Author Topic: StockXpert Charge More Credits For XL Subs? (Read 7224 times)

Travelling-light · « **on:** March 25, 2008, 12:54 »

Just noticed this post from a buyer in the StockXpert forum:-

http://www.stockxpert.com/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=11342&p=2

It's the second post from buyer 776500. He seems to be saying that as a subs buyer, he uses 5 times as many credits to download an XL, as he does when downloading a small, but we still get 30 cents.

I had a look at subs but couldn't see anything.

Is this correct? Maybe Steve-oh could confirm or deny.

rene · « **Reply #1 on:** March 25, 2008, 13:02 »

I've just read this post. I think it's impossible.

mwp1969 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 25, 2008, 13:07 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on March 25, 2008, 12:54

Just noticed this post from a buyer in the StockXpert forum:-

http://www.stockxpert.com/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=11342&p=2

It's the second post from buyer 776500. He seems to be saying that as a subs buyer, he uses 5 times as many credits to download an XL, as he does when downloading a small, but we still get 30 cents.

I had a look at subs but couldn't see anything.

Is this correct? Maybe Steve-oh could confirm or deny.

If that is true ... then it is even one more reason to be opted out of subsciption sales

If it is possible to operate a subsciption model like that, and they ultimately increased commissions to the contributor for XL sub sales ... then they might see a few contributors opting back in as I know that's been discussed here on the forums before.

Mark

jsnover · « **Reply #3 on:** March 25, 2008, 13:15 »

I entered a post on StockXpert's own forum asking for admin clarification on this. It can't be correct. If they were charging the buyers more credits but paying comissions as a flat 30 cents that would be completely unreasonable.

No other subscription site does this - do they? I've never been a buyer, so I'd never know if something like this was happening...

Steve-oh answered on the StockXpert forums - subscribers pay the same price for any size image. The buyer must have been mistaken in saying he paid 5x more under his subscription plan.

steve-oh · « **Reply #4 on:** March 25, 2008, 13:48 »

I think he is saying if he were to buy via credits instead of using a subscription.

Subscription prices are one flat rate depending on length of subscription time. File size has nothing to do with sub pricing.

cphoto · « **Reply #5 on:** March 25, 2008, 14:51 »

I guess this is why we might see more and more traditional buyers moving to the subscription model:

With new price structure:
For the same price of 20 XL images, buyers can now buy a $200 subscription and get 750 any size images.

Even worse, for the price of 14 XXL images, buyers can now buy a $200 subscription and get access to 750 XXL images

I know it's a bit extreme but that's just to illustrate the obvious problem.
I think the gap is way to tempting and something should be done, like either restrict sub to smaller sizes up to L, or charge more sub credits for larger sizes.

mwp1969 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2008, 15:13 »

Quote from: cphoto on March 25, 2008, 14:51

I guess this is why we might see more and more traditional buyers moving to the subscription model:

With new price structure:
For the same price of 20 XL images, buyers can now buy a $200 subscription and get 750 any size images.

Even worse, for the price of 14 XXL images, buyers can now buy a $200 subscription and get access to 750 XXL images

I know it's a bit extreme but that's just to illustrate the obvious problem.
I think the gap is way to tempting and something should be done, like either restrict sub to smaller sizes up to L, or charge more sub credits for larger sizes.

Many people "downsize" to 4mp to compensate for this when submitting to ShutterStock to avoid that very issue. However if you were to do that at a hybrid type site: StockXpert, DT etc. that has both subs and credits you shoot yourself in the foot for getting Larger file credit sales to those that don't have subscriptions.

Mark

rene · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2008, 16:01 »

Quote from: mwp1969 on March 25, 2008, 15:13

Quote from: cphoto on March 25, 2008, 14:51
I guess this is why we might see more and more traditional buyers moving to the subscription model:

With new price structure:
For the same price of 20 XL images, buyers can now buy a $200 subscription and get 750 any size images.

Even worse, for the price of 14 XXL images, buyers can now buy a $200 subscription and get access to 750 XXL images

I know it's a bit extreme but that's just to illustrate the obvious problem.
I think the gap is way to tempting and something should be done, like either restrict sub to smaller sizes up to L, or charge more sub credits for larger sizes.

Many people "downsize" to 4mp to compensate for this when submitting to ShutterStock to avoid that very issue. However if you were to do that at a hybrid type site: StockXpert, DT etc. that has both subs and credits you shoot yourself in the foot for getting Larger file credit sales to those that don't have subscriptions.

Mark

I downsize to min size at DT, SS ,123 and opt out at StockXpert. It's still better to shoot myself in the foot than in the head.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2008, 17:13 »

We're all waiting for SS to make their announcement in May. Then, it's decision time.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #9 on:** March 26, 2008, 18:51 »

Another post in the StockXpert forum from the user 776500.

http://www.stockxpert.com/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=11342&p=3

He states that he has bought a subscription which gives him what he calls 25 "subscription credits" per day. If he downloads XS, he uses 1 "credit". If he downloads XL he uses 5 "credits". If he doesn't use them he assumes they vanish.

So, although he pays the same for the whole subscription package no matter what size he downloads, he does pay more (as a portion of his total subscription payment) for individual images if he downloads XL.

So, if he takes all his downloads as XL, which he probably does, he can have 150 a month, or maybe he'll take 100 if he doesn't work at the weekend.

If he takes 150, StockXpert pay 150 X 30 cents = $45 = 22.5% commission for us.
If he takes 100, StockXpert pay 100 X 30 cents = $30 = 15% commission for us.
If he only needs say 30 for a project, it's still cheaper to buy a subscription, and StockXpert pay out even less...

Is that correct Steve-oh?

hatman12 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 26, 2008, 20:05 »

The most important point of the thread at StockXpert is that the buyer says he has to 'pay more' for larger sizes under the subscription. He has said quite clearly that he can download 25 XS files a day or only 5 XL files (because an XL file uses '5 subscription credits').

Although Steve has clarified above that there is only one subscription 'price', Steve can you confirm specifically that a subscriber does not have a reduced number of downloads for larger file sizes?

sharply_done · « **Reply #11 on:** March 26, 2008, 20:30 »

That's the way I always assumed it worked. I guess I'm in the minority. Man, I can see how everyone's gonna jump all over this!

The only thing that bothers me about StockXpert's subscription implementation is that they haven't been as up front about things as they could/should be. Here's how I see things:

What we are told: Subscribers can download up to 25 images per day. Sellers are paid a 30c commission for each subscription sale. On the surface this seems to split things something like this: 530 images downloaded per month per subscription (25 images/day * 21.25 days/month), $160 paid in commissions, $40 gross profit for StockXpert.

What really happens: Subscribers can only download 25 images/day if they select XS size, which (almost) nobody does. Given the current credit system, subscribers download their maximum per day, but in combinations of image sizes so that the credit total is 25 (e.g. 1*XXL + 1*XL, 2*XL + 1*L, ...). My recent sales indicate that most subscriber sales are L size, and that XL, M and S sales are about equal in volume. This could mean that a typical subscriber downloads 5 images per day (1*XL + 2*L + 1*M + 1*S), and that StockXpert sells 106 images per month per subscriber, paying $32 in commissions while earning $168 in profit. Sure, it's a little more lop-sided than it first appears, but they're taking the business risk, not us.

I wonder how many buyers renew their subscriptions at StockXpert once they discover they can download more files for the same price elsewhere?

sharply_done · « **Reply #12 on:** March 26, 2008, 20:59 »

oops, pressed the wrong button

Travelling-light · « **Reply #13 on:** March 26, 2008, 21:10 »

I always assumed it worked the same way as Shutterstock's - any size can be downloaded up to 750 per month, unless you take their uprezzed version, for which they charge two "credits". We still get one credit, but they after all have done the work, if you can call it that, of uprezzing on their server.

Is that still the way SS works?

cphoto · « **Reply #14 on:** March 26, 2008, 21:33 »

Quote from: hatman12 on March 26, 2008, 20:05

The most important point of the thread at StockXpert is that the buyer says he has to 'pay more' for larger sizes under the subscription. He has said quite clearly that he can download 25 XS files a day or only 5 XL files (because an XL file uses '5 subscription credits').

Although Steve has clarified above that there is only one subscription 'price', Steve can you confirm specifically that a subscriber does not have a reduced number of downloads for larger file sizes?

If that's the case (which I highly doubt) we are being ripped off!
For all that time StockXpert told us that regardless of the size being sold they would charge 1 sub credit, but in fact they would charge 5 sub credits for an XL file? Then of course we should get 5x.30=$1.5!

cphoto · « **Reply #15 on:** March 26, 2008, 21:41 »

Quote from: sharply_done on March 26, 2008, 20:30

On the surface this seems to split things something like this: 530 images downloaded per month per subscription (25 images/day * 21.25 days/month), $160 paid in commissions, $40 gross profit for StockXpert.

...But of course you know that never happens, nobody uses their quota (sub downloads are almost dead on weekend). So I imagine the gross profit for StockXpert being closer to $150 for a $200 month sub package.

EDIT:
Never mind I just saw you excluded week-end

But I still think that most subscribers won't even get close to 530 images downloads.

madelaide · « **Reply #16 on:** March 26, 2008, 22:04 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on March 26, 2008, 18:51

He states that he has bought a subscription which gives him what he calls 25 "subscription credits" per day. If he downloads XS, he uses 1 "credit". If he downloads XL he uses 5 "credits". If he doesn't use them he assumes they vanish.

We have to wait Steve-Oh to clarify this, but I would bet the buyer purchased credit packages thinking it was a subscription.

Regards,
Adelaide

sharply_done · « **Reply #17 on:** March 26, 2008, 22:56 »

Okay, maybe I'm wrong. If I am, StockXpert's cut is much smaller than I think it is, and they're not making much money from subscribers.

hatman12 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 26, 2008, 23:34 »

No, the buyer on StockXpert's forums is quite specific in saying that he is a subscriber and that he has to pay 'one subscription credit' for a XS and 'five subscription credits' for a XL. In other words if he always buys XL he can only download 150 pictures in a month instead of 750.

cphoto · « **Reply #19 on:** March 27, 2008, 02:12 »

Quote from: sharply_done on March 26, 2008, 22:56

Okay, maybe I'm wrong. If I am, StockXpert's cut is much smaller than I think it is, and they're not making much money from subscribers.

Very doubtful. They have pretty much the same submission model as SS, which could be making about a 80% cut from what I read on this forum...

Let's not be naive ;-) If most of micros are so desperate to do the submission model plunge, it's because they know there is big money to be done there!

They would certainly not do it for a 20% cut, LOL.

steve-oh · « **Reply #20 on:** March 27, 2008, 08:54 »

Guys,

At best that user is confused. We're looking into it. His description of subs is not how subs work. Credits and subscriptions are completely separate. There is no such thing as subscription credits.

hatman12 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 27, 2008, 09:51 »

Edit - saw your reply on the StockXpert forum Steve. Thanks for clarifying.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: StockXpert Charge More Credits For XL Subs? (Read 7224 times)

Travelling-light

rene

mwp1969

jsnover

steve-oh

cphoto

mwp1969

rene

Travelling-light

Travelling-light

hatman12

sharply_done

sharply_done

Travelling-light

cphoto

cphoto

madelaide

sharply_done

hatman12

cphoto

steve-oh

hatman12

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors