pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New marketing from Shutterstock  (Read 7800 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 08, 2009, 01:18 »
0
I was looking on the shutterstock forum today and saw this

Quote
(2) New Marketing Program -- Soon we will begin an exciting new marketing program where we'll offer a limited free trial to specially selected non-paying account holders. We are starting this program in the U.S. only.

Participants will be able to download up to 3 free small or medium size images per day for 7 days. This program is our latest effort to demonstrate that our library, search, and UI are far superior to those of our competitors.

We want to make it clear to you at the outset that our submitters will be paid for every download that occurs under this program, whether or not the customer ends up buying a subscription. In your download stats, the downloads will be reflected as 25-a-Day downloads.

We are paying the royalty ourselves, as a marketing expense, because we believe that once the person with the Free Trial has seen and used all of the benefits and features of being an active Shutterstock customer, they will agree Shutterstock is the best image source out there.

Sounds like a nice deal for the buyers and it should give us some extra downloads! Well done SS.


« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2009, 01:40 »
0
Good show!

It's nice to see a stock site initiate something without forcing the contributors to pay for it.

<cough>fotolia<cough>

Milinz

« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2009, 06:54 »
0
Good move! Just bring that new buyers!

Shutterstock ROCKS!

;-)

« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2009, 06:58 »
0
Anything to boost sales is welcome!

« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2009, 12:47 »
0
I hope they find a way of preventing people from creating multiple accounts just to download free images. In the end, it would result in fewer subscriptions being purchased. Hopefully, they will be asking for credit card number or another form of verification.

« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2009, 12:59 »
0
"specially selected non-paying account holders"

lisafx

« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2009, 13:00 »
0
Really classy move from a very classy site.  I really hope they keep and even grow their market share.  They know how to treat contributors right. 

« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2009, 13:14 »
0
Really classy move from a very classy site.  I really hope they keep and even grow their market share.  They know how to treat contributors right. 

Crisply put Lisa. You know I can't recall SS doing a single thing against their contributors or with which I disagreed in any way.

« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2009, 14:04 »
0
I didn't say it in my previous post, but I also believe this a very good marketing concept thye just did. They seem to know what they are doing and I commend a very wise decision to shift marketing cost to the agency itself and not contributors!

« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2009, 16:35 »
0
Great!

And what is quite interresting is that they seem to introduce the notion of size in their downloads!  Are they going to fix subsriptions DL based on size?

Claude


lisafx

« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2009, 17:00 »
0
You know I can't recall SS doing a single thing against their contributors or with which I disagreed in any way.

Agreed.  No Drama Oringer doesn't have the same ring to it that No Drama Obama has, but it is equally apt :)

DanP68

« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2009, 17:09 »
0
Class move from a Class agency. 

« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2009, 18:18 »
0
No Drama Oringer doesn't have the same ring to it that No Drama Obama has, but it is equally apt :)

It's still good!

We could call him 'Honest Jon' but it makes him sound like a used-car salesman.

lisafx

« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2009, 18:25 »
0

We could call him 'Honest Jon' but it makes him sound like a used-car salesman.

LOL!  Seems like the clunkers are being hawked elsewhere these days... ;)

« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2009, 00:22 »
0
well...h...am i stupid or is this an invitation for submitters to download their own images from a friends pc to get more credits?

And if not...since a nearly hundred years there is a golden rule in marketing, never ever spend for free what you want to be paid for. I've heard during Web 1.0 everthing has changed...only the companys who want to be paid survived.
Now is Web 2.0 and again some companys spend gifts of what they want to be paid for. If they pay constributors for that, first it seemed to be fair, but i don't think this is a good signal into the market. It wouldn't pay out at the end, not for SS and not for the constributors. At the end it is a shame for the hole microstockbusiness at all.
Why not donate a toaster, thats more creativ and intelligent than that action? People who need pictures have to pay for pictures. If you want to attract them attract them by being interesting not by giving away for free what they want to pay for. thats the most stupid thing you can do!
I won't give the permission to anyone to give my work away for free, even if i was paid for.
I'm not at SS because the price per Image is so low i can't agree even if the sales are good and the mass makes a good income.

Who behave like this is always going down. If you have a successfull example of a company who had done the opposite way please tell me.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2009, 00:59 by werkmann »

« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2009, 03:10 »
0
Ive pointed this out earlier.  This will apply only for "specially selected customers", if you read Leafs post.

Im sure they wouldnt let it be an orgy of free downloads by evil contributors :D

« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2009, 04:38 »
0
If you want to attract them attract them by being interesting not by giving away for free what they want to pay for. thats the most stupid thing you can do!
I won't give the permission to anyone to give my work away for free, even if i was paid for.
I'm not at SS because the price per Image is so low i can't agree even if the sales are good and the mass makes a good income.

Who behave like this is always going down. If you have a successfull example of a company who had done the opposite way please tell me.

You're missing the point here Werkmann. Strictly speaking SS don't 'sell images', they sell subscription packages __ and they're not giving those away for free. What they're doing is offering a few tasters to encourage selected buyers to perform a few (of the 'new') searches and see what's on offer.

You can also bet that they'll be monitoring the behaviour of the selected few very closely and refining their marketing strategy as a result. The only cost to SS is the $1 or so they'll be paying in commission, per customer targeted, who may then go on to buy a subscription. If only 1 customer out of every 200 actually buys a one-month package they'll still make money out of it. That's very cheap and well-targeted marketing. Clever.

Btw, IS have been 'giving images away for free' for years __ and they seem to be doing OK. They give out cards at exhibitions with a reference number that entitles the recipient to 3 free credits (at least I think that's how they do it).


lisafx

« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2009, 11:22 »
0

I'm not at SS because the price per Image is so low i can't agree even if the sales are good and the mass makes a good income.


Sorry, I don't see your logic here at all. 

I see you have portfolios on DT and Fotolia though.  Fotolia pays me .34 for subs and DT pays me .35 and neither allows an opt-out of subs.  I get .38 from Shutterstock.

If you are willing to sell for lower sub prices on those sites, why not higher ones on SS?? 

(yeah, I know that SS starts you at .25, but it very, very quickly raises you to .33)


Milinz

« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2009, 13:12 »
0

I'm not at SS because the price per Image is so low i can't agree even if the sales are good and the mass makes a good income.


Sorry, I don't see your logic here at all. 

I see you have portfolios on DT and Fotolia though.  Fotolia pays me .34 for subs and DT pays me .35 and neither allows an opt-out of subs.  I get .38 from Shutterstock.

If you are willing to sell for lower sub prices on those sites, why not higher ones on SS?? 

(yeah, I know that SS starts you at .25, but it very, very quickly raises you to .33)



Just to add - with just about 500-600 images you may go up to .33 in a year!
Also, OD sales at SS are quite fair - if not even most fair that on other agencies.
ELs are also fair enough and are quite more than on some other sites.

SO, SS is place to upload for sure if you plan to be on FT and DT.

helix7

« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2009, 13:14 »
0
...I won't give the permission to anyone to give my work away for free, even if i was paid for.
I'm not at SS because the price per Image is so low i can't agree even if the sales are good and the mass makes a good income...

Isn't that what a "sale" is? Someone gets goods, someone else gets money. You're getting money for your goods. Who cares whether it's SS or the end user who gives that money to you?

And as Lisa pointed out, SS does not have the lowest payout per image in the business. Plus with on-demand sales now, the return per image average at SS is much higher than it used to be.

::)



« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2009, 19:49 »
0
Well, looks like I'm a bit desorientated on SSs payout politics but....the lowest price for subs isn't my point of view. I'm looking for the average price i earn for a download, what is, in my case, 2,86$ at the moment at FT.
As I understood SS constributors will always get the same price for each download. What means less than 10% of my average earnings. Even behind the 500$ mark its roundabout 12%.

If i'm wrong please tell me.

@Milinz: i earned more than 500$ in my third month at FT with roundabout 100 pictures.
@helix7: if a trade is a trade depends on the point of view. You might be right but i think my thoughts go some steps further.

Greets from bertold


« Last Edit: May 10, 2009, 20:08 by werkmann »

« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2009, 02:01 »
0
I averaged $0.50 a download with SS last month.  The PPD and EL's have boosted earnings per sale.

« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2009, 04:59 »
0
Well, looks like I'm a bit desorientated on SSs payout politics but....the lowest price for subs isn't my point of view. I'm looking for the average price i earn for a download, what is, in my case, 2,86$ at the moment at FT.
As I understood SS constributors will always get the same price for each download. What means less than 10% of my average earnings. Even behind the 500$ mark its roundabout 12%.


Well, considering that your portfolio at FT appears to be all exclusive images priced at 3 credits, you're not exactly comparing like with like.

Also, have you adjusted the 'credits' you are earning at FT into $US properly? Since the movement of the exchange rates and the adjustment of the value of a credit into my own currency () I've lost about 20%. If you are European and you want to display your FT earnings in $US then you effectively have 3 different 'currencies' to transfer between. In the UK my credits are now worth 0.60 (before it was 0.57)

For example:  100 credits = 60 = $90  (previously it was 100 credits = 57 = $114)

Anyway, my own portfolio on FT earns an average of 80c (0.9 credits) and on SS I'm averaging 53c. However since the beginning of the year my earnings at SS are 58% higher than at FT.

How come you don't bother with IS, by far the highest earning agency for most contributors?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2009, 05:04 by gostwyck »

« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2009, 08:52 »
0
@ ghostwick: IS don't like my stil of 3d-illustrations (they have to be photolike, what mine are not), so i stopped uploading some month ago. But at the moment i start a new portfolio there.
After some month in business i saw that i most sell at europa. Now im interested in finding out what sells in US-market.

Milinz

« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2009, 13:46 »
0
Well, looks like I'm a bit desorientated on SSs payout politics but....the lowest price for subs isn't my point of view. I'm looking for the average price i earn for a download, what is, in my case, 2,86$ at the moment at FT.
As I understood SS constributors will always get the same price for each download. What means less than 10% of my average earnings. Even behind the 500$ mark its roundabout 12%.

If i'm wrong please tell me.

@Milinz: i earned more than 500$ in my third month at FT with roundabout 100 pictures.
@helix7: if a trade is a trade depends on the point of view. You might be right but i think my thoughts go some steps further.

Greets from bertold



Thanks Bertold. Your data is extremely helpful to understand 'specific needs of Fotolia buyers' especially German part ;-)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
4401 Views
Last post January 22, 2008, 06:42
by rosta
2 Replies
2559 Views
Last post September 09, 2009, 10:47
by Brian O'Shea
24 Replies
6269 Views
Last post January 21, 2010, 19:57
by willie
9 Replies
3370 Views
Last post January 19, 2018, 23:05
by StockbyNumbers
1 Replies
732 Views
Last post January 25, 2019, 12:02
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results