What are "Subs", anyway?
Yesterday Sean asked, You've mentioned 'subs' a lot -- what do you mean by that?
I mean Subscriptions.
Ugh, I said it... it's one of those ugly little words that microstock photographers loath....
...but why?
The only one who benefits from subscriptions are the agencies. Certainly, not photographers. Buyers also benefit, although subscription plans are based on a 7 day week and seriously, how many designers do you think go into the office on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays to download their quota? Agencies depend on the fact that daily quotas will not be filled; and they pay very little to the artist.
The following table is a snapshot of the basic subs packages out there right now. Please take a look at the tiny dollar amounts in the column down the right. That is the amount that the agencies are paying photographers and illustrators right now for each download.
Doesn't that make you want to weep?
Subscription packages sound pretty generous to a purchaser at first glance, but they allow a restricted number of photo downloads per day and unused downloads do not roll over to the next day. Agencies rely on the fact that buyers will abandon a high percentage of their daily limits.
Agencies claim that subscription purchasers are an entirely new client and that their regular client base is not purchasing subs plans. Buyers of subs packages are normally heavy users; design firms and corporations with ongoing projects. (Many of us speculate that they are not new buyers, just buyers lured away from Shutterstock.)
Subs buyers are not mom'n'pops, part-timers, or freelancers. This type of buyer benefits the most when purchasing a bulk credits packages (that often never expire).
Shutterstock is the granddaddy of subs content. Until recently, they have sold subs, lots of subs and only subs*. Even with the poor commissions paid to the artist, this site is the #1 or #2 earner for most. It is not unusual for photographers to sell 20, 100, or 200 photos in a day.
StockXpert faced a contributor revolt when they first introduced their subs program, and they compromised by making artist participation optional. They have since joined up with photos.com and jiunlimited.com and offer StockXpert content through the subscription channel of these affiliates.
Fotolia recently had to compromise with contributors to allow only large or smaller files for subscription download, a slightly higher commission than originally offered and to permit every fourth sub sale to count toward contributor status.
Dreamstime does not allow artists to opt-out of their program, however; each subs sale counts to raise the level of individual photo prices.
My sales are so insignificant at 123rf that mandatory participation in the subs program is hardly relevant.
Istock's subs package is based entirely on credits and is generally approved of by the artists.
I can't say that I know of any photographers who are satisfied with subscription plans in their current form.
Yuri Arcurs, one of the world's leading microstock photographers, has coined the phrase "picture pooling":
This phenomenon is normally used as a criticism against subscription agencies. It describes the fact that buyers that have a subscription will download more pictures then they use and will sometimes download pictures for future purposes. The result is pools of pictures that the designer can use instead of buying new pictures. Picture pooling is a real threat and it is confirmed by multiple users that if you opt out of subscription selling at Stockxpert for example you will actually earn more almost immediately, despite not getting any income from subscription sales. This can however be caused by more factors then just the result of picture pooling.
Another real threat is that buyers with less than honest intentions can download hundreds of photos for very little cost, place them on cd and mass distribute. Even though this is a wild contradiction of rights, it is a crime that is difficult to prosecute, especially in many countries where copyright abuse is wildly rampant.
Disappointed with the strong arm tactics that boldly change the terms of the agreements between us, many contributers feel pushed to abandon the micros and to send new content to mid and macro agencies.
Microstock is still a young, evolving industry. Hopefully next year at this time, after the main sites have had 12-24 months to evaluate the effect that subscriptions have had the prices will begin to inch higher. I do not agree with the subscription models as they now stand and especially hate the fact that they are offered at the expense of the artist. Subs are a real threat to the future value and marketability of our work.
*Note: Shutterstock also frequently sells enhanced licenses paying $25 to photographers. They also tried to sell single photos through an external site, which failed. Recently they have added a 5 images for $49 program directly on the Shutterstock site.
I mean Subscriptions.
Ugh, I said it... it's one of those ugly little words that microstock photographers loath....
...but why?
The only one who benefits from subscriptions are the agencies. Certainly, not photographers. Buyers also benefit, although subscription plans are based on a 7 day week and seriously, how many designers do you think go into the office on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays to download their quota? Agencies depend on the fact that daily quotas will not be filled; and they pay very little to the artist.
The following table is a snapshot of the basic subs packages out there right now. Please take a look at the tiny dollar amounts in the column down the right. That is the amount that the agencies are paying photographers and illustrators right now for each download.
| Shutterstock | 1 month | $249 | 25 downloads per day | Pays .25-.36 per image sold |
| Dreamstime | 30 days | $99 | 10 downloads per day | Pays .35 per image sold |
| Fotolia | 1 month | $249 | 25 downloads per day | Pays .31 per image sold |
| StockXpert | 1 month | $219.95 | 25 downloads per day | Pays .30 per image sold |
| 123rf | 1 month | $209 | 26 downloads per day | Pays .36 per image sold |
| Istock | 3 months | $909 | 10 credits per day. | Calculation based on credits and % of daily limit used. |
Doesn't that make you want to weep?
Subscription packages sound pretty generous to a purchaser at first glance, but they allow a restricted number of photo downloads per day and unused downloads do not roll over to the next day. Agencies rely on the fact that buyers will abandon a high percentage of their daily limits.
Agencies claim that subscription purchasers are an entirely new client and that their regular client base is not purchasing subs plans. Buyers of subs packages are normally heavy users; design firms and corporations with ongoing projects. (Many of us speculate that they are not new buyers, just buyers lured away from Shutterstock.)
Subs buyers are not mom'n'pops, part-timers, or freelancers. This type of buyer benefits the most when purchasing a bulk credits packages (that often never expire).
Shutterstock is the granddaddy of subs content. Until recently, they have sold subs, lots of subs and only subs*. Even with the poor commissions paid to the artist, this site is the #1 or #2 earner for most. It is not unusual for photographers to sell 20, 100, or 200 photos in a day.
StockXpert faced a contributor revolt when they first introduced their subs program, and they compromised by making artist participation optional. They have since joined up with photos.com and jiunlimited.com and offer StockXpert content through the subscription channel of these affiliates.
Fotolia recently had to compromise with contributors to allow only large or smaller files for subscription download, a slightly higher commission than originally offered and to permit every fourth sub sale to count toward contributor status.
Dreamstime does not allow artists to opt-out of their program, however; each subs sale counts to raise the level of individual photo prices.
My sales are so insignificant at 123rf that mandatory participation in the subs program is hardly relevant.
Istock's subs package is based entirely on credits and is generally approved of by the artists.
I can't say that I know of any photographers who are satisfied with subscription plans in their current form.
Yuri Arcurs, one of the world's leading microstock photographers, has coined the phrase "picture pooling":
This phenomenon is normally used as a criticism against subscription agencies. It describes the fact that buyers that have a subscription will download more pictures then they use and will sometimes download pictures for future purposes. The result is pools of pictures that the designer can use instead of buying new pictures. Picture pooling is a real threat and it is confirmed by multiple users that if you opt out of subscription selling at Stockxpert for example you will actually earn more almost immediately, despite not getting any income from subscription sales. This can however be caused by more factors then just the result of picture pooling.
Another real threat is that buyers with less than honest intentions can download hundreds of photos for very little cost, place them on cd and mass distribute. Even though this is a wild contradiction of rights, it is a crime that is difficult to prosecute, especially in many countries where copyright abuse is wildly rampant.
Disappointed with the strong arm tactics that boldly change the terms of the agreements between us, many contributers feel pushed to abandon the micros and to send new content to mid and macro agencies.
Microstock is still a young, evolving industry. Hopefully next year at this time, after the main sites have had 12-24 months to evaluate the effect that subscriptions have had the prices will begin to inch higher. I do not agree with the subscription models as they now stand and especially hate the fact that they are offered at the expense of the artist. Subs are a real threat to the future value and marketability of our work.
*Note: Shutterstock also frequently sells enhanced licenses paying $25 to photographers. They also tried to sell single photos through an external site, which failed. Recently they have added a 5 images for $49 program directly on the Shutterstock site.
Thanks for a great review of microstock "subs".
Reply to this
Thanks Marek, I am a little biased in my opinion about subs though (or did you notice that
Reply to this