Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, KODAKovic said:

 

Betty, just a question about your RF sales: do you think they could sell for cents on micro?

I'm asking 'cause at the beginning of my Alamy experience i doubled my port on Alamy and some other micro agencies and i noticed some images have been downloaded for .25$ there and for 50$ here. 

I simply struggle nowadays with this customers behaviour: how is it possible to pay the same image 100 times more ???

Sorry, I don’t have the slightest idea about how they would sell on micros. I would, in any case never offer the same image at both agencies. I’ll commit suicide some other way, thankyouverymuch. :P

Betty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

You can sell an RM image over and over unless the buyer requests exclusitivity for a term, or even in a particular industry. In 10 years, I’ve never had a request for that. 

The four figure sales I refer to above are restricted now for that particular use for a period of time but can be sold for other uses during that time frame.  In other words the buyers wanted exclusivity for those uses.

 

Pearl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Betty, just a question about your RF sales: do you think they could sell for cents on micro?

I'm asking 'cause at the beginning of my Alamy experience i doubled my port on Alamy and some other micro agencies and i noticed some images have been downloaded for .25$ there and for 50$ here. 

I simply struggle nowadays with this customers behaviour: how is it possible to pay the same image 100 times more ???

 

The reasoning is that if images are duplicated between here and micros, buyers would purchase it cheaper on micros...especially if they have a monthly subscription package. There's no real evidence to suggest that buyers search elsewhere, although in theory it does make sense to shop around (we all do for airline tickets so why not image licensing).

 

I had a strange episode today. The following image was zoomed today on here:

 

Industrial greenhouse with colourful flowers in the Netherlands Stock Photo

 

Then, it was purchased a sub on a well known micro site. Now, this is an image that is a few years' old and doesn't get many downloads anymore on micros so it's suspicious. Will I pull it off micros, nah, but I'm cautious on new stuff I try to duplicate, especially editorials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

 

The reasoning is that if images are duplicated between here and micros, buyers would purchase it cheaper on micros...especially if they have a monthly subscription package. There's no real evidence to suggest that buyers search elsewhere, although in theory it does make sense to shop around (we all do for airline tickets so why not image licensing).

 

I had a strange episode today. The following image was zoomed today on here:

 

Industrial greenhouse with colourful flowers in the Netherlands Stock Photo

 

Then, it was purchased a sub on a well known micro site. Now, this is an image that is a few years' old and doesn't get many downloads anymore on micros so it's suspicious. Will I pull it off micros, nah, but I'm cautious on new stuff I try to duplicate, especially editorials.

 

Yeah.. in Google Chome, if I right-click on the above image and select 'Search Google for Image', I do find the image on the well known micro site within seconds.

Some buyers (maybe the one who bought your image) will be clever enough to do this.. others won't. It also depends on how they want to use the image and how many 'print runs' they require.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came to Alamy from micros where I get sales of mostly editorials.  I have editorial images that sold both on micros for pennies and here for a lot more.

The only explanation for this that I have is that the customers of Alamy's that did this do not have accounts anywhere else and are not interested in widening their horizons.

 

I'm considering changing the distribution of my editorial images going forward given that Oct 17 is the first month when my Alamy sales are ahead of the micros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So you don't actually follow your own advice ( see above) about what should be RF and what should be RM.

 

Not sure why you are advising newbies to put everything as RF when you aren't doing so. 

 

Since going exclusive with Alamy for most editorials, I admit that I put them more as RM than as per the criteria. 

 

A Nigerian refugee poses for a photo in Milan, Italy. His  nickname is "Elvis". Europe is undergroing a refugee Stock Photo

 

This one is RM since it's a "unique story". I had to approach him on street and build rapport, then ask if I could take his pic. He was friendly enough but most others refused (even if I offered some payment).

 

Not advising anybody, everybody is free to have their own systems. In fact, I'm not even sure mine works on here as I've only had 24 sales so far...just a nice discussion.

 

You get way more sales with a portfolio that is 17x larger. Therefore, you're much more of an authority on the subject than I am. 

 

I hope we can go out for a pint one day and have a nice chat :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I'd have a dabble with RF to see how it goes, so I've now got about 7% of my portfolio available as RF. I can see why image buyers might prefer to pay more for the RF licence (rather than the RM licence) where they expect to use the image multiple times. But if it's for a one off use why would the buyer pay the HIGHER cost for an RF licence? Well that's how I understood the RF licence would work - higher licence fee than RM for unlimited uses ........ Maybe mine was an exception? Will be keeping a close eye on how my pilot progresses before jumping in much deeper with RF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact everyone here has his/her own opinion about the usage of RM/RF makes me think this confusion gives only benefits to the Agencies.

I believe this model of RM/RF should be completely changed asap: may i suggest a new thing called "RC" (Royalty Custom) where the price takes in account how many search results have been displayed for the content and in which position that was in the query?

For i.e. for a download of "Paris Tour Eiffel" one should pay only .25$ for an image in the first pages while let's say 5$ for pictures foundable between page #5-100 (just an example). That because "Paris Tour Eiffel" is a very popular query and contributors cannot expect too much money from these sales.

For a download of a niche subject the sale could start from 70$ to unlimited depending of the "RM" factors such as time period / nr. of print copies and so on.

I know, it's late and i'm tired... but the thing i'm really tired is the confusion about RM/RF. No one is really sure when to use one or another.

We need something from scratch 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, KODAKovic said:

I know, it's late and i'm tired... but the thing i'm really tired is the confusion about RM/RF. No one is really sure when to use one or another.

 

You too can become unconfused with Doctor Brooks’ big injection of only RF, or RF editorial only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

You too can become unconfused with Doctor Brooks’ big injection of only RF, or RF editorial only.

 

Bill,

i'm gonna inject some RFs here too to see if i properly understood the differences.

At the moment, i agree with many saying RM is the real reason why they stitch with Alamy after a decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am struggling towards an understanding of the underlying principle which, so far, goes something like this. 

If a buyer is looking for a photo of something very well covered, for example, the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam, for editorial use, and has a choice between an RM image and an RF image, there is no reason for them to buy the more expensive RM option, if either image (and with such a popular subject for photographers there will be a large variety to choose from) suits their purpose. So all images of the museum might as well be RF. 

For a unique event, that only a few people may have been able to get to, for example the 2015 Boxing Day floods in Hebden Bridge,  you would be justified in applying the RM option. 

However, a recurring news event, e.g. Notting hill carnival, would probably be better RF since many images will be available.

Any 'unique to me' images, e.g. if I set up a shoot with an unknown model, or happen across a particularly ugly dog, merits an RM license. 

 

So - 

1) any one off event that you happen to be in the middle of and not many others will be suits the RM option.

2) any generic image might as well be RF.

3) An absolutely 'unique to me' image should only ever be RM.

4) a recurring news event, e.g. Notting Hill carnival, is probably best RF 

 

Are these workable principles?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Graham Hardy said:

I am struggling towards an understanding of the underlying principle which, so far, goes something like this. 

If a buyer is looking for a photo of something very well covered, for example, the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam, for editorial use, and has a choice between an RM image and an RF image, there is no reason for them to buy the more expensive RM option, if either image (and with such a popular subject for photographers there will be a large variety to choose from) suits their purpose. So all images of the museum might as well be RF. 

For a unique event, that only a few people may have been able to get to, for example the 2015 Boxing Day floods in Hebden Bridge,  you would be justified in applying the RM option. 

However, a recurring news event, e.g. Notting hill carnival, would probably be better RF since many images will be available.

Any 'unique to me' images, e.g. if I set up a shoot with an unknown model, or happen across a particularly ugly dog, merits an RM license. 

 

So - 

1) any one off event that you happen to be in the middle of and not many others will be suits the RM option.

2) any generic image might as well be RF.

3) An absolutely 'unique to me' image should only ever be RM.

4) a recurring news event, e.g. Notting Hill carnival, is probably best RF 

 

Are these workable principles?

 

 

Graham, you're basically saying something similar i suggested: take in account "popularity" (common subjects, uniqueness, # of search results in a query) for the final price.

None of the contributors (or agencies for what concerns) know before how much a customer is ready to pay for an image. RM/RF this way limits what we could gain from a sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeahh sorry Kodak if I'm repeating what others have said, I usually have to work through things and put them in my own words to fully grasp what the rest of you are  talking about. 😕

I guess I am just expressing the realisation that we are in an absolute buyers market and for any given image there are likely to be hundreds of alternatives for the buyer to choose, and if any are RF then all of them might as well be.  I'm assuming of course that RF is always cheaper than RM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if we cannot second guess the buyers intentsions, whether they might want exclusive one off use, or repeated use or a particular file size, then why do we have to opt for either RF or RM?  Which ever one we choose we are limiting the sales opportunities.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Graham Hardy said:

yeahh sorry Kodak if I'm repeating what others have said, I usually have to work through things and put them in my own words to fully grasp what the ray of you are  talking about. 😕

I guess I am just expressing the realisation that we are in an absolute buyers market and for any given image there are likely to be hundreds of alternatives for the buyer to choose, and if any are RF then all of them might as well be.  I'm assuming of course that RF is always cheaper than RM. 

 

For me it should be:

niche market --> higher prices , let's say >50$

high/medium popularity and first 5 pages in search results --> 5-50$

high popularity and 5-10 pages in search results --> 2-5$

High popularity and >10 page in search results --> micro pricing

 

Latest case suggests a contributor didn't pay too much care in which contents there were already in the market and his/her ranking is low so micro-price is fine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So if we cannot second guess the buyers intentsions, whether they might want exclusive one off use, or repeated use or a particular file size, then why do we have to opt for either RF or RM?  Which ever one we choose we are limiting the sales opportunities.  

 

On here, a buyer can license an RF image as RM on a one-time use basis. So, making it RF gives the buyers more options / flexibility. Going RF instead of RM can be detrimental though as others have pointed out above.  

 

For better or worse, I foresee the stock photography industry moving towards predominately RF usage, even for editorials. The client is king!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'I'm tempted to suggest that if an image is so generic that thousands of near identical ones already exist that the question arises whether it is worth producing eyt another one?'

 

Agreed, but then this is where your ranking comes into play, there may well be thousands of images available, but realistically how many pages will a buyer scroll through ?  For me it's a moot point since my CTR is now at rock bottom. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.