pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What if Instead SS had Raised Their Prices?  (Read 2170 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wds

« on: June 01, 2020, 17:28 »
0
I wonder what would have happened if instead of royalty cuts to boost revenue, SS raised their prices? This is so contrary to the ingrained and  pervasive "race to the bottom" that all agencies are currently doing. Maybe, just maybe it would have worked. They would make more money and contributors would make more money. Contributors would be motivated to produce more and better content. Would they be so bold as to even try? Sure, the royalty cuts boost revenue, but as we all know, long term that is a dead end. SS, be bold!


« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2020, 18:22 »
+1
I wonder what would have happened if instead of royalty cuts to boost revenue, SS raised their prices? This is so contrary to the ingrained and  pervasive "race to the bottom" that all agencies are currently doing. Maybe, just maybe it would have worked. They would make more money and contributors would make more money. Contributors would be motivated to produce more and better content. Would they be so bold as to even try? Sure, the royalty cuts boost revenue, but as we all know, long term that is a dead end. SS, be bold!

I think that a raise in image buyers prices could make them less competitive... buyers will choose to buy images in other agencies. In the other hand contributors reduction in sales incoming will also reduce image quality and move the concentration of contributors towards poor countries (by reducing the amount of contributors of those countries where earning 100 usd a month is ridiculous, aka rich countries).

Probably this SS move will specially reduce the new illustration quality, because those artists who still wants to keep upload illustrators will not take 2 or 3 days in a draw, they will just made fast simple draws in order to upload 5 or 6 fast images per day.



« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2020, 00:47 »
0
They should've kept the prices but lower the image downloads.
From 750 and 350 images/mo to 600 and 250 images/mo or 500 and 200 images/mo even.

« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2020, 01:30 »
+1
Sure, the royalty cuts boost revenue, but as we all know, long term that is a dead end. SS, be bold!

The only thing they care about is the next quarterly result, and they will be able to present a significant cost cut on their contributors and probably an increase in profit.

How it plays out on the long term is probably to be fixed by the next CEO.

« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2020, 02:13 »
0
The only way raising prices could possibly work would be actually to reduce the size of the port and have a ruthless approach to quality control so buyers could be assured they are getting top quality images which some are still prepared to pay for. Thats totally against their current philosophy so with at least a proportion of high quality producers pulling out we will see a dilution in quality and a spiral to the bottom.

« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2020, 04:16 »
+1
If cutting our commissions is tolerated by us they will cut commissions, regardless of whether they also raise prices, whether they are doing brilliantly or going bankrupt.

It's not like shareholders are gonna be like "yeah we are doing as well as last year so we'll just chill out". They want to increase profits in every way possible. That is always going to include paying us the bare minimum they can get away with.

The only way to improve our commissions, or even maintain them is to demonstrate that cutting them will have a real material impact on their shareprice or ability to pay dividends. That is it.

There isn't any other consideration at all for them. Forget about them having morals or anything else. Companies aren't people.

Think about how unspeakably cruel it is to cut commissions by more than half on the first of January for people who do this full time and rely on it as their main source of income (people on the higher tiers). If a person did that they would be a sociopath.

« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2020, 04:19 »
+1
They should've kept the prices but lower the image downloads.
From 750 and 350 images/mo to 600 and 250 images/mo or 500 and 200 images/mo even.

People on those packages don't use anything like all their dls anyway. We know that because SS would be making next to nothing under the old scheme if they did, and they were actually making an average of 70%.
It is why the new percentage tiers are based on if the the buyers used all their dls, so we can be paid single digit real percentages while they claim to be paying 30% or whatever.

« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2020, 08:16 »
0
I still would not trust them, even if the paid more.  They have been too lax with copyright protection and image security for me to want to be associated with them. 

Now, if another stock site buys them out, or there is some other large shift in ownership, I might consider it.

In a year or two.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
4371 Views
Last post June 07, 2008, 06:30
by sharpshot
276 Replies
36591 Views
Last post June 18, 2013, 02:45
by sharpshot
30 Replies
5710 Views
Last post October 15, 2013, 17:17
by Uncle Pete
56 Replies
16045 Views
Last post May 05, 2015, 14:49
by gbalex
2 Replies
2554 Views
Last post January 14, 2019, 12:46
by medveh

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle