Pro Account increase

1235711

Comments

  • Light_prodLight_prod Major grins Registered Users Posts: 127 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    DrDavid wrote: »
    Just move down to their basic level.. All the uploads you want, no customization. Just $40/yr..

    In fact, if everyone did that, SM would go bankrupt. Upload *everything*, pay $40/yr and hot-link your photos in your blog, etc.. Decent deal; of course, Flickr is still cheaper.
    jfriend wrote: »
    You could downgrade your account to standard and your blog images will keep working either until they're no longer needed or until you finally redo them.

    Great idea guys. That way I can keep smug for my folio site and zen for my client galleries. I end up paying the same overall as the top smug plan but have a great Aussie lab or self fullfilment option over at zen. mwink.gif
  • Weather NerdWeather Nerd Big grins Registered Users Posts: 14 Big grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    It is so sickening to see so many cry babies. I have never seen or heard so many ridiculous statement coming from grown ups.
    \Before starting tantrums do yourself a favor and look at what you get, what it cost and compare to nthe competition.

    I think is so hilarious to read that someone stayed with Smugmug because Photoshelter did not offer unlimited downloads, but now, because SMP price approaches the cost of Photoshelter he is considering to move. But wait, wasn't the reason that Photoshelter did not offer unlimited uploads?

    The reality is that you were getting a ridiculous low price for unlimited uploads, bandwith and 24/7 and now you are pissed because you have to pay what it is really worth.

    Smugmug Pro is for working professionals. People that make money at what they do. Not for wannabes or hobbyist. At $150 it was a steal and at $250 or even $300 is still a great price.

    At $250 a year, for a real pro studio means just $21 per month for unlimited, full resolution hosting, online galleries and shopping cart. If your business cannot handle $21 a month or $250 a year, the problem is NOT SMP but your business.

    So if $100 more a YEAR is such a hardship for your business, then you have a lousy business. It is not SMP fault but YOURS!

    Zenfolio at the same level is $250 and do not even offer the great lab options Smugmug Pro offers.

    Pictage at the cheapest level is $359 a year and they take a 20% commission from the gross and not the net (after cost like Smugmug does). I know, because I am moving from Pictage and I used to pay $99 per month. So $21 a month is peanuts.

    So people, think before you write. Do the number and you will see how silly you are behaving.

    So a freelance photographer is not a working professional? Thanks for the insult. Yet another another reason why I pretty much stopped hanging around this forum. Between the "Real Professionals" and one unchecked moderator, this place got old quick.. The only reason I logged in was to see what was going on with the price increase.

    Okay, back to reality for a minute. I'm a freelance and and most of you know, it's feast or famine. Paychecks are not steady. I don't have a studio and I'm not shooting 2-3 weddings a week. I agree that how much I sell is my own problem, but adding to my annual business costs is a problem. I enjoy using all the features the pro account offer.

    I am all about a storage cap, say 20-30 gigs, but would like to have all the current features/options. I'd be more than happy to pay $150 a year. Would that be cost effective for SM? I just checked my storage is under 6 gigs. I'm all ears and more than willing to work with SM.
  • kenskikenski Big grins Registered Users Posts: 34 Big grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Sventekoz wrote: »
    What a sanctimonious dick you're being. How dare you presume to lecture people on who should or shouldn't be using particular accounts. If only 'you' thought before you wrote, but I guess that's too much to ask for.

    This is just as much about how the needed price increase has been implemented as the increase itself. It smells of desperation on SmugMug's part, and that has people worried. From some of the responses here and elsewhere, it would also seem that SmugMug didn't think of too many other options, and that probably has people worried, too.

    FWIW, SmugMug, I'll be staying because I'm very happy with the overall service. However, you've lost your competitive advantage - and I'll be interested to see how you're going to get that back.


    Dont worry, this "DICK" doesn't even use smugmug as his website...
  • SventekozSventekoz Major grins Registered Users Posts: 500 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    If you're referring to me, yes I do.
    John
  • kenskikenski Big grins Registered Users Posts: 34 Big grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Sventekoz wrote: »
    If you're referring to me, yes I do.
    Not you, the guy you were replying too....
  • SventekozSventekoz Major grins Registered Users Posts: 500 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    OK - thanks for the clarification.
    John
  • GRBlizzGRBlizz Major grins Registered Users Posts: 109 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    onethumb wrote: »
    The honest answer is that it hasn't really been a big question until now. Most of our customers tell us those features all go hand-in-hand, so they need all of them. I hadn't thought about breaking Watermarks out of that bundle, or moving it down to Power. But we'll certainly think about it.

    Off the cuff, without having thought about it more than 60 seconds, I'd guess there'd be some reservations around Power users' storage costs going way, way up if there was a sudden flood of $150 users with much higher storage requirements (which is the case today) moving to $60. So we'd need to look at the data and see if there's a correlation between those who watermark and those who use a ton of storage. My gut says yes, but I always check my gut with the data first. :)

    You're going to see that flood anyway, whether you add watermarks to Power or not. But do the analysis. Basically, if you don't sell enough to justify the price increase, but still value SmugMug, you drop down to Power. Poof, $90 saved.

    Would you be willing to share what levels of usage you are seeing at the 4 tiers, so that we hobbyists can see how we'd fit in? It's one thing to say, "are limits OK in principle", and quite another to say, "for this price, would this amount of space be reasonable?"

    I have two accounts, one personal, and one for the non-profit for whom I am webmaster and staff photographer. The primary purpose of each account is display and sharing - SmugMug is integrated as the photo section of both my personal and work website. My personal account has 48GB. My work account has 128GB. Both accounts are in your "Business" tier, because they have prices set. But I rarely sell on my personal account, and my non-profit/work account does not make more than $400 a year on sales - mostly from one event.

    Currently, you're getting $250 from these two accounts (one is grandfathered). At renewal, the logical step would be to take both down to Power, and find another way to handle the one big church photo-selling event (e.g., charge admission and make the pictures free). So now you get $120 for the two, but you still have the same storage.

    So my question is: do these storage levels make my accounts fit more with Power, Portfolio, or Business?
  • divamumdivamum Major grins Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    jfriend wrote: »
    What I'm seeing is a large class of Smugmug pro customers who are small sellers, not large sellers. It's not a full-time business - but rather a side business or a hobby. For those customers, $300 is likely impractical (not worth the commitment given what they make).

    If Smugmug wants to get rid of all those customers that were willing to pay $100-$150/yr, that's their prerogative, but what you say in your message doesn't really apply to them. Even worse for Smugmug, some of these customers will just stop selling and downgrade to power (that's probably what I'll do). So now we make less money for them in commissions, we pay them less money for subscriptions and we still use just as much storage as we always did. Probably not a good outcome for anyone.

    That's why I think the way they've formulated the price increase doesn't make sense. IMO, it would have made more sense to introduce a flock of new features that are valuable to the real working pro and entice them to a new $300 account level and then maybe go for some storage limitations and/or fees at the lower account levels so hobbiests willing to manage their storage use could still have access to the selling features at a more reasonable account fee.

    This ^^^^ 15524779-Ti.gif
    It's kinda like cable tv. We have to buy the basic package, but we only watch a handful of the channels. Maybe set up a basic pro package with selling/price list settings and let us pick what we want to add on from there. Keep the option tho for printing choices. I love bayphoto thumb.gif I don't need mats, coupons, etc.

    I also think that dogdots is on to something by suggesting that a basic "pro" level is established, and then the big extras (more storage, extra labs, the event packages I see mentioned etc etc) can be added a la carte for the full-time pros who really do need them. Yes, it will make it more complicated to set up (although if one is at that pro level, one is probably fairly savvy about those kinds of things anyway), but it has the added advantage of allowing a professional to reflect their fluctuating markets, too. Really great suggestion. thumb.gif

    Smug, as always, thank you for LISTENING. It's rare in the modern corporate world for the people that make the decisions to be the ones DIRECTLY in dialog with the customer. That's one of the reasons I love your company and, honestly, one of the reasons I'll be extremely reluctant to consider an alternative service.

    That said, I'll be a lot happier if you do re-think this decision and settle on a different model than the one you unveiled last week. As many have said, a price raise is not unreasonable, but such a HUGE price hike so fast, without visible changes to the service to justify the big, big increase is really a bit of a smack in the face. At this point, it seems like NOBODY is happy with it and, at best, people are invoking their smug loyalty to resign themselves to it, even if they don't like it ne_nau.gif
  • mbellotmbellot Major grins Registered Users Posts: 465 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    I'm sure it's been covered, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't been answered by SmugMug other than the generic "4x more usage" comment.

    With storage being the rally cry of the SmugMug management, why not give all users with unlimited storage a small to moderate price increase rather than saddling one group with all of it (taxing the rich, if you will).

    Take basic to $45-$50, Power to $$70-$75 and Pro to $175. I have no idea the breakdown of Basic/Power/Pro, but I'm sure SM does and could very easily see if this was a viable way to spread the cost to all users since we all have unlimited storage.

    I am really curious what SM considers "high" usage so we might get an idea of where storage limits would start to kick in, if they even become a consideration. For example if SM considers 100GB as "high" then we can reasonably assume a theoretical cap might kick in somewhere between 25-50GB.
  • renstarrenstar loading... Registered Users Posts: 167 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    onethumb wrote: »
    The honest answer is that it hasn't really been a big question until now. Most of our customers tell us those features all go hand-in-hand, so they need all of them. I hadn't thought about breaking Watermarks out of that bundle, or moving it down to Power. But we'll certainly think about it.

    Off the cuff, without having thought about it more than 60 seconds, I'd guess there'd be some reservations around Power users' storage costs going way, way up if there was a sudden flood of $150 users with much higher storage requirements (which is the case today) moving to $60. So we'd need to look at the data and see if there's a correlation between those who watermark and those who use a ton of storage. My gut says yes, but I always check my gut with the data first. :)

    Power hasn't gotten a serious upgrade or new feature in years. Any new feature either went to all account levels or just Pro. It would be nice for something like watermarking to trickle down on occasion.
  • renstarrenstar loading... Registered Users Posts: 167 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    The issue here to me is that SmugMug wants to be like Apple ...

    There is a good historical reason for this: smugmug's founders (or at least one of them) were Apple/NeXT employees, so it makes sense that they, for better or for worse (and usually the latter), follow the Apple model.
  • davidmedinadavidmedina Big grins Registered Users Posts: 55 Big grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    People, people... Stop and take a long breath.... think before writing and making a fool of yourselves.

    I know you are pissed because now you have to pay $100 more a YEAR. Totally understand the discomfort. But I have been reading some arguments that in all honestly are childish and demonstrate that the know very little about running a business.

    Do not shoot from the hip but think before you shoot. Save yourselves from looking foolish.

    Most of you will look back to what they wrote and wonder what they were thinking.

    I was readin what someone wrote. He was very pissed because now, he or she has to pay $100 more a year. Because he is pissed with this outrage he decided to move to Photoshelter. Wait, He is pissed at paying $100 more but is willing to pay $400 more a year just because he is pissed? Don't get it.

    Same with those folks thinking to move to Zenfolio to pay the same to get roughly the same (actually less).


    Smugmug, like myself, we are in the business of making profit. We are not in the giving away stuff. So every company, we included, make decision based in profit.

    Secondly, you need to make a decision based in your business interest and what works for you regardless of price.

    There are thousand of wedding photographers, specially the top ones, willing to pay $1188 a year for Pictage. Why? Because they are foolish? No. Because for them, their business is what work best and what they pay is worth it. It is an investment in their success.

    Both Photoshelter and Zenfolios are great companies and solution. For some they are the best solution regardless if they are more expensive or cheaper than SmugMug Pro.

    As a matter of fact, one of the reason I did not move to Smugmug Pro earlier was because it was too cheap. That allows too many non-pro or wannabes to use it and affect the level of services I as a pro require.

    Your decision HAS to be based on what work best for you regardless of cost. You choose it because it is the best solution for you and you are willing to pay because it is.

    When the dust is settle, you will realize that for a working pro, $100 a year are peanuts and that at $250 Smugmug Pro still a great deal.

    So, do not be a fool, thinck carefully what you will say, and make decisions for your business in what works best regardless of cost.
  • davidmedinadavidmedina Big grins Registered Users Posts: 55 Big grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    So a freelance photographer is not a working professional? Thanks for the insult. Yet another another reason why I pretty much stopped hanging around this forum. Between the "Real Professionals" and one unchecked moderator, this place got old quick.. The only reason I logged in was to see what was going on with the price increase.

    Okay, back to reality for a minute. I'm a freelance and and most of you know, it's feast or famine. Paychecks are not steady. I don't have a studio and I'm not shooting 2-3 weddings a week. I agree that how much I sell is my own problem, but adding to my annual business costs is a problem. I enjoy using all the features the pro account offer.

    I am all about a storage cap, say 20-30 gigs, but would like to have all the current features/options. I'd be more than happy to pay $150 a year. Would that be cost effective for SM? I just checked my storage is under 6 gigs. I'm all ears and more than willing to work with SM.

    Who said that? Yes they are, but if you cannot afford $100 a year to run your business you are doing something wrong and it is not SMP.

    I am a full time pro and you think my check is steady? lol. I probably has much more expenses than you have. And I am not crying for a $100 increase. lol

    Dude, I am paying $1199 a year for Pictage... So now I will pay $250 a year for roughly the same thing?

    If it does not work for me it does not work and you need to find an alternative that work. Maybe selfhosting is best for you.

    SMPR has an offering. Take or leave it. But stop whinning...
  • renstarrenstar loading... Registered Users Posts: 167 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012



    No it isn't. They are "profiting" as much as anyone else who prints photos on paper and mails them somewhere. It is peanuts per order.

    The smugmug prices for ezprints orders used to be very predictable. Everything was a few cents (on the small prints) to 50 cents (or more, for the larger prints) more expensive than what ezprints charged for the same thing. It doesn't look like smugmug has updated their prices in a bit, so it is actually cheaper to get some lustre prints through smugmug than ezprints (modulo any difference in shipping cost).

    But because smugmug just pawns the order off onto ezprints, whatever the take is over their contracted price is pure profit. The ordering system has existed forever now so the costs on that should be pretty minimal.

    Right now it is roughly to my advantage to use smugmug if I have a pile of small prints. For larger ones? Debatable. For panoramics? I don't even have the choice.
  • GRBlizzGRBlizz Major grins Registered Users Posts: 109 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    renstar wrote: »
    The smugmug prices for ezprints orders used to be very predictable. Everything was a few cents (on the small prints) to 50 cents (or more, for the larger prints) more expensive than what ezprints charged for the same thing. It doesn't look like smugmug has updated their prices in a bit, so it is actually cheaper to get some lustre prints through smugmug than ezprints (modulo any difference in shipping cost).

    But because smugmug just pawns the order off onto ezprints, whatever the take is over their contracted price is pure profit. The ordering system has existed forever now so the costs on that should be pretty minimal.

    Right now it is roughly to my advantage to use smugmug if I have a pile of small prints. For larger ones? Debatable. For panoramics? I don't even have the choice.

    Remember that SmugMug deals with all the customer complaints, and will reprint at will. I have no earthly idea whether my work generates zero complaints/reprints or a lot (actually, that would be good feedback). But the fact is, I pocket my 85% and never have to worry about it. That after-sale service is a non-zero cost, and could be actually pretty extensive.
  • agalliaagallia Acadiana Grinner Lafayette, LouisianaRegistered Users Posts: 541 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    vince_ross wrote: »
    You know, I've had a pro account here for several years now, only because it allows me to set prices for my photos. ...Too much of a jump too quick and I don't think I can justify it. That's just sad...I really liked SM too.:cry

    Agree.
    Acadiana Al
    Smugmug: Bayou Oaks Studio
    Blog: Journey to the Light
    "Serendipity...the faculty of making happy, unexpected discoveries by accident." .... Horace Walpole, 1754 (perhaps that 'lucky shot' wasn't really luck at all!)
  • fbickingfbicking Beginner grinner Registered Users Posts: 6 Beginner grinner
    edited September 2, 2012
    Question about changing to power account
    OK so I am a hobbyist that has liked being able to sell photo's. But in all fairness I have only sold about $38 dollars in the past year. I would be fine downgrading to a power account and just selling though a local lab but I have one question. If I go to a power account do I loose all watermarking or just the ability to have a custom watermark? I just don't want people stealing the photo's.
  • agalliaagallia Acadiana Grinner Lafayette, LouisianaRegistered Users Posts: 541 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Price Change Causes Big Dilemma
    As a 'hobbyist' photographer who made the big leap from Power to Pro some time ago, this big price change has caused a big dilemma. The main reason I switched to Pro were the added 'custom watermarks' and 'set prices for profit' for an occasional sale. I have no need for the new $300 Business plan and now the new $150 Portfolio plan doesn't offer what I want.

    Sadly, I will now reassess my needs and probably either downgrade to Power plan or close my account. Big dilemma!
    Acadiana Al
    Smugmug: Bayou Oaks Studio
    Blog: Journey to the Light
    "Serendipity...the faculty of making happy, unexpected discoveries by accident." .... Horace Walpole, 1754 (perhaps that 'lucky shot' wasn't really luck at all!)
  • McQMcQ Grinning From Ear To Ear Registered Users Posts: 165 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    onethumb wrote: »
    The honest answer is that it hasn't really been a big question until now. Most of our customers tell us those features all go hand-in-hand, so they need all of them. I hadn't thought about breaking Watermarks out of that bundle, or moving it down to Power. But we'll certainly think about it.

    Off the cuff, without having thought about it more than 60 seconds, I'd guess there'd be some reservations around Power users' storage costs going way, way up if there was a sudden flood of $150 users with much higher storage requirements (which is the case today) moving to $60. So we'd need to look at the data and see if there's a correlation between those who watermark and those who use a ton of storage. My gut says yes, but I always check my gut with the data first. :)

    Perhaps it hasn't been a question until now because SmugMug hasn't raised prices by this amount until now. I'm amazed that you didn't think this through better and expect the massive push back. Sorry, but this seems like another example of the leadership at SmugMug being completely in their own bubble and out of touch with customers.

    For all the constant bragging about how unique and amazing SmugMug is, in my years with you, my experience has been that while you're really good at some things, true understanding of your customers isn't one of them. The repercussions of this price increase, done the way it has been, should have been obvious to any company who knew their customer base.

    Even though my increase won't take effect until next year, I've already requested payout of my remaining meager profit, and am making plans for other hosting. No way I will pay $100 more per year for my level of hosting needs.

    Although only you know the actual numbers, I'd guess you are penalizing what is likely a fairly large sector of your customers with this increase.

    To say you'll only start thinking about it now (because of the customer backlash) should be clear and definitive proof to you that you don't know us like you think you do.

    It makes me sad and angry to have to have written this, because you do have some really awesome and dedicated people working there. But you definitely need the feedback, so here it is.

    Maybe you actually will change your minds about this, and it would be great, but somebody there needs a wake up call.
    "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you?"

    http://mcq.smugmug.com
  • SamSam San Jose CA Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012

    And no, our profits haven't 'taken a hit.' SmugMug remains strong and growing - and we want to continue to do so.

    In order for us to continue to grow, to continue improving, to continue to offer the best service available on every front (support, features, performance and more), we needed to do this -

    Does this sound like a cogent statement?

    As I recently posted elsewhere, price hikes are never easy regardless of how/why/what... but to elaborate, we touched on several reasons for the increase - engineering, expansion, growth...this is not solely about storage (although that does seem to be what most have latched onto) -

    "We didn't go into this lightly. We asked customers what they would prefer - a per-GB storage fee or an unlimited account at a higher price - and they all said unlimited was vital to the product and one of the reasons they fell in love with SmugMug in the first place. That we had to keep it. So we did."
    And essentially, we've simply split SELLING accounts from PROOFING accounts - that latter of the two's cost remains the same as it was - two, small bumps, would have been the better option from a customer relation point of view - but again, we're a family business, and we abhor raising prices. Right or wrong, our hearts were in the right place.

    Again???

    If your going to try and justify what is a HUGE price increase please have the decency to treat me with respect. Don't make contradicting circular statements. Good grief!!! Did you come from a government job?

    Sam
  • fbickingfbicking Beginner grinner Registered Users Posts: 6 Beginner grinner
    edited September 2, 2012
    Power Plan
    agallia wrote: »
    As a 'hobbyist' photographer who made the big leap from Power to Pro some time ago, this big price change has caused a big dilemma. The main reason I switched to Pro were the added 'custom watermarks' and 'set prices for profit' for an occasional sale. I have no need for the new $300 Business plan and now the new $150 Portfolio plan doesn't offer what I want.

    Sadly, I will now reassess my needs and probably either downgrade to Power plan or close my account. Big dilemma!


    As a power user did you at least get a generic watermark or were your pictures open for anyone to steal?
  • kenskikenski Big grins Registered Users Posts: 34 Big grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    My favorite in another thread was to the effect that they are raising prices to keep up with other providers.. Makes no sense to me.. Why raise prices to keep up with the competition If you can still provide a service and make profit. Sounds like someone is getting greedy........
  • jfriendjfriend Scripting dude-volunteer Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    fbicking wrote: »
    OK so I am a hobbyist that has liked being able to sell photo's. But in all fairness I have only sold about $38 dollars in the past year. I would be fine downgrading to a power account and just selling though a local lab but I have one question. If I go to a power account do I loose all watermarking or just the ability to have a custom watermark? I just don't want people stealing the photo's.
    As I understand it, you lose the ability to add a watermark at all. Existing watermarks will stay, but you can't add new ones to existing photos or newly uploaded photos.

    If you aren't printing directly off your site though, you can watermark a copy of the images on your own computer before you upload. Lightroom (and other programs) can do that automatically as part of an export process that you use to make a batch of photos for upload.
    --John
    HomepagePopular
    JFriend's javascript customizationsSecrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
    Always include a link to your site when posting a question
  • SamSam San Jose CA Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    kenski wrote: »
    My favorite in another thread was to the effect that they are raising prices to keep up with other providers.. Makes no sense to me.. Why raise prices to keep up with the competition If you can still provide a service and make profit. Sounds like someone is getting greedy........

    To play devils advocate here it makes perfect sense to take market rates and your competitions offerings along with their prices when setting your own pricing.

    In business the idea is to make a profit. Profit per say in not an evil thing. A good healthy profit will allow a reputable business to continue business / product improvement, as well as provide good pay and benefits to their employees.

    To price your products and services as low as possible and or substantially lower than needed to compete in the market place is quite frankly STUPID! You really don't want to establish a long term relationship with a STUPID vendor.

    Sam
  • Tina ManleyTina Manley Major grins Registered Users Posts: 179 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    onethumb wrote: »
    You nailed this right on the head. We're in active discussions right now, based on all this feedback, about adjustments to the Portfolio account and/or a Hobbyist account, and the only way to make that option viable would be a reasonable, but modest, storage cap in addition to limiting engineering- and support-heavy features like Packages & Event Marketing.

    If such a hypothetical situation were to arise (we've only begun thinking about it today, I'm afraid to admit), what would a reasonable storage cap look like to those who are interested in an account like this?

    The only reason I joined SmugMug many years ago, and have recommended it to so many others, is the unlimited storage feature. Without that, there are many other photo sites that offer much more than SmugMug. Perhaps you could consider charging extra for video or very large files? As it is, with the increase in price, I will be moving on to a site that offers more to professionals for the same price.
  • SamSam San Jose CA Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    The only reason I joined SmugMug many years ago, and have recommended it to so many others, is the unlimited storage feature. Without that, there are many other photo sites that offer much more than SmugMug. Perhaps you could consider charging extra for video or very large files? As it is, with the increase in price, I will be moving on to a site that offers more to professionals for the same price.

    Tina,

    You have some absolutely wonderful B&W people / documentary images. clap.gifclap

    It would be interesting to see someone put together a spread sheet comparing features and prices of the top photo hosting websites. Then and only then can one make an honest objective comparison.

    Sam
  • agalliaagallia Acadiana Grinner Lafayette, LouisianaRegistered Users Posts: 541 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    agallia wrote: »
    As a 'hobbyist' photographer who made the big leap from Power to Pro some time ago, this big price change has caused a big dilemma. The main reason I switched to Pro were the added 'custom watermarks' and 'set prices for profit' for an occasional sale. I have no need for the new $300 Business plan and now the new $150 Portfolio plan doesn't offer what I want.

    Sadly, I will now reassess my needs and probably either downgrade to Power plan or close my account. Big dilemma!

    ...and putting a storage cap on Power or Portfolio plans would be another big negative on my decision.
    Acadiana Al
    Smugmug: Bayou Oaks Studio
    Blog: Journey to the Light
    "Serendipity...the faculty of making happy, unexpected discoveries by accident." .... Horace Walpole, 1754 (perhaps that 'lucky shot' wasn't really luck at all!)
  • John KeaneJohn Keane Big grins Registered Users Posts: 25 Big grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Price increase
    I know there has been a lot of complaining about the new price structure and just wanted to add my 2 cents (can this be applied toward my subscription??)

    As a photographer and not a computer guy, SmugMug has given me the ability to develop a professional web presence to showcase my work and give my clients what they need. I feel that it has been very reasonably priced for the value I get. Maybe others didn't need the early support I did?

    Thank you Baldy, for taking the time to add a video explanation regarding the increase.

    Proud to be a member.
    John
  • Tina ManleyTina Manley Major grins Registered Users Posts: 179 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Sam wrote: »
    Tina,

    You have some absolutely wonderful B&W people / documentary images. clap.gifclap

    It would be interesting to see someone put together a spread sheet comparing features and prices of the top photo hosting websites. Then and only then can one make an honest objective comparison.

    Sam

    Thank you, Sam! The number one and most obvious difference right off the bat is the name of the sites. SmugMug implies hobbiest, PhotoShelter sounds more professional. The ability to lease stock photos as rights managed, based on usage not size, is the second most important feature to me. In spite of many promises over many years, SmugMug has never come up with a way to do that. PhotoShelter has had that feature for a long time. SEO ranking would be third. PS is way up there and has tutorials on how to improve your site's ranking. In fact, they have many tutorials that are very useful. I've resisted PS because of the limit on uploads, but I'm going to bite the bullet and go with the more professional site.

    Tina
  • Moogle PepperMoogle Pepper Big picture in the sky Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2012
    Do I like this new change? Of course not. But since I do like the people who work at Smug, I am not dropping Smugmug cold turkey. Instead taking my pro down to portfolio. I mainly post in the weddings (I am a freelance photog) I do most of my client fulfillment outside of smugmug anyway... and my portfolio on my site and blogs...

    But I use smug as my image storage. So if there were a cap on storage space than.... I would be a sad panda.
    Food & Culture.
    www.tednghiem.com
Sign In or Register to comment.