, if you try and work out your average RPD for subs only on SS I'll bet you end up with 38c 

Mine is pretty similar to Gostwyck's with the highest paying being DT then iS, FT and finally SS a long way back. I'll be surprised if yours is any different.

I used to have RPD in my spreadsheet but then I thought what's the point?  The number has little to do with overall earnings and that's what pays my bills (almost).  I think the main reason why Jon is now a multi millionaire is because over the past few years istock has lost a lot of its buyers and it looks like most of them went to SS.  It's impossible to know if we are better or worse off.  Istock cut commission percentages and its harder to compete with their exclusives.  The fact is that buyers download more with SS subs, that's really what makes RPD meaningless.  Would you rather 3 x $0.38 or 1 x $1?

Overall earnings have gone down for a lot of us but is that because of the worldwide economic downturn, or the big increase in competition, or the commission cuts and the complete incompetence of some sites?  I wouldn't blame it all on a low RPD.

I used to have RPD in my spreadsheet but then I thought what's the point?  The number has little to do with overall earnings and that's what pays my bills (almost).  I think the main reason why Jon is now a multi millionaire is because over the past few years istock has lost a lot of its buyers and it looks like most of them went to SS.  It's impossible to know if we are better or worse off.  Istock cut commission percentages and its harder to compete with their exclusives.  The fact is that buyers download more with SS subs, that's really what makes RPD meaningless.  Would you rather 3 x $0.38 or 1 x $1?

Overall earnings have gone down for a lot of us but is that because of the worldwide economic downturn, or the big increase in competition, or the commission cuts and the complete incompetence of some sites?  I wouldn't blame it all on a low RPD.

To a certain extent, you are right. You can't change RPD at a particular agency, so it doesn't really affect your bottom line. On the other hand, it really determines the viability of an agency or the industry in general.

It's the reason I'm so tough on SS. After several years of looking at my numbers, I determined that I was never going to sell the volumes necessary to make what I wanted there. If anything, it was getting harder just to maintain my current volumes. So, I decided to focus on more profitable agencies that had the potential to actually grow into what I wanted.

If you look at your numbers, and everything looks great and is growing. Then, you should definitely continue what you are doing. But, if you are like me (which I assume many people are), you know that you won't ever have the type of popular images that are going to sell thousands of times a month to make the $.50-$.70 RPD a profitable operation.

I can, however, sell hundreds of images a month. So, I funnel all my new images to higher RPD sites in an attempt to increase my income. I just can't afford to keep supporting sites like SS that are never going to work for me.

cthoman, you nailed it.  The SS formula really only works for images that are either simple and cheap to produce, or will sell a very large number of times.   Niche material is out in the cold, and represents money left on the table because of a simplistic one-size-fits-all business model and pricing structure.

Er ... isn't that pretty much the exact formula for successful microstock everywhere? Funny that. SS has stuck with the original formula of all images available at the same cheap price and it's proving very successful. Who'd have thought that could work (for both the agency and realistic contributors)?

0

Quote from: RT on October 18, 2012, 04:18

Quote from: rubyroo on October 18, 2012, 03:40

It's very strange to me that all the SS bashers seem to have a blind spot when it comes to OD's, SOD's and EL's.  As should be clear, in recent months Jon has increased the range of PPDs and there are  more non-sub sales than ever.

No, you just don't understand what RPD is, see my post to Sharpshot above.

You do make an awful lot of assumptions regarding what people know and think.  I wasn't actually referring to RPD at all, nor was I referring to you in my post.  Over time there have been a few posters here (IS exclusives, usually) who speak as if SS as purely a sub site and nothing else.   I shouldn't have said 'all SS bashers' in my post.  That was careless of me.

If you feel confident enough to call "SS bashers" to the people that don't share your point of view on SS, I think you won't matter being called "SS woo-yayer", in the best tradition of what was said on IS contributors time ago. Now, there are a lot of SS woo-yayers... bot don't worry, it was allowed an applauded to make fun of IS woo-yayers, but being a SS woo-yayer is a serious and respectable thing.
Abut SS being a subs site... It's a fact that it was a subs site for many years, it is understable that some people see this agency in that way. Now you have some indivividual sales or ELS? Good for you and for SS. But, as far as I know (for friends that have portfolios there) the majority of sales are  sub, at 0.35 or whatever any size. Maybe in your case is different.

@ loop

I'm not sure what confidence has to do with it... but honestly, it makes no difference to me what you call me.  I'm just happy with a site that's my top earner and performing better all the time without cutting commissions.  I'm not so happy with sites that either perform poorly (although I may still live in hope for them), and I'm somewhat miserable about sites that cut commissions.  Nothing 'respectable' or otherwise about it.  If SS started screwing me or anyone else and start cutting commissions across the board, I'd be really unhappy with them.

If it's of interest, my numbers are consistently around 50% to 60% PPDs at present. 

I guess if SS cut prices and commissions until they cornered the entire market, and forced the other agencies out of business entirely, we'd love them even more.  Because they would definitely be the "top earner".  And we'd heap scorn on all those pathetic loser agencies that couldn't sell anything for us.

There's some very grouchy iStock exclusives who can't seem to leave this Shutterstock  thread alone.

Could the numbing effect of the Kool-Aid be wearing off?