Low fees now the norm?

[CarlMillerPhotos]

On 9/29/2017 at 13:11, Allan Bell said:

 

You are never too old to get a day job. Not in this country anyway.

 

Allan

 

 

 

Went back to my day job in 2008. Saddest day of my life.

[Cryptoprocta]

13 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Do you know what "average" means?

... For most of us here that figure is in excess of $50, somewhat down this year though.

Really? My average alamy net for this year is below $12, and that is calculating at 50%, not taking account of distributor sales.

My all time average since 2009 is about $19 net, again calculating at 50%, not allowing for a few years of 60% or distributor sales.

 

What do you mean by 'most of us here'? Just those who report in the monthly thread?

 

 

[Inchiquin]

41 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Really? My average alamy net for this year is below $12, and that is calculating at 50%, not taking account of distributor sales.

 

 

 

 

I assumed that Mark was talking gross licence fee.

 

My average was well above $50 every year until last year, when it dropped significantly and so far is dropping again this year. My all-time average since 2008 is $60.

 

Alan

 

[Cryptoprocta]

7 minutes ago, Inchiquin said:

 

I assumed that Mark was talking gross licence fee.

 

My average was well above $50 every year until last year, when it dropped significantly and so far is dropping again this year.

 

Alan

 

I'm not sure what the value of quoting gross is, except that it's easy to do the calculation from your home page.

My best earning and averaging year was 2013, but even that was <$43 gross average.

 

[Inchiquin]

4 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I'm not sure what the value of quoting gross is, except that it's easy to do the calculation from your home page.

My best earning and averaging year was 2013, but even that was <$43 gross average.

 

 

The value is that it's the actual licence fee, so it can be directly compared with any other sale without having to factor in distributor discounts. The licence fee is a more relevant indicator of the state of the market than whatever we get out of it, as it directly reflects the value that a customer puts on an image.

 

Alan

[Cryptoprocta]

1 minute ago, Inchiquin said:

 

The value is that it's the actual licence fee, so it can be directly compared with any other sale without having to factor in distributor discounts. The licence fee is a more relevant indicator of the state of the market than whatever we get out of it, as it directly reflects the value that a customer puts on an image.

 

Alan

SpaceCadet's post/challenge to specifically to Marb  was to compare Alamy average with micro average (by then the thread had drifted from your original post).

Micro prices are always (AFAIK) given net, so quoting gross isn't like for like.

[Marb]

So it seems I am not a voice in the wilderness regarding drop in sales and prices per sale here. The whole of stock photography is on a downward slide sadly.

[spacecadet]

8 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

 

Micro prices are always (AFAIK) given net, so quoting gross isn't like for like.

I wasn't aware of that, and I did mean gross, but since Marb wasn't prepared to reveal any averages at all it's a bit academic.

My all-time is $45, falling this year to about $30. I agree with Inch that gross is a better measure. Marb knows his commission rate so he could quote his average gross  if he cared to.

Edit: to whom it may concern, don't bother with the red arrows. They mean nothing to me.

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

Marb knows his commission rate so he could quote his average gross  if he cared to.

Not necessarily.

For example, one company has a Premium Access scheme, in which AIUI  buyers pay a premium in which contributers don't share, then pay a reduced per file rate for which contributors' percentage kicks in.

At least one other has a flat rate for subs sales, so again you don't know your actual percentage, as you don't know the size of the buyer's subscription. Also, with flat-rate subs you have no idea how many of the 'allowed' subs a buyer bought - if they maxed out, the companies wouldn't be in business.

 

Still, I don't know who you mean by 'most of us here'. (And I'm not red arrowing you, in case you wondered).

[Marb]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

Ian,

 

Nothing at all to do with millions of images available on micro sites for pennies, and nothing to do with those photographers who support such a destructive business model? Don't you think that micros could be a substantial part of the reason?

 

The part in bold . That is precisely what many of us said would happen back in the early 2000s when micros got going. And at that time many people who supported micros argued that it was a brand new, distinct market, that the images were of a lower standard, that there would be no 'downward slide'. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand where you are coming from and if I had known about Alamy before I started with microstock 11 years ago I would have backed them and not gone the microstock way if it paid. However, I have to disagree that the images are of lower standard at microstock (perhaps now they are less choosy) as I see a lot of poor images here as well as excellent. I have had rejections at microstock but never had any here so far.

[spacecadet]

7 minutes ago, Marb said:

 

I understand where you are coming from and if I had known about Alamy before I started with microstock 11 years ago I would have backed them and not gone the microstock way if it paid. However, I have to disagree that the images are of lower standard at microstock (perhaps now they are less choosy) as I see a lot of poor images here as well as excellent. I have had rejections at microstock but never had any here so far.

Alamy doesn't edit for content. The micros do.