Author Topic: Cheap Subscriptions __ How much damage are they doing to our industry? (Read 15670 times)

OM · « **Reply #25 on:** January 30, 2010, 12:34 »

Quote from: Perry on January 30, 2010, 09:29

I just can't understand why the subscription sites can't have different prices for different sizes?
Instead of "25 images a day" they could have "50 credits a day". 50 credits could for example mean 50 tiny web images or 5 XL images.
The current situation where a thumbnail costs the same as 20 megapixel image is just insane.

Agree. I just checked at FT to see what you get for the basic subs package: $199 buys you 750 downloads/month, single user and max 'L'
format. If used fully, that $199 buys you (depending on the contributor level) a minimum of $5,250 worth of 'L' files at $7 PPD. Should contributor be slightly higher in the pecking order then your advantage as subs buyer becomes a multiple, 2x or 3x of that amount.
Dunno if it works in the same way with other RF sites but where else in the world can you get 5K, 10K or 15K worth of goods/services for 200 bucks?
What I also haven't figured out is why FT in particular would sell subs to a buyer at $0.27/download and give the contributor a minimum of $0.30 for that same download. Obviously, not all subs buyers extract to the max otherwise subs would be a real loss leader even at the present low rates paid to the contributor. For the present, though, it is no doubt profitable but always at the expense of the contributor.

It seems to me that the only way to get better prices for subs would be for many major contributors to opt out of subs at every agency they are at (don't know whether that is possible). Only when subs buyers were faced with a such a depleted stock of the most popular images, the agencies could have their hand forced and have to recognise their contributors for what they are really worth and get a deal which would be less lob sided than the present one.

vonkara · « **Reply #26 on:** January 30, 2010, 12:57 »

Since I'm exclusive, the worst I get is around 0.48$ for subs, and 0.76$ for a XS image. I even got some 2.40$ subs for medium sizes and the list goes on. Do I lost sales elsewhere? Personally I don't care about those 30 cents sales.

Yes subs hurt me last years. FT and StockXpert started subs and DT started to earn me 70% of subscriptions. I have already a low production budget and earning/file have to cover what I invested plus my time.

It definitely made it harder to buy objects that I will probably never use, except to shoot as stock. I hope that exclusivity at Istock will help, as only one download at higher size, can give me 5$ and more...

stockastic · « **Reply #27 on:** January 30, 2010, 13:11 »

The recording industry certainly saw the original Napster as a threat. But the RIAA was able to knock it down because they were big, rich and had legal muscle, and Napster was small. So today, we pay $1 for a downloadable track, almost the same as a CD. In the stock photo world, instead of about 4 big contributors unified behind an army of lawyers, we have thousands of essentially powerless small contributors. The situation is reversed. So what should we expect to happen?

Subscriptions are a big part of a race to the bottom, and a growing consensus that stock images should cost pennies, and probably eventually be free for most uses. Stock sites will make their real money from "value-added" search, resizing, archiving and delivery capabilities, not from sales of the actual image per se.

Eireann · « **Reply #28 on:** January 30, 2010, 13:17 »

@Jsnover,
I never said IS exclusivity is a disaster. It is obviously not, since it works so well for so many people. Please don't put words into my mouth.
I can have a look for your post and show it to you.
1 year and 4 months (3 ?) to beat your previous independent/monthly record.
It is my impression that it can take some time to level the earnings.
But you're right, this is off topic.
I'll end it here.

gbcimages · « **Reply #29 on:** January 30, 2010, 13:54 »

sub sites will always be here and growing,that's where all the buyer do most of their shopping. The economy is down and will be for awhile.

lisafx · « **Reply #30 on:** January 30, 2010, 14:31 »

Quote from: gbcimages on January 30, 2010, 13:54

sub sites will always be here and growing,that's where all the buyer do most of their shopping. The economy is down and will be for awhile.

You wouldn't know it from my sales. 40% of my sales still come from IS, which doesn't have an "all you can eat" type subscription model at all.

gbcimages · « **Reply #31 on:** January 30, 2010, 15:09 »

my sales are the opposite,most from sub

vonkara · « **Reply #32 on:** January 30, 2010, 15:19 »

Quote from: gbcimages on January 30, 2010, 13:54

The economy is down and will be for awhile.

It's not the case in something like 85% of the world. And buying images is probably 5% of a project budget.

OM · « **Reply #33 on:** January 30, 2010, 17:06 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 30, 2010, 14:31

Quote from: gbcimages on January 30, 2010, 13:54
sub sites will always be here and growing,that's where all the buyer do most of their shopping. The economy is down and will be for awhile.

You wouldn't know it from my sales. 40% of my sales still come from IS, which doesn't have an "all you can eat" type subscription model at all.

Thanks. I just looked at the IS credits subs system and it it much less generous to the buyer than the 'all you can eat system' of FT. Effectively, you buy credits in bulk and 3 months in advance at a discount of 70% but you have to use your number of credits each day or they turn into pumpkins at midnight.

If a buyer with subscription buys a 10 credit image of yours, how much do you get as contributor?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #34 on:** January 30, 2010, 17:20 »

Quote from: OM on January 30, 2010, 17:06

If a buyer with subscription buys a 10 credit image of yours, how much do you get as contributor?

You get your percentage of 10 $.96 credits, at the minimum.

loop · « **Reply #35 on:** January 30, 2010, 17:24 »

And you can get even more, if the buyer has not used his full quota.

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** January 30, 2010, 17:54 »

Quote from: OM on January 30, 2010, 17:06

Quote from: lisafx on January 30, 2010, 14:31
Quote from: gbcimages on January 30, 2010, 13:54
sub sites will always be here and growing,that's where all the buyer do most of their shopping. The economy is down and will be for awhile.

You wouldn't know it from my sales. 40% of my sales still come from IS, which doesn't have an "all you can eat" type subscription model at all.

Thanks. I just looked at the IS credits subs system and it it much less generous to the buyer than the 'all you can eat system' of FT. Effectively, you buy credits in bulk and 3 months in advance at a discount of 70% but you have to use your number of credits each day or they turn into pumpkins at midnight. If a buyer with subscription buys a 10 credit image of yours, how much do you get as contributor?

From my own experience and hearsay from my CN and forums, the subscription scheme hasn't been a great success. The last time I saw iStock print ads (around 6 months ago) they weren't even mentioning the possibility of subs. Anyone know if that's changed? It really isn't a good deal for buyers, who need to remember to download images over weekends and holidays if they are to get their money's worth.

Klauts · « **Reply #37 on:** January 30, 2010, 18:27 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 30, 2010, 17:54

It really isn't a good deal for buyers, who need to remember to download images over weekends and holidays if they are to get their money's worth.

Well that's how the stock agencies make money. If all the buyers would be using their full quota, SS would probably be bankrupt. Not that I'm defending subs, but we may get some downloads from buyers that download the images just so they use their quota or a bigger part of it even if they never use it. I know I would(Yeah, yeah, I'm a cheapskate).

I think one of the best resolves would be to make more license types, to separate more groups of buyers. This works for PPD too. That way the occasional blogger, can buy his image for a buck, while the big guys who spend 1000$ on coffee in their meetings should pay much more. Atleast that's how I see it. Problem is that will probably cause more misuse of license. Another possible solution would be tiering the sizes like Getty does(only at a lower start point) with really really small sizes for the small priced downloads and much bigger for the full sizes.

If that's not going to work, there should be tiers for subscriptions, like 35c for small, 65c for medium, 1,10$ for large&vector.

Oh well at least that's what my limited microstock experience tells me.

sharpshot · « **Reply #38 on:** January 30, 2010, 18:32 »

Quote from: stockastic on January 30, 2010, 13:11

The recording industry certainly saw the original Napster as a threat. But the RIAA was able to knock it down because they were big, rich and had legal muscle, and Napster was small. So today, we pay $1 for a downloadable track, almost the same as a CD. In the stock photo world, instead of about 4 big contributors unified behind an army of lawyers, we have thousands of essentially powerless small contributors. The situation is reversed. So what should we expect to happen?

Subscriptions are a big part of a race to the bottom, and a growing consensus that stock images should cost pennies, and probably eventually be free for most uses. Stock sites will make their real money from "value-added" search, resizing, archiving and delivery capabilities, not from sales of the actual image per se.

So how do you explain most of the sites raising their pay-per-download prices substantially the past few years? It doesn't fit in with your argument at all. I think the low subs prices are partly to gain market share. The sites will also see what they can get away with but at some point there will be a rebellion. Istock want to dominate the market and the other sites are frightened of raising subs prices and seeing their buyers go elsewhere. I am sure there are enough of us that don't want to work just for istock and there will be big innovations in the future that let us sell directly to buyers with less money being taken by a middle man.

Consumers will always want MP3's as cheap as possible or free but microstock is a commercial market, I don't see any comparison at all. Napster going legal didn't make any difference to illegal MP3 file sharing, it is bigger than ever. This is from the UK but I am sure it applies worldwide. http://www.bpi.co.uk/press-area/news-amp3b-press-release/article/growing-threat-from-illegal-web-downloads.aspx

ShadySue · « **Reply #39 on:** January 30, 2010, 19:21 »

Quote from: Klauts on January 30, 2010, 18:27

Quote from: ShadySue on January 30, 2010, 17:54
It really isn't a good deal for buyers, who need to remember to download images over weekends and holidays if they are to get their money's worth.
Well that's how the stock agencies make money. If all the buyers would be using their full quota, SS would probably be bankrupt. Not that I'm defending subs, but we may get some downloads from buyers that download the images just so they use their quota or a bigger part of it even if they never use it. I know I would(Yeah, yeah, I'm a cheapskate).

I think one of the best resolves would be to make more license types, to separate more groups of buyers. This works for PPD too. That way the occasional blogger, can buy his image for a buck, while the big guys who spend 1000$ on coffee in their meetings should pay much more. Atleast that's how I see it. Problem is that will probably cause more misuse of license.

While that appeals to my general philosophy, it wouldn't work, for the reason that companies would be making their employees download from home. The bigger the company, the more employees they could have doing it and the less easy it would be to discover.

stockastic · « **Reply #40 on:** January 30, 2010, 21:00 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 30, 2010, 18:32

I am sure there are enough of us that don't want to work just for istock and there will be big innovations in the future that let us sell directly to buyers with less money being taken by a middle man.

Well obviously I hope you're right, but I don't share your optimism. What we all want is a way to get some control over our prices but so far, alternatives like CutCaster have yet to gain any traction.

Google could do it - by creating GoogleStock, and giving us a well-defined way to be indexed by it. Some future descendant of Ebay could do it. We could actually be selling images on Ebay today, but their search interface isn't up to the task, and they have no way to automatically deliver downloadable content - and there would have to be a way to ensure quality, some sort of paid inspection service. Those things are doable however. There is already Ebay Motors, a somewhat specialized version of Ebay. Why not Ebay Images?

I agree that the future is seldom really predictable.

duaneellison · « **Reply #41 on:** January 30, 2010, 21:52 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 29, 2010, 17:19

I always uploaded the same size to all sites, but increasingly I think it'd be worth thinking about giving SS a 6MP image and keeping the full size version for sites that pay for it.

Heck, I do it because my bandwidth is not great and it would take forever to send full size files and I'm only shooting with a 12MP camera. I only send full size images to IS and downsize everything else. But I'm on the countdown to go exclusive with IS. I've always done better there and with the exclusive increases in royalties, prices and uploads I'll break even or even earn more than sending to multiple sites.

OM · « **Reply #42 on:** January 31, 2010, 05:57 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 30, 2010, 17:20

Quote from: OM on January 30, 2010, 17:06
If a buyer with subscription buys a 10 credit image of yours, how much do you get as contributor?

You get your percentage of 10 $.96 credits, at the minimum.

Thanks. That seems a decent system for the contributor.

stockastic · « **Reply #43 on:** February 01, 2010, 12:24 »

It seems to me that the intent of subscriptions is to shift the focus of the "product" and reduce the need for the agency to pay commissions in order to make money. The idea of a subscription is that many buyers will never fully utilize it - in other words they're pre-paying for images they may never actually download, and until an image is downloaded, no comission is paid.

Does that hurt us? I'm not sure. My instinct is that in the long run, it does, by eroding the perceived value of an image. Subscriptions are a way to further detach the buyer from the idea that he's buying an image from a photographer.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Cheap Subscriptions __ How much damage are they doing to our industry? (Read 15670 times)

OM

vonkara

stockastic

Eireann

gbcimages

lisafx

gbcimages

vonkara

OM

Sean Locke Photography

loop

ShadySue

Klauts

sharpshot

ShadySue

stockastic

duaneellison

OM

stockastic

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors