Submitting to Alamy and other stock agencies - RF images

[Brasilnut]

Quote

Since 2007, I have grown my micro portfolio to between 280 to 328 images ...total payment from this small number of images is $US 25,001.84 

 

Blasphemy! 

 

That's an impressive RPI/YEAR at $8 per image per year. These days, in Microstockland, anything above $5/RPI/YEAR is considered excellent. Beautiful underwater images...did you find Nemo? I just did a quick search for fish-related keywords on one of the bigger Microstock sites and your images appear regularly.

 

Quote

but I personally find it difficult to comprehend why a business arrangement would be slanted so much in the favour of the middleman/the broker/payment processor and find artists that even when they realise this, find that acceptable and not an insult? Puzzling. 

 

Agreed. I think the way it works is that Agencies exploit the belief that the majority of Microstock contributors are quite happy to receive anything at all for images that would otherwise be gathering digital dust.  I mean many of these people are used to just posting images on social media and receiving likes, so to be able to earn 25 cents to be used by a blog, wow that's awesome (so they figure). Eventually, they (should) catch on that's it a bad deal and look elsewhere be more profitable opportunities (as I'm doing here at Alamy with my editorial work).

 

In any case, humans are prone to make irrational decisions. If you ever go to Vegas and visit the Venetian you'll see that they've introduced a triple zero roulette table. In Europe, one zero is standard (2.70% house edge), in the US, two zeros are standard (5.26% house edge). But three zeroes gives the house a whopping 7.70% house edge...yet people still play? 

 

Quote

micro-licence would have to be only for micro uses.

 

 How would you define: "micro use"? Small circulation...non-corporate clients?

 

It's all so confusing...what clients is simplicity + flexibility and that's why subscriptions packages are so easy to understand for clients (not promoting here just stating the facts).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brasilnut]

Quote

Individual images may be cheap elsewhere but it usually requires a subscription. 

 

There's non-subscription sales, but they do cost considerably more per basic usage image (not promoting here)...in fact about 15-20x more on average.

[Southmind]

"Since 2007, I have grown my micro portfolio to between 280 to 328 images ...total payment from this small number of images is $US 25,001.84 "

 

Sure , I started in 2007 too,  but I won a lot more in the first years than now (with an equivalent number of images). If you started with 300 images now, it will take 50 years to win the same amount... 

[John Richmond]

25 minutes ago, funkyworm said:

There are more options for our work than just either Alamy or Micro's. Just that sometimes you have to make product for those market places.

Quite agree.  It makes absolutely no business sense to offer the same product into what is an overlapping set of market places at two different price points.  It does make sense to offer two ranges, one more suited to the microstock buyer, one to the Alamy market place, and place them appropriately. 

[Martin Carlsson]

Someone asked why Alamy allows the same images on here as well as micro at the same time. Could be as simple as Alamy thinking so highly of its contributors, both as artists and businesspeople, thus can't even fathom that they would be so self-destructive as to compete with themselves on price? (irony were applicable).

 

Perhaps the younger generation and "newers" are even more short-sighted than the previous one? I mean my parents generations were the last where you were loyal to A job, worked you way up, earned promotion etc., my generation - a lot more sideways career moves to achieve the same thing, but usually within the same broad industry - next generation destined for multiple different careers throughout their lives. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a bit like our Swedish "Allemansrätt" (everyman's right/freedom to roam) - i.e. leave it like you arrived to it (or better), you do not disturb, you do not destroy - that is carved into our cores - don't follow the code and you'll be.....well you just don't, you think of others, not just yourself.

[Brasilnut]

Quote

Perhaps the younger generation and "newers" are even more short-sighted than the previous one? I mean my parents generations were the last where you were loyal to A job, worked you way up, earned promotion etc., my generation - a lot more sideways career moves to achieve the same thing, but usually within the same broad industry - next generation destined for multiple different careers throughout their lives. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a bit like our Swedish "Allemansrätt" (everyman's right/freedom to roam) - i.e. leave it like you arrived to it (or better), you do not disturb, you do not destroy - that is carved into our cores - don't follow the code and you'll be.....well you just don't, you think of others, not just yourself.

 

I lived in the Netherlands for many years and I have a great admiration for northern European countries (especially Scandinavian countries). High standards of living, highly educated people and a fair egalitarian system of governance (low corruption), at least in theory. 

 

The rest cannot be said for 95% of the rest of the world where it's more of a "dog eat dog" type short-term mentality. I'll repeat this statistic which I think is important: 

 

On one of the major Microstock sites, 34% of their contributors with a portfolio of more than 999 images live in Thailand, Russia and the Ukraine. 

 

As for "multiple different careers": I agree that technology has made it possible to have many different careers in a lifetime. In the next 15 years with automation, we'll quickly see some careers being completely decimated / transformed by the use of machines, including: retail, delivery, transportation, call centre workers. I wrote about that in my blog. 

 

 

[Martin Carlsson]

Thanks for the kind words. Just wanted to point out that, even though "Scandis" and our society sometimes can sound like epitome of civility, it isn't without faults - alcohol is so expensive that it was just easier to become more or less tee-total...and with that the dancing stopped - so no samba here  You "southerners" are way better at enjoying life and having fun - very serious up here - it's the darkness (you can actually get light therapy prescribed, and kids have to take vitamin B drops for years).

 

But yes, the world is unfair and I understand your arguments that in some parts of the world just earning is way more important than any high and lofty moral opinions about art/longevity etc. Totally get that, a dynamic topic and I do feel bad that I can afford to be high and lofty about it all, when others can't, it shouldn't be like that 2017. However, if we ring-fence this topic to just those within almost the same economic sphere as us mighty Scandis (tongue-in-cheek), people with relatively free choice, who can afford to think long term - those I find puzzling, especially with where things are heading - why would a Swede, a Brit, a German or Northern American be able to as of today to see a future in microstock, as something worthwhile to invest time in? I fail to see it and I fail to see how mixing both with the same stuff isn't anything but detrimental.

 

PS.

Alexandre - I know that you're battling what to do in regards to micro/mid/macro etc....go with the gut, the same gut that makes you question it - therein lies your answer - dare to be brave, dare to make a difficult choice. I've said it before, you got the tenacity and a very positive attitude, just need to value you work more. Close up shop "over there" and come on over fully to this side, you can't be a Swede about it (neutral, in the middle), you know you want to...come on.. hahaha

[Brasilnut]

Quote

But yes, the world is unfair and I understand your arguments that in some parts of the world just earning is way more important than any high and lofty moral opinions about art/longevity etc. 

 

Yes. Many parts of the world are only 2 meals away from complete civil war and ethnic cleansing. If these poor souls can get some snapshots up and earn $50 a month, doesn't matter how and where, they'll do it. I don't judge them. 

 

Quote

You "southerners" are way better at enjoying life and having fun - very serious up here - it's the darkness (you can actually get light therapy prescribed, and kids have to take vitamin B drops for years).

 

Yea, that's why there's an economic crisis going on in southern Europe!

 

Quote

Alexandre - I know that you're battling what to do in regards to micro/mid/macro etc....go with the gut, the same gut that makes you question it - therein lies your answer - dare to be brave, dare to make a difficult choice. I've said it before, you got the tenacity and a very positive attitude, just need to value you work more. Close shop and come on over fully to this side, you can't be a Swede about it (neutral, in the middle), you know you want to...come on.. hahaha

 

Thanks. I'm sticking with it on here on a long-term basis and submitting less and less on Micros (usually the non-released generic boring left-over shots). All editorials going on here and since I do travel photography, it's 80% of my shots.

 

Quote

very positive attitude

 

Not sure about positive attitude when I'm secretly preparing for the apocalypse. Sweden will be a nice place to ride out the nuclear fall-out - beautiful women too.

 

 

 

 

[Octavio Campos Salles]

11 hours ago, cbimages said:

Since 2007, I have grown my micro portfolio to between 280 to 328 images (depending on the site and what they accepted), so it can be seen that I really haven't put a great deal off effort into shooting especially for micros.

 

However, thus far, until the end of August this year, my total payment from this small number of images is $US 25,001.84 plus there's another couple of hundred dollars not yet paid. 

 

 

This is very surprising to me. I would have never guessed that with such a low number of images one could make as much as $25k with micro, congrats. But that is gross profit I imagine, correct? What percentage did you get from that? Also, I imagine you are the exception of the exception in the micro world - not too many people shooting underwater I guess. Even then, if you compare the number of images you have here with the number of images you have in micro and your profits, I wonder why you are not moving everything to micro? Could you explain the logic here? These numbers are hard to explain by themselves.

 

I kind of agree with geogphotos idea of a micro price for truly micro uses. By micro I mean personal use (that already exists here, actually), school/university presentations, tiny business website, etc. However, wouldn't that open a big door to infringement?

[Martin Carlsson]

15 minutes ago, Octavio Campos Salles said:

 

This is very surprising to me. I would have never guessed that with such a low number of images one could make as much as $25k with micro, congrats. But that is gross profit I imagine, correct? What percentage did you get from that? Also, I imagine you are the exception of the exception in the micro world - not too many people shooting underwater I guess. Even then, if you compare the number of images you have here with the number of images you have in micro and your profits, I wonder why you are not moving everything to micro? Could you explain the logic here? These numbers are hard to explain by themselves.

 

I kind of agree with geogphotos idea of a micro price for truly micro uses. By micro I mean personal use (that already exists here, actually), school/university presentations, tiny business website, etc. However, wouldn't that open a big door to infringement?

 

I would assume that he's talking net.

[Martin Carlsson]

1 hour ago, Brasilnut said:

Not sure about positive attitude when I'm secretly preparing for the apocalypse. Sweden will be a nice place to ride out the nuclear fall-out - beautiful women too.

 

 

Fingers crossed for no fall-out - been through that before after Chernobyl and it's just not a nice feeling knowing that radioactive stuff made it's way into the foodchain (mushrooms, reindeer etc.). Proud to say that women here have the opportunity to be strong, independent and inching closer to complete equality on all levels - male chauvinism is totes dead here. They're also tall, about the same height on average as the average Brazilian man (FYI).

[Bill Brooks]

9 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

As I have posted before the great shame to me is that Alamy and its contributors are missing out on this vast new market.

 

 

Agree 100%, and I think Alamy are working on it.

Not usually microstock, but microstock if necessary, would be my Alamy solution.

[Bill Brooks]

3 hours ago, Octavio Campos Salles said:

Even then, if you compare the number of images you have here with the number of images you have in micro and your profits, I wonder why you are not moving everything to micro? Could you explain the logic here? These numbers are hard to explain by themselves.

 

Not answering for CBimages but I have seen so many changes in this industry that I would never put all my eggs in one microstock basket. 

You need multiple alternate sources of income. RF, RM, prints, microstock, macrostock, your own books, teaching, leading travel tours, assignments etc.

The great thing about Alamy is you are not forced into one niche. Shoot whatever images you want, choose RM or RF, choose alternate Alamy sources of income if you want, with Alamy determining pricing to meet the marketplace.

The most successful stock photographer in the world shoots microstock exclusively, so I hope Alamy finds a sweet place between microstock and it’s present business model.

[Bill Brooks]

14 hours ago, cbimages said:

 

Please don't shoot me down.......but I want to add my 5 cents worth.

 

I do hope that I haven't offended anyone,

 

Don’t worry about being shot down or offending people. Your information is very valuable to everyone.

+1 from me for your information that started a really good, informative, idea filled, discussion.

[cbimages]

9 hours ago, Octavio Campos Salles said:

 

This is very surprising to me. I would have never guessed that with such a low number of images one could make as much as $25k with micro, congrats. But that is gross profit I imagine, correct? What percentage did you get from that? Also, I imagine you are the exception of the exception in the micro world - not too many people shooting underwater I guess. Even then, if you compare the number of images you have here with the number of images you have in micro and your profits, I wonder why you are not moving everything to micro? Could you explain the logic here? These numbers are hard to explain by themselves.

 

I kind of agree with geogphotos idea of a micro price for truly micro uses. By micro I mean personal use (that already exists here, actually), school/university presentations, tiny business website, etc. However, wouldn't that open a big door to infringement?

Octavio, the $25K is payments made to me thus far. The net result.

 

Why am I not moving everything to micro? - I did explain my thoughts on shooting specifically for micro. I do tend to stick to that ideal most of the time. And over the years I have found that "pretty fish" images are generally good micro sellers, as are sharks. As I dive basically the same areas all the time when on a dive trip, I'm very familiar with where and how to shoot these kinds of images. Most are shot while I'm doing my decompression/ safety stops in shallow water. Most of my RM here on Alamy would probably not be good sellers on the micros.

 

When I decided to offer some images on micros, it really was to diversify my options. I could see the downward trend in pricing. And because health issues forced me to retire earlier than I had wanted, I needed to make more $ from my photography if I still wanted to travel. Also, because I live in Australia, the exchange rate has been advantageous. Last year I was getting as much as $AUD1.40 per $US, now our dollar is stronger that has dropped to $1.22.

[Cryptoprocta]

14 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Why do they not limit their licence to small micro uses - why do they allow global publishers the same licence at the same crazy price?

Cost of policing that would be prohibitive.

[Brasilnut]

Quote

After all you trust your agencies not to cheat on you don't you?

 

I trust the agencies I work with but to be honest I don't trust some of the ones within their partner programs. I won't go into details here obviously. 

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

I doubt that major commercial organisations in publishing routinely try and cheat by pretending that they are something that they are not.

 

Why would an employee put their head on the chopping block to do that?

 

And if that is the case then we are all lost because the stock photo business runs on a huge amount of trust.

 

After all you trust your agencies not to cheat on you don't you?

 

Sorry,  but I think this stuff about how micros are forced to sell for pennies to mega-publishers because it is hard to police misuse is just nonsense.

 

Nothing personal. To me it's just another of those fake-news stories that the owners and supporters of micros disseminate. There have been SO MANY of them!

Actually, no,  I don't fully trust the agencies to work in my best interest. And I don't trust the buyers. Self-policing is too easy to abuse.

 

For example, when I had to do all the work to establish the Muddle not reporting 21 sales of one of my files, then - 20 months from me first notifying them - Alamy charged them an amount much lower price than they would have paid at the time the file was used. Encouraging theft.

 

Another example: when I had a zoom on an image - on a Sunday - from a series which hadn't had any interest before or since, and a personal use sale was noted from the same Sunday. When I questioned that, I was told, " ...the image was licensed by a guest user so their activity wouldn’t have been recorded." Well, there is a very tiny chance that it was a pure coincidence, I must concede, but it wasn't even a pictorial image.

 

And as for "why would an employee put their head on the chopping block", maybe because their employer ordered them to do it via their own account.

 

Look at how Alamy won't chase up abuses outwith a few legislations: it's just too expensive.

 

[Cryptoprocta]

.

[Cryptoprocta]

13 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

So instead of micros charging corporate users $100 for an image your argument is that some of them might cheat so it is better to charge all of them $1.

 

 

Don't put words into my mouth.

 

And you know as well as I do that corporate users are the ones most likely to get huge discounts, here on Alamy as elsewhere. I've had RM images on Alamy sell for tiny amounts with near-RF uses granted. Far more than I've had $100 sales. Which thereby could exclude them from getting high value sales down the line.

[Brasilnut]

Quote

So instead of micros charging corporate users $100 for an image your argument is that some of them might cheat so it is better to charge all of them $1.

 

Look at what Netflix has done. Before there were a bunch of people streaming/downloading illegally for free.

 

Now, some have gone from such practices to paying customers. I think something similar applies to Microstock.

 

Of course some people still refuse to pay Netflix and will keep on downloading and streaming illegally...same with stock photos, doesn't matter how cheap or flexible you make it, some people will want it for free for the hell of it. 

 

[Brasilnut]

Quote

"Why do they not limit their licence to small micro uses - why do they allow global publishers the same licence at the same crazy price?"

 

On some Agencies you can license a 400px on longest side image for "credits". Like 1 credit = $1...outside of a subscription model. In this case it would be for micro usage since what can you do with a 400px image even if usage is quite wide...if someone does print it on a cover of a brochure it's going to look terrible. 

[Martin Carlsson]

6 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Hmm..   don't think that I'm going to get an answer here.

 

I'm trying to find a justification for micro stock businesses selling images for a 500,000 print run with indefinite unlimited editorial and commercial repeat uses to corporate publishers for the same price as for a high school student's homework or a church group's newsletter.

 

So far:

 

* can't charge more as too difficult to police misuses

* Netflix

 

Any more offers?

 

There isn't a "justification" besides from company POV it's easy and profitable, one step up from a vending machine.

 

and I agree that the NetFlix analogy doesn't really work. It is just another channel that I pay for. Almost all other channels have view on demand, have had for years, as well as movies on demand too. Spotify and similar is probably more applicable, but I don't hear the artists being content with that. Top ones might make some money, but lesser ones don't - it's all in selling concerts and merch to earn now AFAIK.

[Martin Carlsson]

1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

Exactly and there we have the basic problem of micro stock and why the current business model is so damaging.

 

But one can't compare a freshly made Subway sandwich to the sweaty sniffy compressed stuff that tumbles out of the vending machine....with that I'm trying to say that people will always be willing to pay more for something that has been made with a bit of care, soul, personality and not rolled down a conveyor belt heading for a vending machine... (unsure if I can take myself seriously after this paragraph - sorry!)

[Brasilnut]

Quote

I'm trying to find a justification for micro stock businesses selling images for a 500,000 print run with indefinite unlimited editorial and commercial repeat uses to corporate publishers for the same price as to a high school student or church group.

 

Try to look at Microstock usage like an all-you-can-eat buffet. It's affordable catering to the differing tastes of customers.  

 

Smaller private clients are like most children, they'll eat the cheaper crap food: french fries, bread sticks and sugary desserts.

- Limited usage of licenses, few reproductions

 

Bigger clients are like smart adults: They'll go for the filet mignon, seafood and chocolate mousse. If they want sashimi, they'll have to pay extra. 

- Take reproductions to the limit, take usages to the limit

 

Children usually pay less for the buffets (since they consume less) but for the sake of the analogy, let's assume that they pay the same price. Crucially, the restaurant is offering choice, just like children can select for filet mignon and seafood and smart adults can have french fries and bread sticks.

 

At the end of the day, what Microstock agencies aim to offer is low-cost, convenience and most importantly, flexibility. Where they fall is in quality. 

Disclaimer: I'm by no means promoting or supporting Microstock.