Setting absolute minimum prices

[chrumu]

I think contributors should be able to have some control about the minimum prices for their pictures.

 

In order to keep it simple both for Alamy and the contributors, I propose that for each picture you can chose if you agree to sales for prices lower than what's advertised on Alamy in the price calculator.

 

Something like "Agree to grant further price discounts (yes/no)".

 

 

[spacecadet]

If I had ticked that box I'd have had no sales at all. Nothing sells at the calculator rate IME.

[dustydingo]

I think contributors should be able to have some control about the minimum prices for their pictures.

 

In order to keep it simple both for Alamy and the contributors, I propose that for each picture you can chose if you agree to sales for prices lower than what's advertised on Alamy in the price calculator.

 

Something like "Agree to grant further price discounts (yes/no)".

 

Just got three things to say here:

 

1. Having images with Alamy is voluntary.

 

2. You, and all other contirbutors, have already given Alamy permission to license images at prices they (Alamy) determine.

 

3. if you disagree with point 2, see point 1.

 

dd

[wiskerke]

I think contributors should be able to have some control about the minimum prices for their pictures.

 

In order to keep it simple both for Alamy and the contributors, I propose that for each picture you can chose if you agree to sales for prices lower than what's advertised on Alamy in the price calculator.

 

Something like "Agree to grant further price discounts (yes/no)".

 

There are ways to do that: from time to time I encounter images that have a line in red: this image is not available at these prices. Usually from an agency, but some individual contributors have those restrictions also.

There have been some discussions about that here. I don't have any restrictions set, so I cannot tell you how to do it or whether it's good or bad for your annual sales total.

I do know that you would not get very far with this line of thought at the very big stock agencies, but there are a couple small ones that allow you to do just what you propose or even to set your own prices. Google is your friend.

 

wim

[chrumu]

One thing you must not forget is that you can't expect a client to pay full price per image if he buys hundreds at once.

 

I think I should try to explain this concept to my gas station. They always make me pay the full price per liter even though I usually buy 70 of them at once. And I've been a loyal repeat buyer for the last decade. 

 

Anyways, I'm not absolutely against discounts for volume buyers as long as:

a ) the discount is reasonable. Say, 10, 20%. Maybe even a bit more in rare cases. But 90% off is not, IMO.

b ) the final amount I get is still a reasonable absolute figure. Difficult to define reasonable, but for sure if it's not enough to buy a coffee then it's not reasonable for me.

[Guest]

 

One thing you must not forget is that you can't expect a client to pay full price per image if he buys hundreds at once.

 

I think I should try to explain this concept to my gas station. They always make me pay the full price per liter even though I usually buy 70 of them at once. And I've been a loyal repeat buyer for the last decade. 

 

Anyways, I'm not absolutely against discounts for volume buyers as long as:

a ) the discount is reasonable. Say, 10, 20%. Maybe even a bit more in rare cases. But 90% off is not, IMO.

b ) the final amount I get is still a reasonable absolute figure. Difficult to define reasonable, but for sure if it's not enough to buy a coffee then it's not reasonable for me.

 

 

The concept works equally as well for a gas station or rather the B2B in the gas/petrol industry. The larger chains, or in the UK, supermarket petrol stations get better prices for volume. It's common across all industries...volume discount.

 

As already mentioned, you abrogated any say on prices when you signed the contract. Remember that Alamy have a global contrib base - five dollars might not be much in London or New York or Geneva but it goes a hell of long way in some countries....the net result for Alamy would be tens of thousands of pricing structures for images........so it's not going to happen.

[dustydingo]

 

 

I think contributors should be able to have some control about the minimum prices for their pictures.

 

In order to keep it simple both for Alamy and the contributors, I propose that for each picture you can chose if you agree to sales for prices lower than what's advertised on Alamy in the price calculator.

 

Something like "Agree to grant further price discounts (yes/no)".

 

Just got three things to say here:

 

1. Having images with Alamy is voluntary.

 

2. You, and all other contirbutors, have already given Alamy permission to license images at prices they (Alamy) determine.

 

3. if you disagree with point 2, see point 1.

 

dd

 

 

Yep, but there are limits. RM images should not be sold for microstock prices. I had RM sales which left me ...... pennies, NOT even a whole dollar. Isn't that a little over the top? You can also say "No!" to clients (I do it all the time when they offer me next to nothing). 

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

Yes Phillipe, every single contributor here has, or at least should have, an idea about what their particular limits are . . . and if Alamy is undercutting those limits, every single contributor has a choice to make.

 

I hate selling licenses for cents only . . . and even though we're not meant to "highlight" competitors, I think it's not against the spirit of that requirement for me to say it sometimes happens with my RM images at Getty and Corbis/Getty/whoever too--believe it or not, Alamy are no orphan here--but the limit I set accepts the low along with the not-so-low along with the bloody-high.

 

My point though is that I don't expect nor advocate nor plead for Alamy or Getty or Corbiswhoevertheyarenow to change their business model to meet MY limits. If I was as totally angry as some here sometimes appear about Alamy's or any other agency's performance, I'd leave. But I'm not, so I haven't

 

dd

[dustydingo]

 

 

I think contributors should be able to have some control about the minimum prices for their pictures.

 

In order to keep it simple both for Alamy and the contributors, I propose that for each picture you can chose if you agree to sales for prices lower than what's advertised on Alamy in the price calculator.

 

Something like "Agree to grant further price discounts (yes/no)".

Just got three things to say here:

 

2. You, and all other contirbutors, have already given Alamy permission to license images at prices they (Alamy) determine.

 

dd

New contributors sign in expecting to get 50% of what is on the price list next to our images (I don't even dare to mention the price calculator). I can't blame them if they complain they only get a tiny fraction of it.

I'm here long enough to know what I can expect, but I can also fully understand the great disappointment when newbies see their first sale.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

For a start Phillipe, it's protocol (and good manners) that if you're gong to quote someone you don't edit what they said without clearly indicating that's what you've done.

 

Secondly, who are you arguing against? I've already stated quite unequivocally that I hate licensing for low amounts.

 

dd

[Phil]

It's gonna get worse for stock contributors before it gets better - which given current agency business models is not even remotely likely.  

 

According to this article Adobe is pressuring Shutterstock to lower prices (and royalties) in the drive by agencies to increase sales growth/volumes.   

 

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock-explains-royalty-cut-is-to-enable-price-cut.html

 

Increasing sales volumes is the driver of agency profits - not better contributor royalties.

[chrumu]

So, from the general feedback to my original proposal to let the contributor choose whether or not to give further discounts I understand that my proposal seems to be too strict to get much support. On the other hand, low prices are certainly a hot and worrying topic.

 

Would a less strict proposal get more support? E.g., what about having the option of setting an absolute minimum price which must not be undercut (except UK newspaper, distribution, and novel use sales)? To make it easy to implement, this absolute minimum price might be set by Alamy for all contributors. Like an opt-in option: no sales below £9.99. Having this optional single minimum price would also be easy to understand for customers, and it should also be a filter in the search so buyers don't see images which are not available for peanuts.

[Panthera tigris]

I would like to see a base amount, that is a minimum. If I would have thought about this two years ago I may have said 99.99, a year ago 49.99.....now .....19.99????

 

But I think Alamy would need a new class of membership to attempt it. 

 

With the current model the issues preventing change are, the current model:

 

a) Alamy has to compete with the market which is getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper 

as a non-exclusive agency, many of its better images are on other agencies as well - why hold out when another will discount

c) Alamy has a strong reputation in UK secondary editorial - this niche does it no good in the greater market (would be good to see a breakdown of how many of its images are of towns in the UK or UK centric)

d) In an industry were competitors are eating each other (buy outs) - survival may be Alamy's first priority

e) the big buyers are used to deals - if they don't get them at Alamy they can get them elsewhere

f) lone photographers and consolidation start ups have not been able to inflict hurt on the established market/players and their cost models

g) buyers are not that interested in spending hours or even days trolling the net for "better" images - its easier to chose one outlet (as we know big G is usually the choice) and spend 30 minutes selecting your image from a collection with selection criteria. Why battle through the mass of Alamy's "less than perfect" image choice that clutters the results

h) Cameras are getting better and its easier to take and supply stock for anyone who owns a camera - ergo more prices reductions coming as pictures lose "worth"

i) theres togs like me who are not actually in it for the money anymore - we have given up and make way for a new wave to replace us - a wave that expects less in financial terms in a world were it is harder to survive - the good days are long long gone (I think they were gone before I started)

 

 

But this has been the situation for years - its why I actually do not photograph for stock anymore. I just take pictures for enjoyment and some of them end up here on Almay.

[dustydingo]

Hello prospective buyer.

 

I'm selling image xxxxxxx-xx here for a minimum of $9.99.

 

I'm also selling it at agency XXXXXXXXX where there in no minimum price.

 

Please buy it here, not there.

 

>>>>As much as I would like to get higher prices here, I think it might just be a bit of a hard sell<<<<

 

Agree with PT's points above.

 

dd

[Phil Robinson]

The biggest complication is different uses. Would you set one minimum price for everything?

$3 sales to an Italian website are annoying, but I'd be a lot more unhappy about $20 for a book cover.

There is far more potential to lose big money on higher value sales than the ones under the minimum price you'd probably end up setting.

[Chuck Nacke]

I've posted about this before and I'm going to try to be diplomatic, not something

that I am known for....

 

What I would like to see is contributors with a proven track record who have images

that have been licensed many times, images with a great historical value or very rare

images would be able to set a minimum fee for any usage.

 

I am not talking about a scenic photo of Buckingham Palace at sunset shot from a

common view.

 

I would also like to add that I do think that Alamy should address this issue with

contributors privately I.E. not on a public forum.

[Phil Robinson]

On a related topic, it looks like it's Profimedia payout day today. $3.18 so far and fingers crossed for more.

[fotoDogue]

On a related topic, it looks like it's Profimedia payout day today. $3.18 so far and fingers crossed for more.

 

 

$5.32 gross, or $1.59 net for my film image of the World Trade Center collapsing and I didn't even get a photo credit. I can't remember how many days I spent photoshopping "film blemishes" trying to get those images past QC.

I think it's time for me to opt-out of Profimedia.

http://www.srbijadanas.com/clanak/ceka-li-evropu-novi-masakr-evropolovo-predvidanje-ledi-krv-u-venama-19-02-2016

[Homy]

I've been contacted by a customer about some images for usage on their website. The images are not available on Alamy yet but I was thinking of using Alamy's prices. Such an image costs £ 19.99 here (5 years, Worldwide, commercial or not) . Then I looked at the recommended prices by SFF -the Swedish Association of Professional Photographers and their price is £ 511! That's a big difference. What if
I sell an image with higher price and then the customer discovers they could buy it for much lower price here? What do you do when someone contacts you directly? Do you direct them to Alamy or set your own prices?

[spacecadet]

Set your own prices- and make sure nothing similar is available on Alamy for a while. What someone finds out after they've bought is neither here nor there- they can do their shopping around beforehand.

[Homy]

Set your own prices- and make sure nothing similar is available on Alamy for a while. What someone finds out after they've bought is neither here nor there- they can do their shopping around beforehand.

 

Thanks! Good point, but I also wonder about images that already are on Alamy and how other contributors do. Do you say "You can find and buy it on Alamy"? I mean with such a big difference in prices you would rather not to tell and let them search for themselves. If they can't do that then they have to pay my prices.

[KWheal]

I have thought for a while that the calculator should have its prices reduced as no one pays those prices now. If you are not a regular buyer one look at the calculator price would get you looking elsewhere. I believe that alamy (and therefore us) are losing a lot of sales that would still sell at above the prices we see for bulk purchases but lower than the current calculator which is unreasonable. But you may say.... thats cutting prices further but when was the last time you had a sale at calculator price. This way you would get more sales at higher than the 90% discount offered to some clients from non bulk buyers

Just my opinion

Kevin