Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for 'zooms sales ratio'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Alamy Forum guidelines and announcements
    • Forum guidelines
    • Announcements
  • Alamy discussion and community support
    • Introductions
    • Portfolio critique
    • Community support: ask the forum
    • Stock photography discussion and contributor experience
    • Alamy Quality Control and technical talk
    • Let's talk about pics
  • Suggestions and ideas
    • Alamy
    • The Forum

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


Alamy URL


Images


Joined Alamy

  1. I'm guessing you mean Live News? Again, I'm not in the UK so I was speaking from a US perspective but you make a good point. If Live News goes for $$$ and $$, then having Alamy market your photos to several outlets certainly makes sense. So, I stand corrected. Good point. And good to know. When it's safe to travel again I'll make a point of uploading those lovely British photos of the day and maybe even find something newsworthy when I travel. I really wish that there was a way to market our lovely American sunrises and sunsets as photos of the day. I always enjoy scrolling through them.
  2. @geogphotos We are sadly in one of the few professions where prices are going down instead of up. The drop in 16 years is really astounding. Yes, more photos are used today, and it is easier to shoot and upload online than it was to shoot and send transparencies or whatever was done back in 2004 (before I got into photography professionally so not sure if you had to then scan the transparencies/negatives and send via CD) but the growth in the use of photos and the fact that it is somewhat easier to take and process them should not have resulted in such a stark drop in prices. You
  3. There is some creative work in there. As said, your captioning needs to be more literal and accurate. Alamy is a stock site, and I do wonder if your more creative shots will sell here. Any creative images I have uploaded have been ignored, while more prosaic stuff sells. As said, it's a numbers game. So get your portfolio up to a few thousand before you start wondering about sales. I like the impressionist effect. Is that done in camera or post?
  4. My conclusion is that this was never an Alamy 'rule' before, was never documented in the QC manual (pdf), was never a reason for failure before, and has never been applied to all instances of multi-photo jpgs before (e.g. panoramas and montages). This suggests to me that this type of 'QC' (Quantity & Content - as opposed to Quality Control) restriction has just been made up recently, and is not being applied consistently. Maybe Alamy.com are struggling for IT capacity (e.g. cancellation of their video sales project). As I understand it, most 'photos' (aka jpg upload f
  5. I did a bit better than that, but not much. During the past year, I've had but two UK newspaper sales -- for $7.62 and $21.45. The second one is the highest I've seen since signing up for the "scheme". During the same time period (rolling year), I had a couple of other newspaper licenses to Germany at slightly better prices plus a $$$ newspaper sale to the US, which is pretty rare. Newspapers everywhere have always been notoriously cheap. I know that from my past experience as a freelance writer. This is a bit off topic, but I never liked the use of the word "scheme" to describe sa
  6. Many thanks. Sorry to be cheeky but if you have the magazine with you any chance that you could add the ISSN/barcode number for DACS claims. I just looked online but it says that this issue hasn't been published yet. It would be great if sales spotters could add this if possible though I am pushing it I know and am in awe of how wonderful you all are.🙂
  7. At this point, in this business, you will need 100 times what you have, with a good variety and well tagged images, to see regular sales. Not being pessimistic, just realistic.
  8. I also used to be one of the “1000” because of the $3 -$4 newspaper sales. If you select “Don’t sell for editorial” I think it excludes all book and magazine sales which have always had higher returns ($$). I had an image of a wooden mural sold for about $30 which was published in a book about the same mural and the person that had created it. One of the National newspapers ran an article about the book and wanted the same image, but as I was not in the Newspaper Scheme they had to pay more than the usual “token” payment. They took over a year to pay for the image. I us
  9. How can it be confusing for the newspaper customers when searching ? If they are not logged in , then they won't see the pictures of those who've opted out ? I had an editorial website sale last month, for $18.69. It was used by the Guardian online. That's quite a difference from the newspaper scheme pricing I expect ($5 or so?). If now those of us who'd opted out will now be in the scheme, and the newspapers use the same number of images, then surely those of you who were already in the scheme will now see your sales number drop ? ...after all, there will now be more
  10. This Alamy statement at the top seems very clear to me: Only around 1000 of our 160 000 contributors are currently opted out of this scheme, but it is causing a more complex and confusing search experience for the customer. Given that there is now little to no difference in pricing and that this group of contributors are missing out on sales potential, we will be retiring the option to opt out. Everybody will be offering their images to newspapers on 'scheme rates' like it or not.
  11. I shouldn't really comment because this doesn't directly affect me, but isn't that statement just playing with words?? The contributors who opted out of the newspaper scheme presumably didn't want to sell their images to newspapers. Now they have no choice and their images will now be sold to newspapers. The effect of removing the "scheme" seems to have the same effect on contributors as cancelling their opt out? Or have I misunderstood??? I didn't opt out and I get regular sales. It would be nice if the revenue per sale was higher and if newspapers always included a credit lines,
  12. Hi all I started to add to my folio earlier this year so I only have 96 images online. I realise now some of my earlier images were probably unsellable so I've gradually been changing the content of my submissions but I currently have `0` sales! Anybody have advice please on how you get that elusive first sale? Thank you.
  13. The percentage was 65% originally Allan. As I recall we were told that it always would be because Alamy was the photographer's friend and not like other agencies. About 20,000 of mine are non-exclusive so I get 40% for most sales because they are my best images. There was a time when we were encouraged by Alamy to submit elsewhere - then it turned out we got punished for it as a way for Alamy to back down for the rest of you. Okay for you not so great for me - divide and rule! So the 'outcry' might have saved your bacon but it didn't help many of us who are stuck with
  14. For clarity, this was an outdated scheme set up over a decade ago. We are not opting people “in”, we are ending the scheme and removing the option to exclude your images from newspaper clients view. There is no link between PA and their Group board and this decision, it is something that makes sense to do from both a business point of view and for our contributors. The sales value for licences outside the pool is indistinguishable to that of those in the pool now that the industry has moved on and newspaper websites use far more images than ever before. Abolishing the scheme will have no other
  15. Well they're certainly not doing the people with sales first Steve
  16. Yes, I had a rare late-morning update today with a sale and 10 new zooms. 4 of the new zooms are of different frames of this still hot subject:
  17. If multiple news organizations own PA Media, that is even worse. So many of Alamy's clients own a part of the company. That should raise eyebrowse. Imagine Alamy would stop those cheap sales to newspapers. Wouldn't they even veto that decision in their own interest? At least the annual report of PA Group states that they are aware of those conflects of interest.That gives me some hope.
  18. Yes, we should get back more control about who can buy a license for my photos and who can't. I was not aware that Alamy and the Daily Mail are now part of the same company. So this new company could sell the image licenses to itself and even choose how much it pays for the license, because if you negotiate with yourself, you might choose a very low price at the cost of the contributors. So sales within the same company should not be possible unless there is a clear rule that the price has to be at least as high as a sale to a competitor. When I joined Alamy, we still had the chanc
  19. The greatest advantage of joining the newspaper scheme has been that it increases the likelihood of my images being seen and stolen by other organisations. I then pursue those people for the full licence fee (set by me). Using this strategy I have made dozens of times more money than I have through legitimate Alamy image sales. What a farcical industry this is.
  20. The search engine still doesn't appear to be updating. I made tag changes to an image 12PM yesterday which shows on the image itself but it doesn't appear in search. Nor do my last 100 QC'd images all from a batch yesterday which by the next morning would normally show up. Not only were some of those images initially newsworthy on Sunday, but due to total silence from Alamy's side no matter which way I tried to contact them I reluctantly sent them as regular QC, and now they've disappeared down the search black hole too. Feel really sorry for people who are in the position where th
  21. I am in the Newspaper scheme. I don't find that sales are at all voluminous. Actually, it is a terrible indictment of the stock photography industry, and the way that agencies have continued to undercut each other, that we have UK's largest circulation newspaper paying considerably less for an image ( print/web/online archive forever) than does an individual buying Personal Use licence. Country: United Kingdom Usage: Editorial Media: Newspaper - national Print run: up to 2 million Placement: Inside and online Image Size: 1/4 page
  22. I had opted out of the newspaper scheme, although I was in it initially. I still had newspaper sales, but obviously not so many. I felt it better to have 1 sale at $20 a month, rather than 3 at $5.
  23. I am a. News shooter and get a lot of sales from the scheme. I agree that online sales do attract a low price, there are occasional high value sales. On this scheme it is about volume. It must be said that newspaper sales have dropped a little during the pandemic my revenue has remained steady.
  24. 6 sales in October which is (for me) a good month for sales numbers. Sales over the year are now looking good too although the revenue remains well down for now.
  25. KW, caption can be remove and key in new input again and again. If I remember correctly, deleted pic will stay for 6 months on Alamy for potential sales.
×
×
  • 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.