iStock about to create Subscription sales

ajn · #1 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 10:34 PM

Starting May, 26th

Read here:

Forums - iStockphoto Discussion - Front Page Blog: Announcing Subscriptions at iStockphoto | iStockphoto.com

sharpshot · #2 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 11:19 PM

SS will have to offer pay per download now as I think a lot of their customers will like the exclusive content on istock. I will opt out if they are paying 20% of a few cents.

e-person · #3 (**permalink**) 04-04-2008, 01:04 AM

I will definitively opt out. Uploading to istock is already a pain, only worth it because of the price per size. Now, with subscriptions, it gets as bad as shutterstock, with all customers downloading a photo for a few cents and never ever buying EL licences (unless they really can't do otherwise) and the company doing nothing about it. And photographers getting paid less and less.

helix7 · #4 (**permalink**) 04-04-2008, 03:26 AM

Not sure if there is a language rule around here, so feel free to edit this.

My first thought when reading this headline:

"Fuck."

Funny how I wrote that post last week about the possibility of all sites creating a subscription service, and how unlikely I thought it was that istock would do it.

Sales were picking up at istock. So much for that.

ajn · #5 (**permalink**) 04-04-2008, 12:35 PM

I completely agree... that's the only word to describe it.

When I first read about this, I recalled your post last week!

They say their plans will start at 96$/month. This is roughly 3$/day... as we're only payed for effective downloads and not for payed values, it means, for an independent:

- if it corresponds to 5 images a day - 60 cents a download - 12 cent comission.
- if it corresponds to 10 images a day - 30 cents a download - 6 cent comission.

How can they possibly think of this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by helix7

Not sure if there is a language rule around here, so feel free to edit this.

My first thought when reading this headline:

"Fuck."

Funny how I wrote that post last week about the possibility of all sites creating a subscription service, and how unlikely I thought it was that istock would do it.

Sales were picking up at istock. So much for that.

e-person · #6 (**permalink**) 04-04-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajn

- if it corresponds to 5 images a day - 60 cents a download - 12 cent comission.
- if it corresponds to 10 images a day - 30 cents a download - 6 cent comission.

How can they possibly think of this?

To be fair, before making any further comments, we need to actually see real numbers.

When iStock will give us proper info, then, and only then, we can decide. If it gets as bad as shutterstock, I will delete all my photos and move them to midstock. I don't take model photos and to me microstock is completely useless. Not enough downloads to justify wasted time. But of course I am talking only about myself.

jimiking · #7 (**permalink**) 04-04-2008, 01:57 PM

Currently an Xsmall size non-subscription download at iStock (22-25c) actually already pays less than a subscription download at Shutterstock (25-30c).

e-person · #8 (**permalink**) 04-04-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimiking

Currently an Xsmall size non-subscription download at iStock (22-25c) actually already pays less than a subscription download at Shutterstock (25-30c).

I am still on the 25 cents at SS.

The good thing about IS is/was that after the XS, usually, they come back and buy a bigger size they need. With SS they get full size for the smallest price. Frankly I have stopped uploading any expensive (for me to take) photos to SS and I plan to leave the site as soon as possible. The same will apply to IS, if they come down to SS level.

I am doing this stock thingy for money, not to waste time. If it does not pay me back, I will stop it. I am not doing it for the glory. I don't care about glory anymore. Maybe someone gets flattered to see people using their photos. I don't. I had my photos published on millions of copies for a decade and got paid accordingly, and given written credits. It does not get any better than that.

sharpshot · #9 (**permalink**) 04-04-2008, 02:38 PM

I am doing this for the money and SS makes more for me than all the other sites that have higher prices. I have sold over 35,000 with SS and will be shocked if I can make as much with midstock sites.

ajn · #10 (**permalink**) 04-04-2008, 02:46 PM

Of course this is just speculation... But I can't think of a 1DL a day subscription plan, so these assumptions are plausible. The rest is simple maths!

Let's wait and see, but for me it's a lose-lose situation for submitters because:

1 - Portfolios are smaller at IS most of the times, due to more rejections and upload limits. In my case, it's 1/5th of SS and 1/4th of most others.

2 - If clients are migrating from credit sales to subscriptions (the main reason pointed out in the thread), this means lower value sales.

3 - if clients are migrating from other sites, that pay higher comissions, this means lower value sales

4 - if you're not an exclusive to IS, it doesn't mean much that subscription sales count for your canister level as it doesn't reflect on your comission value.

So, unless this is a new model of subscription sale (like a credit package that keeps the value per image high), it's not too bright for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by e-person

To be fair, before making any further comments, we need to actually see real numbers.

When iStock will give us proper info, then, and only then, we can decide. If it gets as bad as shutterstock, I will delete all my photos and move them to midstock. I don't take model photos and to me microstock is completely useless. Not enough downloads to justify wasted time. But of course I am talking only about myself.