Jump to content

christian58

Verified
  • Content Count

    280
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by christian58

  1. I don’t think ticking boxes is the problem While Alamy’s strength is its appeal to press, secondary editorial and textbook markets, commercial buyers, who are already spoilt for choice, simply go elsewhere. There is plenty of statistical evidence for this. Aside from the three majors, just about every new agency is now commercial, and large chunks of some specialist agencies are commercial too. Which begs the question: should not Alamy be doing more to promote itself as the top editorial agency, with more emphasis on documentary and hard news, rather than trying to be a jack of all trades? Agreeing 100%. This would be a much better idea! that way one would know if its worthwhile uploading or not.
  2. A: stock-photo editors should filter them before they are going into files. B: of course no buyer is going to filter through 50 million images and they would NOT HAVE TO, if they were filtered by the stock-agency editors at the stage when accepted. What happens if you never cull or edit a selection? yes you do end up with millions of files all in a giant jumble sale down petticoat-lane. You might as well open a flee-market in Morocco.
  3. No Wim! all my 2500 images everywhere have MR's and when it needs PR's. This is not the issue. Look at page 2 of this search where you see anti-demonstrations, global-warming, etc, i.e. in the same search you see, pro oil-industry and anti oil-industry. This is the issue. The people with megaphones, demonstraters etc, now that should be in the news-search, NOT the creative search. Of course when the brain capacity isn't enough to see the difference between news and creative, yes it opens itself to problems. Christian, I meant the words Oil Workers; do you have them in that order in your keywords? Because when I search for "oil workers" yours do not turn up. Is that because of your keywords (and those of others maybe?). Or is it the fault of the search engine? wim Yes they do Wim! they start coming up on page three, quite a few of them actually. Look! I am NOT complaining about the search position, thats OK. I am debating weather or not all these bloody demonstrators, helicopters, this and that should be in a creative search regardless of ticking-boxes or not. From a buyers point, it looks slap-dash, it looks as if somebody can't do their job.
  4. what for? two headlines: creative and news. Obviously creative should contain just that. News: just that or else whats the point. You think all buyer, new ones, etc think about clicking some release box BEFORE searching. Most buyer will simply use a default. Thats it. This is so stupid I can not believe it. How can anybody defend the fact of a mixed search aimed at two totally different markets. Blimey any editor that I know weather its newspaper or a glossy magazine would know the difference between creative and news, speaks for itself. Right now and probably the biggest agency in the world is debating about the removal of all collections, all clicking boxes and roll-downs, all the search distractions with the exception of NEWS/EDITORIAL since its uploaded separately anyway, simply because they have realized it just confuses buyers, ordinary buyers. Here??? here we can't even separate creative from news. WOW!! how completely inspiring.
  5. No Wim! all my 2500 images everywhere have MR's and when it needs PR's. This is not the issue. Look at page 2 of this search where you see anti-demonstrations, global-warming, etc, i.e. in the same search you see, pro oil-industry and anti oil-industry. This is the issue. The people with megaphones, demonstraters etc, now that should be in the news-search, NOT the creative search. Of course when the brain capacity isn't enough to see the difference between news and creative, yes it opens itself to problems.
  6. Sure Martin first page looks fantasticdon't it, really inspiring and adventurous, exciting!! all in blue topcreativeand of course not any editorial overtones. So why don't you post PAGE-2 where all the derogative to industry-pictures comes, anti this, demonstrations etc. Thats really a creative search isn't it. First law of any stock-agency: never let a picture by a photograper run the risk of being used in a derogatiove manner or message! goes with the territory.
  7. Nils! yeah it might be a strength under normal circumbstances but I can assure you when dealing with ad-agency people its just pure weakness and down out bad. Further more showing anti-industrial demonstration images etc in a creative search is pathetic, it means that in reallity these shots are used in a derogative manner! thats serious and can result in troubles. Back in 2004 a beautiful oil-refinery at sunset ( not my shot) was by mistake used in an anti-pollution and toxic campaign, the result ended in serious troubles and court battles for the photographer. Thats why I for security reasons have to remove my images unless the cull this particular collection. You have to understand, dealing with ordinary run of the mill buyers is one thing but dealing with ad-agency creatives is totally different, I do this every single day in commissioned photography and they don't want to see this crap. best.
  8. Nils! yeah it might be a strength under normal circumbstances but I can assure you when dealing with ad-agency people its just pure weakness and down out bad. Further more showing anti-industrial demonstration images etc in a creative search is pathetic, it means that in reallity these shots are used in a derogative manner! thats serious and can result in troubles. Back in 2004 a beautiful oil-refinery at sunset ( not my shot) was by mistake used in an anti-pollution and toxic campaign, the result ended in serious troubles and court battles for the photographer. Thats why I for security reasons have to remove my images unless the cull this particular collection. You have to understand, dealing with ordinary run of the mill buyers is one thing but dealing with ad-agency creatives is totally different, I do this every single day in commissioned photography and they don't want to see this crap. best.
  9. I actually sent a friend here, an art-buyer from a smaller ad-agency. He came back to me and said he didn't want news pictures and so on. I searched it myself "oil-workers" since he wanted to buy some stuff and what do I see?? All editorial material on page one and on page 2, some demonmstrations with megaphones AGAINST the oil industry. Hahahahahahahaha! well some creative search isnt it? little wonder creative material is a complete waste of time here. Now I don't want to be associated with news this and news that. Unless they cull that particular search I will remove my own content from that search. I dont know, pugh! how can it be such a paraphernalia just to separate creative content from editorial. Evenm the micros can do that.
  10. They certainly do and I would say that they are more likely to occur these days. Whatsapp was founded in 2009. Worth $6.8 billion last year. Of course! happens all the time. So why are you here then?
  11. Yes but there will always be classic examples of the opposite. Apple is one of them but that was in another time, I believe some 35 years back. Different world then. These rags to riches stories just don't come about today.
  12. Just like pound and dollar stores. I saw it with PCs they quickly became commoditised and only the big boys who could shift 100s per week could afford to be in the business with the wafer thin margins (about £50 on a £1,000 computer). It has been happening to the makers as well for a few years now, there are fewer and fewer of them.It is happening to a lot of generic products. Exactly! the scary part when it comes to stock photography is, you can sit there uploading, keywording at your hearts delight, all day long but it won't get you a penny further and it don't have the slightest impact on the sort-order, algorithm, etc. So by the end of the year you might be up a meager 50 bucks or something. Coffee money. The input just have to match the output. Time vs revenue, or else its a waste of time. Yes, perhaps the "pruners" with relatively small, tightly edited collections are the wise ones. The other option is to keep uploading images willy-nilly until your eyeballs fall out, which could prove counterproductive in the long run. Shoot, drink, and be merry seems to be the best philosophy these days. Sure is! another pint please!
  13. Just like pound and dollar stores. I saw it with PCs they quickly became commoditised and only the big boys who could shift 100s per week could afford to be in the business with the wafer thin margins (about £50 on a £1,000 computer). It has been happening to the makers as well for a few years now, there are fewer and fewer of them.It is happening to a lot of generic products. Exactly! the scary part when it comes to stock photography is, you can sit there uploading, keywording at your hearts delight, all day long but it won't get you a penny further and it don't have the slightest impact on the sort-order, algorithm, etc. So by the end of the year you might be up a meager 50 bucks or something. Coffee money. The input just have to match the output. Time vs revenue, or else its a waste of time.
  14. At all accounts, stock-photography, not just here but everywhere, RM, RF, micro, etc, can only keep sinking. mathematically at the rate agencies keep accepting files, we are talking hundereds of thousands per week in total, just SS alone takes in around 100000 per week! well you don't have to have a maths degree to figure that its becoming a fatal blow. New files have to get exposure and of course at the cost of already established files in the search. Consistent uploading won't help either since its robbing the space of perhaps a bona-fide seller. Newbies comes along, throws in a small port and if they are not seeing any money they just leave it there. In some other forum ( nameless) a guy who also was a maths teacher had worked out that if a port was earning .$.500 a month, in a years time that same port would be down to .$.175, of course all the time losing placements in the search-engine. ( in this case SS was the example). There is a trend among many commercial full-time photographers to go on their own, using webb and home-pages, etc. Back in October, I myself deleted some 14 images from an agency to be included in my home/webb pages and sure enough they brought in just over a four-figure amount, they had not sold once as stock. Seen this trend so many times during 25 years of commisioned and stock photography, regardless of old traditional or newer agencies. The people that will survive this are the "factories" with hundereds of thousands of files in their ports.
  15. let me put it like this and I quote another very famous contributor. With all these non quality conscious buyers around, everyone should be doing great, but we are not. So where does this leave us?
  16. Youre darned right Bob! SS, is not just about being cheap, well cheap subs that is. The ODs, credit-sales and single-sales are still good pricing. Their secret is advertising, promotion, constantly happy members who spread the word and of course and the most important, the search-engine, algorithm which is first and foremost geared towards high-commercial value and specialized images, thereby saving the buyer to have to wade through tons of irrelevant material.
  17. Yes there are dozens of examples of portfolios leaving one for another, one of the biggest was a "factory" with some, 12 photographers that quit RF and stuck it all in micro, over 100000 files actually. They managed to cut themselves a deal and left. However there is no shortcut anymore. Its not really a matter of good quality photography, its become a quantity factor more so. In running my small traditional off-line agency, only around 150K images, all RM and very high-res Tiff files. I find the same customers coming back all the time, especially AD and PR agencies for whom I been doing commissioned work for over the years. Very often I keep hearing that they can get a simioar image much cheaper in some agency and its always some micro agency, never a trad agency and in listening to creatives all over the globe its all too obvious that the micro industry is winning this battle by lightyears ahead. I don't like it anymore then the next guy but there you go. Can't beat them? join them. So if any trad agency should work out a smart plan to place pictures with something as successfull as SS, well I think that would be a pretty clever move. There are many, many people there earning absolute fortunes. merry Christmas!
  18. I doubt very much your phone images are suitable for commercial use. SS have single-sales for hundreds of dollars, enhanced-license sales for around 40 dollars, and on-demand credit sales plus of course like all other sites, the subs sales. Once an image has sold as RF or subs, it can never be sold as an RM image.
  19. ... However, Micro is not the answer. Micro is unsustainable in every way, continuing slashing prices, constant change of Algorithm and search, killing off tons of portfolios and right now for the average supplier, micro is really down. Just read the SS forum, doom and gloom. RM is in my opinion the only thing left, extra revenues for rights, etc. RF is OK but its still low pricing.... well thats not what I meant really. In a few years time, all these macro agencies will have adjusted themselves according to competition, if you understand? since 1994 I have seen a 70% drop in pricing in the original House-collection in G. Thats a huge drop and they are right now adjusting themselves. Should Alamy then be the odd one out? the only one not adjusting itself? strang business philosophy! This is a business you see, not some hobby venture. merry X-mas to you btw.
  20. Arletta! Why?? your portfolio is perfect for micro! not overly creative, not too plain. Many of your type of photography is doing extremely well in micro, I cant see the problem? there is no doubt what so ever that an agency like SS has completely taken over the entire industry ( just look at their turnover). Trying to beat them is just an impossibillity, even the largest RM/RF agency in the world have realized this. For Alamy to widen the scope, extend horizons, what on earth is wrong with that? I mean you can not sincerely believe that in two years time, prices will be the same?? you be lucky to sell anything over 20 bucks in two years time and thats the prognosis btw.
  21. Good move from Alamy!! I applaud it very much! most peoples content here ( bar a few) are sort of outdated editorial overtones images that hardly sell anyway, so Alamy is giving them a huge chance to sell over at Shutterstock! generating a bit of extra cash for some people. what on earth is wrong with that? long gone are the days when traditional libraries asked for your dusty transparancies. so just take the extra cash, smile and be happy! merry Christmas everybody!
  22. No harm meant but Stephen! with such a generalist portfolio as you have. Does it really matter? I mean, I doubt very much you are earning a total fortune here or anywhere else. just saying. Lol, you don't change do you? Can't say I am enthused by your portfolio either but I suppose you make a fortune from it and still have nothing better to do than insult others in forums. No harm meant That's the last time I will reply to you here, don't want to mess this forum up like you did with MSG. Stephen! come on mate! you been in this game long enough to understand exactly what I mean. You know that there is a vast difference between a specialized portfolio and what we call a generalist portfolio. I didn't say a generalist portfolio is bad, in fact some of the best portfolios on the internet is of general content but they do not rank as top commercial and in general don't require MRs and PRs, etc, etc. I mean its pretty silly to act as if youre hurt when you know exactly what I mean, isnt it. Now if some people here want to cheer you on, getting you at it over nothing, well so be it.
  23. $28 is only the net max for Enhanced. DLs can be as high, IME, as $84 net. Max for Single On Demand downloads is up to $120net.... it just depends on what banding you're on. Hi Duncan! I know I had four single-sales this month!
  24. No harm meant but Stephen! with such a generalist portfolio as you have. Does it really matter? I mean, I doubt very much you are earning a total fortune here or anywhere else. just saying.
  25. I think youre a bit out of touch here or wrongly informed! that agency have more credit-sales, on-demand sales and extended license sales then anybody else on this globe! What you are refering to is their subscription-program.I personally clock in between 3-4K per month there, every single month. I personally would find it extremely interesting seeing an Alamy deal with that agency. Not to speak of a super-smart move. Hi Christian.So does that mean you see 400 sales per week @25cents or does that 4k include mainly large sales ? Curious because that's some sizable income. No! as Geoff says! its same as any other agency and of course includes all different sales, credit-sales, OD's, extended-licenses, subs. etc. Most people here are refering to ( that agency, no names) as it was about 5 years back. Have in mind, my port there is around 2500 images, no more but highly niched, specialized that is. Now if Alamy could strike some sort of deal, placing images there, my God! they would sell plenty. Of course they would have to cull this massive collection of old, outdated editorial stuff, that don't sell in the more up to date agencies. all the best and merry X-mas!
×
×
  • 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.