Author Topic: Small Business Team Subscriptions? (Read 10475 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **on:** March 21, 2014, 14:32 »

http://www.shutterstock.com/team/subscribe.mhtml

I saw a new linkk (I think it's new) on the prices and plans page "See Business Solutions" which took me here:

http://www.shutterstock.com/business-solutions.mhtml

They don't post the prices on the enterprise stuff, but I'm guessing that's where the SODs come from. For the Small business teams, they get 35 a day "team" subscriptions for $339, $479 or $554 a month depending on how many users (2, 3 or 4)

Do we see any of the extra cash (for the multi-seat license)? I understand that some part of the extra is for more downloads, which we wouldn't get a higher royalty on, but some part is for the extra seats.

These prices are monthly but based on a one year deal. The 25 a day license on an annual basis is $213.25/month for one user.

For $125.75 more you get 35 a day and 2 users

for $140 more you get the above plus a third user

For $75 more you get a 4th user

They also mention "Increased distribution and indemnification." - what does that mean?

It's great that they're expanding their offerings, but I'd like to know how they're sharing the extra with us

Ron · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2014, 14:36 »

Thats been around for a while. Dont know more about it.

tickstock · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2014, 14:42 »

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2014, 15:04 »

http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

There's nothing here about royalties on team subscriptions, but there is a difference in monthly price based solely on the number of users (+$140 from 2 to 3 and +$75 from 3 to 4) and that's not going for number of reproductions or indemnity which would be part of the base 2 user package and not increase.

Where did the text you quote come from?

tickstock · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2014, 15:07 »

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2014, 16:17 »

Thanks. I guess I had missed that part of the thread. It seems they are fudging the details on this just as with the varying cost to the buyer for ELs, all of which net the contributor $28. Sigh.

tickstock · « **Reply #6 on:** March 21, 2014, 23:39 »

gbalex · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2014, 11:11 »

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #8 on:** March 23, 2014, 08:08 »

They way I understand it is that this is NOT a multi-seat license. It's just an account with multiple users having their own sub accounts but each licensing their own content. This is quite similar to the corporate subscriptions iStock has offered until now. And the raise from 250k to 500k print runs doesn't sound dramatic to me either.

So in effect it sounds like the client is getting a discounted second, third etc. user and we don't get less than if the client would have bought three separate subscriptions for each employee.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** March 23, 2014, 08:28 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on March 23, 2014, 08:08

And the raise from 250k to 500k print runs doesn't sound dramatic to me either.

Hmmm
17 newspapers in the US
3 UK newspapers

3 Australian magazines
29+ French magazines
13+ German magazines
9 Dutch magazines
36 UK magazines
and presumably a much larger number of US magazines - the list I looked at only looked at the top 50 in selected countries, and all of the US top 50 were over a million. (France and Germany would have had more in the next 50 in this print run.

So, you'd need to know how many of these use images from SS to know how significant the increased allowance is.

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** March 23, 2014, 09:14 »

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2014, 02:43 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 23, 2014, 09:14

From my understanding you do get less, one subscription dl rather than 3. "It's important to keep in mind that Shutterstock pays royalties on every single download, regardless of how many team members access a single account at one business." If there is a single account then isn't there only one dl that 3 people use?

Based on my own work experience (outside of the photography world), I would think in other cases those three people would just share one account using one person's credentials - though this is technically not legal, I assume it is a common case. I used to work in environments where it was quite common to share one person's credentials to sites offering information, tutorials, work material etc.

I believe it is rather rare that 3 people within a company actually use the same image. Yes, someone could certainly come up with an example where that would be the case and make sense. However, in most cases I think you don't hire three designers to work on the same product. I think it's much more common to have three designers (e.g. one web designer, one social media manager, one doing the print designs) working on different things and using different images. To me it sounds like this subscription offer just allows those small teams to have each their own account with their own credentials.

tickstock · « **Reply #12 on:** March 24, 2014, 08:36 »

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2014, 09:14 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 24, 2014, 08:36

A regular subs plan pays out up to 114% of the cost while a team subscription can payout 72% of the purchase price (assuming the contributors are at the highest royalty level for all payouts). Images have been given more rights, possibly some downloads are lost, and contributors get paid a lot less. It doesn't seem like a good deal to me, do you see it differently?

Well, I think you agree that your hypothetical, potential, theoretical payout calculations are far from reality. Because otherwise all agencies offering subscriptions would be bankrupt by now. So what's the point in discussing completely hypothetical numbers?

tickstock · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2014, 09:17 »

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #15 on:** March 25, 2014, 02:07 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 24, 2014, 09:17

Yes they were best case scenarios for contributors. If the best case for contributors shows that this plan is worse then what does that mean if you put in the actual numbers? It's obvious that contributors will get a much lower % of the money under the team subscriptions than the regular subscriptions isn't it?

No, it isn't. It's playing around with unrealistic numbers which does not allow drawing conclusions for a totally different reality.

tickstock · « **Reply #16 on:** March 25, 2014, 06:14 »

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2014, 07:20 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 25, 2014, 06:14

So if the max that contributors can make from the team subscription plans is more than 30% less than the max contributors can make from a team subscription plan, you think putting more realistic numbers in there will change things? How so, what scenario makes this a better plan?

I don't need to make it a better plan. I have no detailed information or facts. Neither do you. You just deliberately try to make the plan look bad by using numbers that are wrong to start with.

tickstock · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2014, 07:21 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #19 on:** March 25, 2014, 09:46 »

Tickstock, I get 38c per dl. If this plan increases the number of DLs from a company, because they are having more people downloading our images, then I get more money. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Your argument is that what we care about is how much the customers pay per dl, not how much money we earn. I'm actually more interested in real money in my pocket than in theoretical prices paid by people I don't know.

So here we've got you suggesting that SS is paying a commission rate of more than 100% and it should keep doing that otherwise it's bad for suppliers, and on another thread we have Balex telling us that SS sells files for 16c each and that we all know it pays us a commission rate of 28% (so I suppose the 38c commissions I see are really 4.5c and I'm just deluded).

It all goes to show what a fabulously strange world it is when we deliberately use statistics to eliminate reality.

Personally, I've got my own theory, which is that 25x38c = $9.50 and that 35x38c = $13.30.
Unlike you, I have the idea that getting paid $13.30 is better than getting paid $9.50.

I'm even willing to back up my theory. If you send me $1,330 then I will send you back $950 immediately, and we can both feel good about having avoided getting ripped off.

tickstock · « **Reply #20 on:** March 25, 2014, 10:04 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #21 on:** March 25, 2014, 10:12 »

My royalty rate wouldn't be lowered. My royalty rate is 38c. How can 38c be a reduction from 38c?

Yes, I do realise you want to try to pretend that they pay us a percentage of the contracts, but in fact they don't and the percentage calculations people have done have been based on the total annual payout to all contributors as a percentage of the total annual take. I'm pretty sure that this scheme won't change that overall calculation by a thousandth of a decimal point.

It's a reasonable assumption that this is aimed at companies where people have been downloading once and then sharing that image across seats. So if this makes them download the image two or three times, that's all to the good. If two people download from the same account illegally, and now they download the same number of times from a more expensive account then nothing changes for me.

Contrary to your spurious mathematical construction, this is either neutral or beneficial for contributors. It might be even more beneficial for SS, too, that's possible, but we've know way of knowing, have we?

PS: I thought you knew the terms. Isn't this just multi-seat access to a subscription, with no changes to usage rights? Suggesting it is comparable to the Google Drive deal at iStock is simply ridiculous.

tickstock · « **Reply #22 on:** March 25, 2014, 10:14 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #23 on:** March 25, 2014, 10:27 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 25, 2014, 10:14

That's one way of looking at it. I think it does matter how much the agency is taking in compared to how much we are making. Unpopular view?
Isn't that one of the major problems with the depositphotos deal, paying sub royalties while charging much much more to buyers? http://www.microstockgroup.com/depositphotos/the-german-shotshop-reseller-of-depositphotos/msg372250/?topicseen#new

Once again you are comparing apples and oranges, it seems to be a full-time hobby for you! Overall percentages are meaningless because people are on different rates. I get 17% at iStock, but the average is probably around 20%. Are you happy with iSTock paying 20%? Apparently SS pays 28%, according to Balex, but you're suggesting that's unacceptable becuase you think "it matters how much the agency is taking in compared with how much we are making". So why are you happy with 20% but not with 28% (or maybe now 27.9999% now), and why do you make such a fuss about commission percentage changes of 0.00001% while iStock has been playing fast and loose with percentages for years. What about the (admittely semi-defunct) RC system?

tickstock · « **Reply #24 on:** March 25, 2014, 10:29 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #25 on:** March 25, 2014, 10:34 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 25, 2014, 10:29

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 25, 2014, 10:27
you're suggesting that's unacceptable becuase you think "it matters how much the agency is taking in compared with how much we are making".
You are putting words in my mouth, I don't think it's necessarily unacceptable at all but I do think it should be known. Each of us has to make up our own minds about what is acceptable.

Well, it does seem as if you are going to great lengths to try to conjure up a way of making it sound unacceptable.

Anyway, I'm going out, so I'll leave you to it.

tickstock · « **Reply #26 on:** March 25, 2014, 10:39 »

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #27 on:** March 25, 2014, 11:41 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 25, 2014, 10:14

Isn't that one of the major problems with the depositphotos deal, paying sub royalties while charging much much more to buyers?

Yep. But as far as I can see from the plan as described, Shutterstock is doing the opposite: It is charging LESS for the second and third user than it does for a regular subscription.

You are basing your predefined opinions on numbers that we all know are wrong because no company could afford them. It's about the actual usage. We assume that on standard subscriptions the actual usage is somewhere around 25% of the allowance which would equal around 6 of the 25 allowed downloads per day. With the team subscription they charge $400 instead of $250, so my assumption would be that two users within the company use 60% more images than one, roughly adding up to 10 per day etc.

This is at least how I would make the pricing of a product. Based on the actual usage. Based on experiences made. Not on how to screw our suppliers best.

But I won't convince you because you already made your mind up long time ago. And I have no doubt you will stick to your opinion, even if you need to make up unrealistic numbers to prove them. That says more about you than about any agency in my opinion, though.

tickstock · « **Reply #28 on:** March 25, 2014, 12:06 »

tickstock · « **Reply #29 on:** March 25, 2014, 12:43 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #30 on:** March 25, 2014, 13:43 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 25, 2014, 10:39

As far as I can tell you don't disagree with any of that you just don't think it matters (and shouldn't be pointed out for those that do care), fair enough we can agree to disagree there.

Now who's putting things in other people's mouths? I'm grateful to you for highlighting the information about the license. That's a useful service and what this site is for.
It's just the bizarre way you go on from there interpret it as being a cut in commissions, that I disagree with.
I think you're the first person who's ever accused me of trying to stifle discussion. I recall actually standing up for either you or Shudderstock when the person concerned was under attack and arguing that we needed diverse views here - and we do.
I'm not so sure we need motivated campaigns against particular agencies, but then you are far from being the only one - or the only side - to have pursued that.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #31 on:** March 25, 2014, 14:44 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 25, 2014, 12:43

My thought was that this was about bringing buyers into compliance. So in that case your scenario would be the small business that has 2 people using one account. They would switch from paying $249 to $399 and download the same number of images as before. Shutterstock would make a lot more and payout the same as they were before. They would benefit from the compliance and the contributor wouldn't.

I guess it depends who is switching.

I don't know why your fretting about SS so much, when the subs kick in at iStock you'll have a whole lot more to worry about.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #32 on:** March 25, 2014, 14:53 »

Wow!

Lots of what my mum would have called argy bargy, but I don't see anything that gets to the issue I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to raise.

I have no problem with being paid 38 cents for subs sales at SS.

What I was questioning was that it appears (although it's difficult to tell given the bundling) that there are extra fees being charged over and above those for 35 a day and that we get no cut of that. If those fees relate to additional rights - such as multi-seat licenses, extended licenses, etc. - versus some sort of administrative service or legal guarantee, the contributor should share in that revenue.

Over time we have seen the very simple licensing models with very few pricing options at Shutterstock get more complex and less transparent.

That may be inevitable given the corporate customer they are now courting, but what I don't want to see is lots of new types of revenue that really should be shared with contributors reclassified in such a way that 100% goes to Shutterstock and none to us.

The first extended licenses I received were in July 2006 and they were for $20 each. I checked the wayback machine to verify prices over time and then a buyer paid $999 for 25 ELs - $40 each and I got half - SS had 903,000 images then.

My first ELs at $28 royalty were from July 2008 and they had 5 for $449, 10 for $799 and 25 for $1699 ($90, $80 and $68 each). I was now down to 31, 35 or 41% of the amount paid. (SS had 4.2M images at that point)

Today, it's 2 for $199, 5 for $449 or 25 for $1699 ($100, $90 or $68 each). I still get $28 and that's 28, 31 or 41% of the total.

Our royalties get eroded if prices change, fees get tacked on or other such improvements and we don't share in the results.

Ron · « **Reply #33 on:** March 25, 2014, 15:32 »

Thats a very good point. I wasnt aware of that. So SS is 'cutting' royalties by raising prices but keeping the fixed royalty the same. Thats not cool.