Time to move on

124678

Comments

  • kenskikenski Registered Users Posts: 34 Big grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Anyone who depends on the "CLOUD" to back up is mistaken... Now, I haven't been shooting as long as some, just 10 years, and really only making a profit on it in the last 5, I only have 2TB of raw files. Do you know how long that would take to download if I LOST it. That is why I have an array of drives that I work with. 2-2TB "WORKING DRIVES", a 4TB raid server, and another 2-2TB that I keep split between my safe and a safety deposit box offsite incase of disaster. I feel safe. I do not use smugmug to "STORE" my files. They are only jpg's and really RAW files are what matter to me. IE: negatives.... If I lost those I would be crushed.

    I actually did lose a hard drive at the beginning of the year. This is before my current back up plan. My mom was very sick in the hospital and I needed to go home. I didn't realize I brought my only copy of my work with me when I flew home and when I got to my parents, I found out my hard drive was trashed! It costed me $1500 to recover the hard drive at a shop and took 6 weeks from start to finish to get it back. 98% of the files were good and I haven't found a single raw file that wasn't good. At least the important ones were check already. Now, I dont take chances. If I do an important shoot, I do my little backup plan right after, if not, I do it about once a week.
  • jfriendjfriend Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    You're not understanding. What I'm saying is, I'm happy to pay an extra $100 per year for my storage habits, and those who don't see value in paying $250 per year for the ability to sell prints are welcome to downgrade to a "portfolio pro" account, and wait until their business is mature enough to pay the extra price. (which unfortunately would then be $300)
    But, one can't run any kind of business with a Portfolio account. Not even start a business with that because you can't sell for a profit with a Portfolio account. So, as it stands now, Smugmug only serves the full-time, working professional that has already established success. They don't serve other communities that were willing to part with decent money, but not at the $300 level like the part-time professional, the hobbiest who wants to experiment with selling, the new professional that wants to manage expenses until they get established, etc... If the issue is disk space usage, it seems that Smugmug should offer a lower account level that requires you to manage your disk space, but still lets you sell. Otherwise, Smugmug is just throwing away an opportunity for money, will lose a lot of customers and offers no way for budding pros to get started efficiently with Smugmug.
    --John
    HomepagePopular
    JFriend's javascript customizationsSecrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
    Always include a link to your site when posting a question
  • GRBlizzGRBlizz Registered Users Posts: 107 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Hah. Our studio uploads 10-20 GB per week, during peak season.

    =Matt=

    Ah, well this is the problem. Companies like yours should be paying way more than even $250/year! SM is completely rational to try to get a fair price from prolific pros. But not at the cost of turning away their base, which is the hobbyist "pro".

    Matthew, what you are missing is that there is some percentage of SmugMug's customer base who pay for Pro accounts even though they are not full-time pros as you are. From the posts, it seems this group (in which I include myself) are actually a large percentage of the Pro accounts, although that may just be because these people are disproportionately affected by the change and therefore most vocal right now.

    I think SM has heard, and they will be crunching the numbers to see if there is a way to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think a massive shift of current Pros down to Power might hurt even more than their mass exodus...
  • DreadnoteDreadnote Registered Users Posts: 634 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Certainly true, which is why I'm assuming that everyone here making a stink is in the top-most pro category. The basic account users probably don't care about all this?

    I'm no fortune teller but I think a quick look at the SmugMug FB / Twitter pages would indicate that a significant percentage, dare I venture to guess a majority of people holding pro accounts are not "in the top-most pro category", and the assertion that basic users probably do not care is certainly true as they have no skin in the game. Their rate isn't being increased. But more than that, it seems to totally miss the point.
    You're not understanding. What I'm saying is, I'm happy to pay an extra $100 per year for my storage habits, and those who don't see value in paying $250 per year for the ability to sell prints are welcome to downgrade to a "portfolio pro" account, and wait until their business is mature enough to pay the extra price. (which unfortunately would then be $300)

    The point is this: if you or someone in a similar position is uploading 10-20 GB a week, then using the lower number that works out to 520 GB per year. Multiply that times ¢10 GB/month storage costs and your account is costing SM $624/year for year one. Add that legacy storage to the following year, and so on and so on. How many years have you been with SM? Your account and the accounts of others like you is a net loss for SM. So the idea that you are happy to pay another $100 is a bit obvious. Most of us are happy to buy things we need and use for below cost. But for the rest of us, those who have accounts that contain maybe a total of 10 or 20 or even perhaps 50 GB of storage accumulated through the years, the accounts that SM actually funds its daily operations with as they are actually still profitable, the idea of a giant price hike (67-100%) to subsidize the growing storage and bandwidth costs is just outrageous.

    Then to add insult to injury, you essentially state that we should stop whining or get out. This is an especially difficult position to bear as it seems to be coming not only from you but from SM itself. Whereas I cannot speak for others, the photography I do is for the benefit of school kids involved in our athletic programs in what can only be described as a low income area (the high desert of San Bernardino County). I operate my "business" in a way that will allow kids to take home memories that they would not otherwise be able to have. So the $100 is a 67% increase in my out of pocket expenses that I now have to find a way to pass on to the parents of these kids, or I suppose I could just downgrade or quit altogether. But on the bright side, when I go to sleep at night I can rest assured that my $100 is not going to be wasted, it's helping to subsidize what is apparently a very profitable business for you.
    I do totally agree on one point that some people have made- To be the most fair, they should just come up with a per-GB price. That'd be fair, and it would cause everyone to think twice about uploading so many photos.

    =Matt=

    Whereas I am glad you agree that a per GB charge would be the most equitable solution, I think you would find that your annual fee might be more like $2000 or $3000 a year. I'd be curious to see who was whining then.
    Sports, Dance, Portraits, Events... www.jasonhowardking.com
  • TelephotoTelephoto Registered Users Posts: 15 Big grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    How about we drop the silly face paint, company chef, video game days, bring you dog to work days, and other free trip stuff and make the increase more in line?

    Of course this is how a privately held company works, but you could never get away with all that in a public company.

    Perhaps this is why SM strives to stay independant - too many good perks to too few people.

    I feel like I am funding the baldy family, not the other way around.
  • mbradymbrady Registered Users Posts: 321 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Dreadnote wrote: »
    The point is this: if you or someone in a similar position is uploading 10-20 GB a week, then using the lower number that works out to 520 GB per year. Multiply that times ¢10 GB/month storage costs and your account is costing SM $624/year for year one. Add that legacy storage to the following year, and so on and so on. How many years have you been with SM? Your account and the accounts of others like you is a net loss for SM.


    Don't forget about prints though - Smugmug gets a cut of that. If they're selling a decent amount of prints, then Smugmug could still easily be profiting from them even if they continue to upload 10-20GB a week.
  • paulbrockpaulbrock Registered Users Posts: 515 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    onethumb wrote: »
    Your photos are still safe. The company is doing well, and with the upcoming price increase, we will be able to provide even better service to our customers.

    Glad to hear it.....but.....this talk has kinda got me worried. Is there a 3rd party or two that can verify "the company is doing well"?
  • paulbrockpaulbrock Registered Users Posts: 515 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Telephoto wrote: »
    How about we drop the silly face paint, company chef, video game days, bring you dog to work days, and other free trip stuff and make the increase more in line?

    Of course this is how a privately held company works, but you could never get away with all that in a public company.

    I'm not sure that's fair. Seems to be a similar ethos at, say, Google. The difference is, Google consistently deliver top notch, world class engineering solutions and Smugmug....well it does the job. I'm hoping that the price rise will move Smugmug up a rung or two on that ladder, as I would dearly like them to do well.
  • DreadnoteDreadnote Registered Users Posts: 634 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    mbrady wrote: »
    Don't forget about prints though - Smugmug gets a cut of that. If they're selling a decent amount of prints, then Smugmug could still easily be profiting from them even if they continue to upload 10-20GB a week.

    None of us has access to SmugMug's accounting files, but I think the price increase is an indication that this is probably not the case. Why else would they risk all of this ill-will? They could just ease the prices up over time. And what is more using your model, SM would have to gamble that high usage users would continue to sell at a level that would maintain their profitability. Not exactly a sound business plan. However it would be amusing to see SM try to pitch that on the Shark Tank. Perhaps that is what is motivating their desire to stay private. I can't really see anyone investing in a company that won't tell you what it is doing. That doesnt even work on Kickstarter. Although this seemingly desperate cash grab might have gone over better if such details were forthcoming.
    Sports, Dance, Portraits, Events... www.jasonhowardking.com
  • SiriusPhotogSiriusPhotog Registered Users Posts: 42 Big grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Just think how much better the response would have been if say they only increased it $20/year for the next 5 years. We wouldn't even be having this conversation. I'd say judging by the percentage of people here that are either going to downgrade or leave all together, this is going to hurt Smug more than it helps which is bad for all of us.
  • jwwjww Registered Users Posts: 449 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Just think how much better the response would have been if say they only increased it $20/year for the next 5 years. We wouldn't even be having this conversation. I'd say judging by the percentage of people here that are either going to downgrade or leave all together, this is going to hurt Smug more than it helps which is bad for all of us.

    I think even up to $50 I wouldn't have had so much sticker shock. Telling us $100 for us and $200 for new folks is saying to me that at some point, we might all be at the total "not so nice price" of $250.
  • RobertkRobertk Registered Users Posts: 165 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Honestly, the more I think about it the more I realize SmugMug is doing exactly the right thing.

    Thinning the herd of aspiring (wannabe?) pros who think they're on the brink of hitting it bigtime, because they can start turning a profit on their photography hobby without more than a few tiny expenses here and there.

    Honestly? To me the bottom line is that if you're not profiting enough for it to be worth an extra $100 per year, then maybe you're just not profiting enough. It's that simple. Downgrade, or go somewhere else.

    If another hosting company can make a better offer and still turn a profit, then they deserve to succeed. However, which of you can TRULY say that they know all the other companies' bottom lines and profit margins, or their long-term strategy for survival? I bet that similar price increases are in everybody's pipeline.

    As I posted in my earlier post, this whole new online hosting / sharing / social media thing is brand new, and there may be a bubble or two that must pop before the long-term survivors are crowned.


    =Matt=

    Their purpose may be to "thin the herd" but they arent being honest if so. There are other ways to handle (fire) unprofitable customers than the raise prices without providing additional benifits. This was handled poorly but I have little worries about it since I was already pushed over the edge by empty promises.
  • johnlogukjohnloguk Registered Users Posts: 137 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    All the conspiracy theories here are wonderful, especially the idea that this is a deliberate tactic to "thin the herd" and reduce bandwidth costs. But I can't help thinking that a desperate move like this has more to do with Smug being in dire financial straits. I assume they didn't increase fees before because they didn't need to. Either something has happened recently that wasn't foreseen, or someone messed up big time?

    Whatever, Smug certainly aren't being totally honest here.
  • McQMcQ Registered Users Posts: 165 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    Rhuarc wrote: »
    Agreed...

    I believe that you forgot about a large portion of your user base, the amateurs that like to pretend to be pro. People like me who enjoy this as a hobby, and love to have fun with our site and customize it and maybe make a buck or two here or there off of our pictures. I was willing to drop $150 a year on my hobby to do this. I am not willing to drop $300 a year.

    Either you forgot about us...or you just don't care. Either way, no apology fixes it. There were so many ways you could have done this. Why not say if you make less than $500 a year it is $150, after that amount it goes to $300? I may make $20 or $30 a year, someday I was hoping to make enough each year to pay for my smugmug account. I want to be able to keep making that, but there is no way I will hit the $300 range. And if I stay at the $150 level I am paying the same without any chance to make a few bucks to offset the cost.

    So you can see how you are actually driving me to downgrade my account instead of pay more.

    I truly am sad that I can't say more or do something to help. I *really* am....I wish that I could!! Oh wait...I could, I am choosing not to...big difference!! Remember that!!

    Rhuarc

    Boy, does this ever sum it up for me too! Except I'm probably not downgrading, but switching to another service.
    "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you?"

    http://mcq.smugmug.com
  • FoquesFoques Registered Users Posts: 1,951 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    Rhuarc wrote: »
    Agreed...

    I believe that you forgot about a large portion of your user base, the amateurs that like to pretend to be pro. People like me who enjoy this as a hobby, and love to have fun with our site and customize it and maybe make a buck or two here or there off of our pictures. I was willing to drop $150 a year on my hobby to do this. I am not willing to drop $300 a year.

    Either you forgot about us...or you just don't care. Either way, no apology fixes it. There were so many ways you could have done this. Why not say if you make less than $500 a year it is $150, after that amount it goes to $300? I may make $20 or $30 a year, someday I was hoping to make enough each year to pay for my smugmug account. I want to be able to keep making that, but there is no way I will hit the $300 range. And if I stay at the $150 level I am paying the same without any chance to make a few bucks to offset the cost.

    So you can see how you are actually driving me to downgrade my account instead of pay more.

    I truly am sad that I can't say more or do something to help. I *really* am....I wish that I could!! Oh wait...I could, I am choosing not to...big difference!! Remember that!!

    Rhuarc
    boy, am I happy someone said this.
    Ditto on all that's said.

    with the options we are offered, price increase of this level is a pure idiocy.
    Give us templates, better customization, more user friendly site, PP integration (without this whole workaround bullshit).. make it WORTH it.. as far as I am concerned, Smug just screwed my hopes to make anything.. 300$ for the current options is sure as hell is not in my business budget plan..

    good thing my membership was renewed a month or so back, so I have a plenty of time to look for an alternative service provider now. what a shame..
    Arseny - the too honest guy.
    My Site
    My Facebook
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    Dreadnote wrote: »
    ...The point is this: if you or someone in a similar position is uploading 10-20 GB a week, then using the lower number that works out to 520 GB per year. Multiply that times ¢10 GB/month storage costs and your account is costing SM $624/year for year one. Add that legacy storage to the following year, and so on and so on. How many years have you been with SM? Your account and the accounts of others like you is a net loss for SM. So the idea that you are happy to pay another $100 is a bit obvious. Most of us are happy to buy things we need and use for below cost. But for the rest of us, those who have accounts that contain maybe a total of 10 or 20 or even perhaps 50 GB of storage accumulated through the years, the accounts that SM actually funds its daily operations with as they are actually still profitable, the idea of a giant price hike (67-100%) to subsidize the growing storage and bandwidth costs is just outrageous.
    SmugMug already knows that their annual fee is a loss-leader for the prolific uploaders. It's the tens of thousands of dollars that I / we do in print sales, that they make their profits. So, allow me to make another point: Forget the annual fee; where you REALLY lose out versus the competition (Zenfolio etc.) is if you sell more than $8-10K in prints / products per year. If anything, it's that 15% cut that would cause me / us to jump ship. So no, you are not subsidizing "my profitable business".

    If anything, you (and I) are paying for those basic accounts with TBs of photos just sitting there, NOT earning Smugmug 15% on thousands of dollars in print sales. Which is why I said I wholly agree with everyone who is saying that maybe a per-GB business model is the best long-term pricing structure for SmugMug...

    Even if you're a beginning pro and you only sell a few hundred or a couple thousand in prints per year, then SmugMug may still be the best option. I'd love to see someone do the math on the various business models out there, and what the annual cost would be for various hosting options.


    Dreadnote wrote: »
    Then to add insult to injury, you essentially state that we should stop whining or get out. This is an especially difficult position to bear as it seems to be coming not only from you but from SM itself. Whereas I cannot speak for others, the photography I do is for the benefit of school kids involved in our athletic programs in what can only be described as a low income area (the high desert of San Bernardino County). I operate my "business" in a way that will allow kids to take home memories that they would not otherwise be able to have. So the $100 is a 67% increase in my out of pocket expenses that I now have to find a way to pass on to the parents of these kids, or I suppose I could just downgrade or quit altogether. But on the bright side, when I go to sleep at night I can rest assured that my $100 is not going to be wasted, it's helping to subsidize what is apparently a very profitable business for you.

    Whereas I am glad you agree that a per GB charge would be the most equitable solution, I think you would find that your annual fee might be more like $2000 or $3000 a year. I'd be curious to see who was whining then.
    I apologize, my point is not "stop whining", but just "the market will work itself out"... If you think SmugMug is ripping off the beginner / part-time pro, then by all means take your business elsewhere! But as we seem to have calculated, there is no free lunch. There will always be hosting companies that either go out of business because their proft margins couldn't mature in time to catch up with their loss-leading, foot-in-the-door pricing, ...or they'll crank up their prices in order to survive.

    If a per-GB business model was used, our studio would have a simple solution- upload fewer images, compress JPG quality more, and push print sales a little more. I'm sure we could solve the problem and still turn an ever-increasing profit.

    One thing I notice in your reply that I'd like to mention is the thought of how the work you do is almost charitable, or at least a business model that depends on extremely overhead costs... I can relate to this. I used to shoot children's theater, which also barely turned a profit. It was incredibly fun, it was extremely gratifying. The parents absolutely loved the photos, and they certainly loved my modest prices. However, as you seem to prove, ...this is now a part-time / hobbyist business model. There is less and less profit in it, because of how many photographers are out there willing to shoot for free, or almost for free, etc. I'm sure there are hosting solutions out there for this business model. Maybe if SmugMug gets their R&D act together, they'll continue to be one of the best solutions, even for $250 / $300 per year and 15%...

    All I know is, I think you guys should at least stick around another year or so, to see if SmugMug comes up with anything truly revolutionary, before jumping ship out of anger. I've been with SmugMug since 2004 and they have always been near the forefront of new features and services. Only recently have other companies started popping up with similar / better pricing and options, and who knows how long those business models can last; they maybe loss-leading investments with a hope to increase profitability later. (Or, if SmugMug truly has made a terrible error with this price increase, then like I said- the free market will always offer you a good solution.)

    =Matt=
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    kenski wrote: »
    What I do not get is WHY do photographers charge SOOOO much for their fees. I get alot of hate mail from local photographers because I "STEAL" their customers. Well, I do not feel you need to charge $5000 for a wedding. Explain to me WHY you need to charge so much to shoot a wedding. I understand you need to buy your equipment, overhead, blah blah blah, If you choose only to work a certain # of days a year and depend on that for your yearly salary, tough shit... I will be glad to undercut anyone else. This is how the United States was founded, competition. So, you can call me a hobbist all you want. I will just laugh and say "THANKS".
    Ahh, the energetic hobbyist who loves under-selling themselves just because they have the free time and a passion for photography. I love you people. No seriously, that was NOT sarcasm. I honestly don't mind if much of the industry is getting swallowed up by you people. If you can turn enough profit charging whatever it is you charge to photograph a wedding, then that's fine with me. I've got plenty of career options in the long run.

    I have long foreseen that the argument "but I gotta put my kids through college, and save for retirement!" would not fly with customers when you are trying to sell them a $5K photography package. If the quality of the work and the quality of the service is identical, then why go with the expensive full-time pro if you can hire a more affordable part-time hobbyist? (Of course I happen to believe that the quality of my work, and service, is far superior than 99% of the hobbyists out there, and totally worth $5-10K...)

    I foresee that in 5-10 years, much of the consumer-based photography industry will be "consumed" (no pun intended) by the hobbyist / amateur photographer. Those who make / made enough money by some other means, and only need to profit enough at photography so they can buy the next big camera, or pay for that African safari...

    This is not a doomsday mindset, though. My business isn't going anywhere yet, and I certainly have much bigger long-term plans too. I would love to go back to being "just" a hobbyist, heck I'd probably have a lot more free time to do my personal photography,

    =Matt=
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    jfriend wrote: »
    But, one can't run any kind of business with a Portfolio account. Not even start a business with that because you can't sell for a profit with a Portfolio account. So, as it stands now, Smugmug only serves the full-time, working professional that has already established success. They don't serve other communities that were willing to part with decent money, but not at the $300 level like the part-time professional, the hobbiest who wants to experiment with selling, the new professional that wants to manage expenses until they get established, etc... If the issue is disk space usage, it seems that Smugmug should offer a lower account level that requires you to manage your disk space, but still lets you sell. Otherwise, Smugmug is just throwing away an opportunity for money, will lose a lot of customers and offers no way for budding pros to get started efficiently with Smugmug.

    Absolutely agree. Instead of splitting the pro accounts in a way that seems disconnected from the original reason that their costs are going up, they should have offered a flat-rate account and a per-GB account, both allowing print sales. I dunno how the business model would work, but it sounds like a good idea.

    =Matt=
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • DemianDemian Registered Users Posts: 211 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    Well said Matt.

    I think Smugmug has made some bad decisions, but overall they're not a bad company. The price raise to $300 is a bit of a shock, but think about it: They provide unlimited storage and bandwidth for your photos and website, a fully integrated ecommerce solution, and tech support that goes so far as to help with website customization. All in all, they provide a pretty good deal all year for what amounts to less than a session fee.

    Yarp, it sucks that you're needed to subsidize the heavier users, but it won't be any different at Zenfolio. You'll be paying the same price for the same business model... it's an not a winnable situation, but none of the companies want to be the first to blink.

    Anyways, I can say I'm happy about at least one recent change here. Smugmug has treated me decently... I'll be sticking with them for a while.
  • JovesJoves Registered Users Posts: 200 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    SmugMug already knows that their annual fee is a loss-leader for the prolific uploaders. It's the tens of thousands of dollars that I / we do in print sales, that they make their profits. So, allow me to make another point: Forget the annual fee; where you REALLY lose out versus the competition (Zenfolio etc.) is if you sell more than $8-10K in prints / products per year. If anything, it's that 15% cut that would cause me / us to jump ship. So no, you are not subsidizing "my profitable business".

    If anything, you (and I) are paying for those basic accounts with TBs of photos just sitting there, NOT earning Smugmug 15% on thousands of dollars in print sales. Which is why I said I wholly agree with everyone who is saying that maybe a per-GB business model is the best long-term pricing structure for SmugMug...


    =Matt=
    This is untrue since SM does indeed do prints from the lower tier accounts, without even informing the owner of the images. The claim is at costs, but at what price point. SM surely is not doing it for free on their part. Seems the only one not in the loop is the person whose photos were printed.
    I shoot therefore Iam.
    http://joves.smugmug.com/
  • jfriendjfriend Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    Joves wrote: »
    This is untrue since SM does indeed do prints from the lower tier accounts, without even informing the owner of the images. The claim is at costs, but at what price point. SM surely is not doing it for free on their part. Seems the only one not in the loop is the person whose photos were printed.
    It's a feature at every account level that a site owner can enable or disable print ordering. Smugmug probably makes a small amount on these prints (via their OEM deal with the printer), but it's unlikely a major money maker because the prints aren't marked up like a pro does. They do offer customer service on every print order and have a 100% satisfaction guarantee on every print order so they do need some margin to cover these costs.

    Every gallery at every account level can be configured to offer prints or not. If you have a standard account and don't want anyone to be able to order prints, you can just disable it on any given gallery or on all galleries. On the other hand for people just sharing with friends/family, it's often nice that their viewers can order prints at a competitive print price if they want. I give my family the choice. They can order prints at no markup from me or they can download originals and make their own prints.
    --John
    HomepagePopular
    JFriend's javascript customizationsSecrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
    Always include a link to your site when posting a question
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    jfriend wrote: »
    It's a feature at every account level that a site owner can enable or disable print ordering. Smugmug probably makes a small amount on these prints (via their OEM deal with the printer), but it's unlikely a major money maker because the prints aren't marked up like a pro does. Every gallery at every account level can be configured to offer prints or not. If you have a standard account and don't want anyone to be able to order prints, you can just disable it on any given gallery. On the other hand for people just sharing with friends/family, it's often nice that they can order prints at a competitive print price if they want. I give my family the choice. They can order prints at no markup from me or they can download originals and make their own prints.

    Well said, John.
  • Bob_ABob_A Registered Users Posts: 92 Big grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    I would be very interested in seeing if the 20/80 rule applies here and if 20% of the user base is consuming more than 80% of the storage space. Given that some users have terabytes of data stored on SM maybe it's even less than 20%.

    With the interest in digital video and the rapid increase in MP's/file size I can't see how any site (Smugmug or Zen) can continue to offer unlimited storage without fees going through the roof. Personally I'd be open to a different pricing model that sets limits on how much your storage grows per year (to help control rate) along with a reasonably high cap on total data storage as part of the base price (i.e., 250GB). No issue going outside those bounds ... you just pay more.

    To me, pricing is (at least should be) an easier fix. I'm much more concerned with the slow rate of improvement with site-wide features.
  • RhuarcRhuarc Registered Users Posts: 1,464 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    Andy wrote: »
    Well said, John.

    Why not respond to all of the posts that are questioning the decision making at SmugMug instead of the few that agree with it?

    (for instance my post regarding hobbyists that would like to sell but won't ever approach making $300 a year?)

    Seems like selective hearing...or would that be selective clicking?
  • wayne861wayne861 Registered Users Posts: 96 Big grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    Rhuarc wrote: »
    Why not respond to all of the posts that are questioning the decision making at SmugMug instead of the few that agree with it?

    (for instance my post regarding hobbyists that would like to sell but won't ever approach making $300 a year?)

    Seems like selective hearing...or would that be selective clicking?

    I think this whole thing shows us why Andy jumped ship.
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    Rhuarc wrote: »
    Why not respond to all of the posts that are questioning the decision making at SmugMug instead of the few that agree with it?

    (for instance my post regarding hobbyists that would like to sell but won't ever approach making $300 a year?)

    Seems like selective hearing...or would that be selective clicking?

    Rhuarc: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=224464
  • JovesJoves Registered Users Posts: 200 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    Rhuarc wrote: »
    Why not respond to all of the posts that are questioning the decision making at SmugMug instead of the few that agree with it?

    (for instance my post regarding hobbyists that would like to sell but won't ever approach making $300 a year?)

    Seems like selective hearing...or would that be selective clicking?
    That is why many are jumping ship. Selective hearing, not wanting acknowledge problems, or dismiss the ones who say something. They totally miss points and chose to divert the attention elsewhere.
    I shoot therefore Iam.
    http://joves.smugmug.com/
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2012
    Rhuarc wrote: »
    Why not respond to all of the posts that are questioning the decision making at SmugMug instead of the few that agree with it?

    (for instance my post regarding hobbyists that would like to sell but won't ever approach making $300 a year?)

    Seems like selective hearing...or would that be selective clicking?

    Again, if you are a hobbyist who would like to sell, but won't ever approach making $300 in a single year, then I honestly just don't know is there is a sustainable long-term option for you. Like I said, MAYBE others like Zenfolio can offer you a better deal, at present, but in the long run I believe you are going to find that your low-overhead business model just isn't possible. Maybe get a PayPal business account, those are free! You can insert payment buttons into your SmugMug galleries and customers can purchase items that way. I do this myself actually, when I need to accept payments for products that SmugMug doesn't offer...

    To be blunt, I think you are asking for a free lunch. If you sell less than $300 in prints per year, that's less than $45 that goes back to SmugMug from the 15% cut. There is no way that SmugMug can offer you unlimited storage and bandwidth, and all it's professional services and other front-end options, for just $145 / $195 per year.

    I know it sounds snobbish or something but in my opinion the best solution is, you just gotta think bigger. If you can't find ways to at least crack $1,000 in print sales each year, you really should consider the possibility that you're doing something wrong. This low-overhead, part-time business model may just not be profitable enough for hosting companies to accomodate. I don't know for sure, I'm just postulating. I mean no offense at any of the other SmugMug users who are in the boat of "this cost is too great, for my particular business model..." I do understand, in fact in many ways I am jealous of your situation. But that is another discussion for another time. My point is simply that I think SmugMug is just doing what they gotta do in order to turn a profit. And if your reaction is to take your business elsewhere, you may eventually be disappointed when those other companies also hike up their prices to accomodate increases in storage and service costs...

    =Matt=
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • Bob_ABob_A Registered Users Posts: 92 Big grins
    edited September 4, 2012
    Again, if you are a hobbyist who would like to sell, but won't ever approach making $300 in a single year, then I honestly just don't know is there is a sustainable long-term option for you. Like I said, MAYBE others like Zenfolio can offer you a better deal, at present, but in the long run I believe you are going to find that your low-overhead business model just isn't possible. Maybe get a PayPal business account, those are free! You can insert payment buttons into your SmugMug galleries and customers can purchase items that way. I do this myself actually, when I need to accept payments for products that SmugMug doesn't offer...

    To be blunt, I think you are asking for a free lunch. If you sell less than $300 in prints per year, that's less than $45 that goes back to SmugMug from the 15% cut. There is no way that SmugMug can offer you unlimited storage and bandwidth, and all it's professional services and other front-end options, for just $145 / $195 per year.

    I know it sounds snobbish or something but in my opinion the best solution is, you just gotta think bigger. If you can't find ways to at least crack $1,000 in print sales each year, you really should consider the possibility that you're doing something wrong. This low-overhead, part-time business model may just not be profitable enough for hosting companies to accomodate. I don't know for sure, I'm just postulating. I mean no offense at any of the other SmugMug users who are in the boat of "this cost is too great, for my particular business model..." I do understand, in fact in many ways I am jealous of your situation. But that is another discussion for another time. My point is simply that I think SmugMug is just doing what they gotta do in order to turn a profit. And if your reaction is to take your business elsewhere, you may eventually be disappointed when those other companies also hike up their prices to accomodate increases in storage and service costs...

    =Matt=

    I agree, they need to do what it takes to turn a profit. And part of that should be to start charging anyone that has over a few hundred GB of data the going rate per GB. If the going rate is $0.10/GB per month and they were storing a TB of data they should be paying an extra $960/year.

    It seems to me that Basic, Power, Portfolio and Pro users that store a reasonable amount of data on SM are greatly subsidizing a much smaller number of users uploading a huge volume of data each month while never cleaning house to keep their total amount stored constant. Those are the ones SM needs to get rid of since they're the ones getting a free lunch. IMO "unlimited" results in lazy data management by users.
  • jfriendjfriend Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited September 4, 2012
    Again, if you are a hobbyist who would like to sell, but won't ever approach making $300 in a single year, then I honestly just don't know is there is a sustainable long-term option for you. Like I said, MAYBE others like Zenfolio can offer you a better deal, at present, but in the long run I believe you are going to find that your low-overhead business model just isn't possible. Maybe get a PayPal business account, those are free! You can insert payment buttons into your SmugMug galleries and customers can purchase items that way. I do this myself actually, when I need to accept payments for products that SmugMug doesn't offer...

    To be blunt, I think you are asking for a free lunch. If you sell less than $300 in prints per year, that's less than $45 that goes back to SmugMug from the 15% cut. There is no way that SmugMug can offer you unlimited storage and bandwidth, and all it's professional services and other front-end options, for just $145 / $195 per year.
    If you store 100GB of images, don't sell much and expect cheap ecommerce hosting, you're probably right.

    But, if storage or support costs are what is causing Smugmug issues, then there's no reason why they couldn't profitably continue to offer an ecommerce-capable account that allows 20-40GB of storage (or some amount of storage that Smugmug considers profitable) and most of the other ecommerce features that the old Smugmug pro account had. Smugmug seems to be saying that packages and coupons cause a lot of support costs so maybe hold those out of the $150 account level too. Then, make sure that print sales are priced accordingly so that any commerce that happens in the account more than pays for itself (including the print guarantee and support costs).

    If storage and high support features are managed, there absolutely could be a $150 commerce-capable account that could be profitable. Development for this account level wouldn't be unique (it would be a subset of the higher level) so you can't really count specific development costs for this account level. It's mostly a matter of managing the costs that users at this account level can cause (support, storage, bandwidth).
    --John
    HomepagePopular
    JFriend's javascript customizationsSecrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
    Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Sign In or Register to comment.