NYCat Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 A discussion has been taking place in ASK THE FORUM because a contributor has had money sitting with Alamy for years and is not interested in continuing but would like the money he earned. I think this is a better place to discuss ideas. With the lowering of prices we receive for images and the lowering of the percentage we receive it seems to be time to lower the payment threshold again. Also some provision could be made for people who have gone without a payout for a year or two and have money they have earned but not received. Either Alamy could automatically pay out moneys earned to people who have an amount that doesn't reach the threshold for a year or two with no payout or there could be a policy where we could request a payout after a year or two of no payouts. Not sure I have expressed that well but I hope people will add to this thread. This is the place in the forum where Alamy requests ideas. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokie Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 I agree. Perhaps pay out what's owing once a year, either at the end of each calendar or financial year. Also bring down the monthly payout threshold level to $150. John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 In my humble opinion the only reasonable solution would be for Alamy to choose an annual date where outstanding balances under the minimum payout amount would be paid. It does not make sense to encourage contributors to pull images and cancel their accounts (maybe there is something that I do not know?) It would also make sense that anyone not reaching the minimum payout amount more than several times a year is not doing enough to make it worth their while or Alamy's while to continue? Did I just respond to the wrong thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Jenkins Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 I really support this proposal and hope Alamy will take it seriously. Why? 1. It is, by any definition, money that has been earned by US initially. OK, Alamy HAVE marketed/sold but without our work in the first place etc etc... 2. I would bet, in simple language, that Alamy's cash flow is a bl**dy sight healthiier than mine - I go under, my contributions cease, Alamy loses. 3. I cannot morally understand what is the basis for keeping back what is due to us the way it currently works. 4. Add up ALL the 'owed' payments across the Alamy platform at any one time, do a simple interest calculation and bingo - that's why!! NJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 I agree with Paulette...as ridiculous as it sounds, the $146 balance in my account would help finance future shoots (and at the very least would help to pay for two month's worth of Creative Cloud fees). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 In my humble opinion the only reasonable solution would be for Alamy to choose an annual date where outstanding balances under the minimum payout amount would be paid. It does not make sense to encourage contributors to pull images and cancel their accounts (maybe there is something that I do not know?) It would also make sense that anyone not reaching the minimum payout amount more than several times a year is not doing enough to make it worth their while or Alamy's while to continue? Did I just respond to the wrong thread? Chuck, i think that last paragraph is a little harsh. There are some of us who work damn hard to produce work but don't necessarily have all the time in the world to compete with some of the top pros on here. Personally, as I sit writing this at my desk, I have a 3 week old baby screaming behind me; the missus has gone out for the morning and I can get knack all done. Do I work hard? You bet I do. But at the same time I try hard, and fail at times, to have family life too. Stock is my only source of income and this year has been the first where things have been on the up. I've had sales through Alamy but not a lot. When there are so many images within Alamy competiting with each other that will also have an impact too. Oh, and Nick a +1 from me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Gaffen Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 It can be a bit frustrating, especially when your monthly total falls just under the $175.00 cut-off, and you have to wait another month for your payout! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Limb Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 A thread very similar to this ran some time ago - 18 months ago may be. At that time the end result was a reduction in the cut off to the current $175.00 from (I think) $250.00. At the time I said it was not the way forward, leave it at $250.00 but have a annual pay out, or even more frequent, of all money owed above a minimal amount of say $10.00, if we do not then the same will be asked in a future discussion, which is where we are now! So leave the cut off at the current $175.00 for the monthly and have an annual, or more frequent pay out - stock photograph is a long term commitment so a wait, maximum 1 year, if you are below a threshold, for your money should not be an issue. Or, playing the devils advocate, why not the payment model of the 'old' film days - a pay out every three months for every one on cleared money? Your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokie Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Ideally keep the monthly payout but reduce it to $150 or even better, $100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Jools, I am a stay at home parent and I can assure you that I've had to write IPTC information while helping a five year-old read more than once. That is the main reason that I am not doing assignment work any longer. I was one of those in favor of keeping the payout amount at $250.00 and I've worked with other agencies that had a much higher amount. It costs Alamy money and takes staff time to process payouts. Anything that costs Alamy money or takes staff time will end up costing the contributors. The comment I made that you responded to was not intend to be "harsh", just realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Jools, I am a stay at home parent and I can assure you that I've had to write IPTC information while helping a five year-old read more than once. That is the main reason that I am not doing assignment work any longer. I was one of those in favor of keeping the payout amount at $250.00 and I've worked with other agencies that had a much higher amount. It costs Alamy money and takes staff time to process payouts. Anything that costs Alamy money or takes staff time will end up costing the contributors. The comment I made that you responded to was not intend to be "harsh", just realistic. It can not cost that much to process payments to justify such a high payment threshold for a major image library. Before setting up as a photographer, I used to work in finance and paying people was part of my job. All done electronically at the flick of a button. 20 years ago, yes i could see it. In 2013, sorry I can't see it. It's like the banks. Let's charge you an astronomical fee for going over your overdraft limit knowing full well that it costs them knack all. And as Nick said. All the cash that they aren't paying out is gathering interest somewhere. I'm sure both you and I would love the amount of cash that the interest makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flotsom Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 I think a threshold of $100 would be much fairer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Jenkins Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Whichever way this goes I still very strongly believe the current position is unfair and unenforceable. There have been some very good suggestions here so let's hope Alamy takes this on board. nj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Check out the 2nd part of the CEO Q&A. A response that will please those of us wanting the payout lowered. The definitive response and nice to hear he bashes the finance team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokie Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I wonder how much it would cost Alamy to pay out any cleared funds at the end of every month, regardless of reaching the $175 threshold? John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Jenkins Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 As they haven't answered this at all - we, er, don't know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Nick, James did answer the question about lowering the threshold. He said "yes" but what we don't know is when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alamy Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Thanks, there are some good ideas here. In James West's (CEO) recent video he confirmed that we are determined to lower the payment threshold. You can view it here in part 2: http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2013/06/21/5400.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizair Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Thanks Alamy. It may not be on the top of your to-do list for good reason, but at least he intention is now clear. In regard to the cost of such an exercise, perhaps think about the various means of payment. A cheque payment is expensive and may warrant a higher threshold. Paypal and direct transfer payments must be much lower as far as your costs go, and could conceivably be made automatic. Therefore could a dual threshold payment model be possible eg. High threshold for high processing cost payments, but much lower threshold for those payments involving little processing cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alamy Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Thanks Alamy. It may not be on the top of your to-do list for good reason, but at least he intention is now clear. In regard to the cost of such an exercise, perhaps think about the various means of payment. A cheque payment is expensive and may warrant a higher threshold. Paypal and direct transfer payments must be much lower as far as your costs go, and could conceivably be made automatic. Therefore could a dual threshold payment model be possible eg. High threshold for high processing cost payments, but much lower threshold for those payments involving little processing cost. We stopped paying by cheque a while ago for all payments. Only payment options are paypal, moneybookers and funds transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladikirn Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Well, it's time for my 2 cents (while I still have them ) My bank takes 50 SEK. = 7.7$. If threshold gets lower and lower than, one day I might have to pay the bank 7.7$$ to get my eg. 5.0$$ No, but no thanks. Seriously, if there are contributors so eager to run to the bank for any coin, I suggest to make it optional. Ig. Alamy pays out only on contributors demand. Now I better go and hide myself But first, cheers to all. Ladi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 29, 2013 Share Posted July 29, 2013 My filthy rich Canadian bank charges me $15 for each incoming wire transfer, so a lower threshold would probably mean more payments and hence more banking fees. Having said that, with the drop in image prices and lower commissions, it is getting more difficult to reach the magic $175 mark. Payout on contributor demand -- with a minimum threshold of say $50(?) -- seems like a good idea to me. That way just about everyone would be happy. P.S. I know that I could switch to PayPal and avoid the transfer fee, but it is slower and those USD come in handy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dov makabaw Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 I have overcome the bank charges on wire transfers by designationg a USD deposit/savings account for receipts. A simple but effective solution. dov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.