"Only available on Alamy", does it make a difference?

[aorlyan]

Dear photographers,

 

I was wondering if it makes a difference to submit to Alamy exclusively (tick "only available on Alamy" sign in the Optional photo information).

Have you noticed the difference when submitting images "only to Alamy" in terms of sales?

 

Thanks,
Anna

[Jill Morgan]

Although I only sell via Alamy, I don't tick the box as I may upload somewhere else later, and don't want to have to remember to untick the box.  I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference.

 

Jill

[Graham]

Totally agree.  If we received enhanced commission for exclusivity, I would happily do this, but since we don't, I don't see any point in doing this.   

 

Graham

[fotoDogue]

Alamy is the only agency where I'm currently submitting work though I wonder if "Only Available on Alamy" means you don't make the same images available on your own website.

 

Professional photo buyers do notice when the same image is available on multiple sites and may shop round for the lowest rate. Indicating the image is only available on Alamy may save clients time, but not indicating its exclusive to Alamy doesn't seem to stop clients from inquiring. If clients want an exclusive Alamy will probably contact the photographer to confirm.

[vpics]

I don't tend to tick it but was wondering whether it might have an effect on ranking. 

[DDoug]

I have been ticking that box on images which aren't available elsewhere because it would seem to be required for an exclusive license to be possible, and that such a license would command a significantly higher fee.

 

Whether or not that's the case, I am unclear as to how a customer knows that the image is exclusive to Alamy. Where does it say that?

[Martin P Wilson]

I don't mark anything as exclusive even if it is is not available elsewhere. In my experience Alamy gets in touch if a client wants exclusivity in some form (territory, industry, usage or whatever).I have made a couple of minor exclusive sales, but not recently.

[Joe Gaul]

I tick the box for images I only intend to make available via alamy so that buyers don't look elsewhere for that pic. I presume that if this were to change I could edit to remove the tick, although I tend to shoot with particular agencies in mind so a change would be unlikely.

[Allan Bell]

I believe it is supposed to help Alamy if there are infringements found.

 

Allan

[Cryptoprocta]

I tick the box for images I only intend to make available via alamy so that buyers don't look elsewhere for that pic. I presume that if this were to change I could edit to remove the tick, although I tend to shoot with particular agencies in mind so a change would be unlikely.

But how does the buyer know? I can't see where this is indicated on the file page.

[vpics]

 

I tick the box for images I only intend to make available via alamy so that buyers don't look elsewhere for that pic. I presume that if this were to change I could edit to remove the tick, although I tend to shoot with particular agencies in mind so a change would be unlikely.

But how does the buyer know? I can't see where this is indicated on the file page.

 

That's a good point. Does Alamy flag up those images? 

[Joe Gaul]

 

I tick the box for images I only intend to make available via alamy so that buyers don't look elsewhere for that pic. I presume that if this were to change I could edit to remove the tick, although I tend to shoot with particular agencies in mind so a change would be unlikely.

 

But how does the buyer know? I can't see where this is indicated on the file page.

You are quite correct, there appears to be no indication to a buyer that the image is only available on Alamy. Perhaps it is as Allan suggested more to do with infringements, or just another consequence of the new half baked image manager.

[Doc]

I only sell my images on Alamy - I dont even sell them from a website. I just asked MS to tick all my (20K+) images as only available on Alamy, and they did so within a couple of days. Too, new images I keyword also are now automatically ticked.

 

Seems to me that there must be a subgroup of buyers who would be interested to see images only available on Alamy, or know if they were only available on Alamy, and I would guess Alamy may well consider making it more obvious if they have a decent number of images which are indicated as such. 

 

Ideally I would like to see a tab "Only available on Alamy" next to "New" "Relevant" and "Creative"

 

Given that it is so easy and quick to delineate ones' images as such (and would be presumably similarly easy in the future to "de-delineate" them if one decided to sell elsewhere,) I would recommend doing it - Alamy - are you reading this?!

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

[vpics]

Ideally I would like to see a tab "Only available on Alamy" next to "New" "Relevant" and "Creative"

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

I'd like to see this feature. 

[DavidLyons]

I only sell my images on Alamy - I dont even sell them from a website. I just asked MS to tick all my (20K+) images as only available on Alamy, and they did so within a couple of days. Too, new images I keyword also are now automatically ticked.

 

Seems to me that there must be a subgroup of buyers who would be interested to see images only available on Alamy, or know if they were only available on Alamy, and I would guess Alamy may well consider making it more obvious if they have a decent number of images which are indicated as such. 

 

Ideally I would like to see a tab "Only available on Alamy" next to "New" "Relevant" and "Creative"

 

Given that it is so easy and quick to delineate ones' images as such (and would be presumably similarly easy in the future to "de-delineate" them if one decided to sell elsewhere,) I would recommend doing it - Alamy - are you reading this?!

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

 

Kumar, (and the other good folks here)

 

I can see how exclusivity might be attractive to those who already have incomes from alternative sources, retirement pensions etc. but would you recommend only selling through one agency as a sensible strategy to someone who needs to make a substantial part of the income needed to support themselves solely from photography?

 

This also seems counter-intuitive at exactly the same time as many agencies are converging, in various guises, to desiring contributors move their licensing to Royalty Free  -  which could be seen as the polar opposite of Exclusive Rights Managed.

 

Also, in my experience, many agencies now make little or no effort to gain premium fees for premium / exclusive photography preferring to automate income from multiple, low, homogenized fees and client annual subscription deals.  It is seldom the case that general editorial work entices end clients to pay higher fees for exclusive use simply because it is rare that the client would need exclusivity for general editorial or general travel shots.  Of course we can be lucky every now and then but high / exclusive fees are more likely for high-end studio or complex location shooting or inventive conceptual photography which are not really areas that Alamy is known for  -  they are just not seen as that kind of agency.  As to whether there would be a subgroup of buyers who would be interested to see images only available on Alamy this is swimming very much against the current tendency of all and every agency now sub-contracting their photographers images through all and every other agency.  A client who really needs exclusivity tends to go to an agency which specializes in specific, exclusive images very specifically shot for that sector of the market  -  that is why those agencies have very tight submission criteria  -  the client is buying the exclusive style as much as they are buying the exclusive image.

 

Of course what might be good for the agency is not necessarily good for the photographer.

 

I would suggest anyone NEEDING to make a living from photography MUST either work through multiple outlets AND / OR have their various sets of exclusive quality work placed individually with various high-end exclusive quality agencies. Either way its not a freewill choice but a necessity.

 

One of my agencies has just requested I give them exclusive authorization for a financial services billboard campaign for one of my multi agency RM images (an illustrative location shot).  The other agencies have straightforwardly and kindly agreed to suspend the image for the time period involved.  If the client really wants the image they will simply ask the agency for the exclusivity they need (region, time, business sector etc.).  AND the agency who actually dealt with the request was not even my agency but their sub-agent -  Getty.  If I had supplied and marked all my photographs as exclusive to one agency I would have lost this "exclusive" sale.  If I need help carrying home the fee I'll let you know.

 

If generalist agencies substantially differentiated, rather than homogenized the fees they charge then I might be more persuaded. If image supply to the media had adequate image theft deterrence embedded so that exclusive could actually be guaranteed then I might be persuaded. And if agencies did not pass on legal responsibility for transaction complications to their photographers then I might be persuaded. If having an "only available on " tab guaranteed a higher fee then I might be persuaded.  But if an agency does not heavily edit contributors submissions and does not demand image exclusivity from its photographers then that is a very good indication that they are not really in the exclusive business.  

 

As it is, I think going exclusive might save on the work of supplying to extra agencies but it would definitely mean losing potential income.  The practice of the crowd-sourcing agencies themselves over the last few years would seem to be in agreement with this.  "Exclusive", as a business plan, is seen as old school. Not saying I agree.  Just saying.

 

Regards,

 

D.

[Doc]

 

I only sell my images on Alamy - I dont even sell them from a website. I just asked MS to tick all my (20K+) images as only available on Alamy, and they did so within a couple of days. Too, new images I keyword also are now automatically ticked.

 

Seems to me that there must be a subgroup of buyers who would be interested to see images only available on Alamy, or know if they were only available on Alamy, and I would guess Alamy may well consider making it more obvious if they have a decent number of images which are indicated as such. 

 

Ideally I would like to see a tab "Only available on Alamy" next to "New" "Relevant" and "Creative"

 

Given that it is so easy and quick to delineate ones' images as such (and would be presumably similarly easy in the future to "de-delineate" them if one decided to sell elsewhere,) I would recommend doing it - Alamy - are you reading this?!

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

 

Kumar, (and the other good folks here)

 

I can see how exclusivity might be attractive to those who already have incomes from alternative sources, retirement pensions etc. but would you recommend only selling through one agency as a sensible strategy to someone who needs to make a substantial part of the income needed to support themselves solely from photography?

 

This also seems counter-intuitive at exactly the same time as many agencies are converging, in various guises, to desiring contributors move their licensing to Royalty Free  -  which could be seen as the polar opposite of Exclusive Rights Managed.

 

Also, in my experience, many agencies now make little or no effort to gain premium fees for premium / exclusive photography preferring to automate income from multiple, low, homogenized fees and client annual subscription deals.  It is seldom the case that general editorial work entices end clients to pay higher fees for exclusive use simply because it is rare that the client would need exclusivity for general editorial or general travel shots.  Of course we can be lucky every now and then but high / exclusive fees are more likely for high-end studio or complex location shooting or inventive conceptual photography which are not really areas that Alamy is known for  -  they are just not seen as that kind of agency.  As to whether there would be a subgroup of buyers who would be interested to see images only available on Alamy this is swimming very much against the current tendency of all and every agency now sub-contracting their photographers images through all and every other agency.  A client who really needs exclusivity tends to go to an agency which specializes in specific, exclusive images very specifically shot for that sector of the market  -  that is why those agencies have very tight submission criteria  -  the client is buying the exclusive style as much as they are buying the exclusive image.

 

Of course what might be good for the agency is not necessarily good for the photographer.

 

I would suggest anyone NEEDING to make a living from photography MUST either work through multiple outlets AND / OR have their various sets of exclusive quality work placed individually with various high-end exclusive quality agencies. Either way its not a freewill choice but a necessity.

 

One of my agencies has just requested I give them exclusive authorization for a financial services billboard campaign for one of my multi agency RM images (an illustrative location shot).  The other agencies have straightforwardly and kindly agreed to suspend the image for the time period involved.  If the client really wants the image they will simply ask the agency for the exclusivity they need (region, time, business sector etc.).  AND the agency who actually dealt with the request was not even my agency but their sub-agent -  Getty.  If I had supplied and marked all my photographs as exclusive to one agency I would have lost this "exclusive" sale.  If I need help carrying home the fee I'll let you know.

 

If generalist agencies substantially differentiated, rather than homogenized the fees they charge then I might be more persuaded. If image supply to the media had adequate image theft deterrence embedded so that exclusive could actually be guaranteed then I might be persuaded. And if agencies did not pass on legal responsibility for transaction complications to their photographers then I might be persuaded. If having an "only available on " tab guaranteed a higher fee then I might be persuaded.  But if an agency does not heavily edit contributors submissions and does not demand image exclusivity from its photographers then that is a very good indication that they are not really in the exclusive business.  

 

As it is, I think going exclusive might save on the work of supplying to extra agencies but it would definitely mean losing potential income.  The practice of the crowd-sourcing agencies themselves over the last few years would seem to be in agreement with this.  "Exclusive", as a business plan, is seen as old school. Not saying I agree.  Just saying.

 

Regards,

 

D.

 

David

 

I would not disagree with you for a moment - if a photographer was highly reliant on stock sales I would certainly recommend selling through multiple agencies - but I think there is room for both methods/options - and within Alamy with 100 million images and 35,000+ photogs, there is also clearly room to cater to both types of photographer. 

 

Certainly one of the problems many of us have with the Alamy model is that in the end (rightly) Alamy looks after itself first and its contributors after that. BUT, given the fact that some photographers do only sell through Alamy, and given the fact that these days many purchasers shop around to find the image they want at the cheapest price, I maintain that it must be a win/win tactic for Alamy, their purchasers and their Alamy only contributors to have an "Alamy-Only" collection

 

Kind regards

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

[Betty LaRue]

I agree, Kumar.

Those who submit to multiple agencies know exactly why they do so. But there is a contingency of people, who, due to time constraints or other reasons, cannot manage the time and research of agencies, or the handling and bookkeeping of it all. They only submit to Alamy, period.

 

If Alamy set up an "Only at Alamy" option on the search page, it would streamline the process for buyers. No longer would they need to search multiple agencies to find the best price when they find that perfect image.

Win/win for everyone.

I do understand why those who submit to multiple agencies might resent being left out of that category, though.

Betty

[Marianne]

The upside: I had an RF image with another agency that had been licensed a few times before and even knowing this a client paid $750 for one-year exclusive use, I got 50%. It was more than I imagined I'd earn in a year so I went with it, though some may see this as a low price. It was an abstract design and not something I would have expected to be licensed that way. So, I guess you never know what a client may be seeking. 

 

The downside: I license images from my website and have a few exclusively with agencies.  I've gotten quite a few inquiries from potential buyers about them (since my site shows images available as stock as well as other examples of my work) and then I have to send them to those agencies, where I will earn less after a commission than if I licensed them myself. On balance, some sell frequently enough (since they end up higher in searches) that it is usually (but not always) worth it

 

The upside. Exclusive images at other sites mean those images appear higher in searches, which improves my overall rank, so it brings up my entire portfolio.The images I have exclusively also always get licensed for a higher price even when the buyer isn't purchasing an exclusive license. 

 

If Alamy did that I'd be inclined to tick it off for some photos as an experiment, but I agree that the bulk of my work should be potentially available to various agencies. I have a lot of images that are only on Alamy, but I still want to be able to license them from my website, as well as directly to calendar companies and other publishers I work with. With falling prices, I don't want to be locked in with a large part of my portfolio, but I'd be willing to tick it off for some of my regular sellers here at Alamy, if there was a real benefit. I've had a slew of searches and many zooms in the past couple of weeks for out of the way locations and I figure buyers are likely to be looking to Alamy for that sort of thing, so having them ticked "exclusive" on Alamy would be worthwhile. I'd also want to be sure that I could still sell many of these images on POD sites, even if it was limited to prints and not products, where products are applicable ( i.e. certain non-editorial images - if I think it works on a product, a buyer may want it for one too, so that again would be out). I've found that some of my scenic travel images do well as prints and here on Alamy, which is why most are RM, no personal use, and I'd want to keep being able to make print sales since they can be quite lucrative.