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.
davidmedina wrote: »
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.
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.
Sventekoz wrote: »
If you're referring to me, yes I do.
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.
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.
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 I don't need mats, coupons, etc.
PhotoDavid78 wrote: »
The issue here to me is that SmugMug wants to be like Apple ...
Weather Nerd wrote: »
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.
jmphotocraft wrote: »
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.
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.
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
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 -
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.
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!
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.
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........
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?
Tina Manley wrote: »
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.
Sam wrote: »
You have some absolutely wonderful B&W people / documentary images. clap
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.