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. A good question, one can say yes and no. Its all changing a lot these days, and not for the better, when we started with Alamy, we had a good chance of making sales with good strong images for sensible prices, these days with the "pond" getting so huge with an unedited 38 million images. Alamy are now putting the onus on to the photographer to be more responsible for the marketing of their own images with more keyword requirements and various other keyword refinements. Correct me otherwise, but in my world my "Agent or Library' should be doing this as part of their 50% oh uhm 60% We photograp
  2. I had a sale last week for the low price of $75.73 for a world wide license for 5 years. The sale was refunded today and the same buyer purchased the same photo for $30.74 for a world wide 5 year license. How can the buyer obtain a refund an than buy the same photo with the same conditions for a lower price of $30.74? Is this the price we can expect to be payed for a world wide 5 year license? Alamy ref Your ref Pseudonym Date purchased / refunded Licence Details Amount CXJM2G IMG1136 Aruba (05 August 2013) Rights Managed Sale Refunded $ -75.73 CXJM2G IMG1136 Aruba 05 Au
  3. I use 55% of FQ on my PhotoShelter website, but sales have almost completely dried up this year. Last year I made a $650 -- of which I got to keep 90% -- corporate website sale directly through my PS site. Chances are pretty slim of that ever happening again, I'm sure. P.S. 100% FQ would have been accurate in the 1990's.
  4. John, I agree the whole publishing thing has gone downhill. I still write but I was looking at syndication as a means of getting multiple sales from essentially the one story (sell it in UK, US, Australia ...). That said with so much online that may not work either. I have frequent contact with professional writers internationally and those that have adapted still make a respectable living; those that haven't are struggling. Any one else have any comments, ideas?
  5. Just Wondering how important is Keywording for News Feed Images, I don't do this for my other agency and still make regular sales however I have made very few salse via Alamy and wondering if this might be the reason why Regards Duncan
  6. I would hazard a guess its much more likely that the *vast* majority of images on alamy are not getting sales, or will rarely sell again, and the small percentage that does sell is what gives them the turnover. It would be interesting to know what percentages of images are selling
  7. I used to be happy but I am not any longer. I want my agent (alamy) to stop giving my work away for peanuts. I want to be able to set a minimum selling price for editorial print sales of $50. I would like to do this with other agencies as well, and until photographers are given this option then we will all gradually go out of business. There may be plenty of images that are available for less than 50$ but I should have the right to set a minimum selling price for my own work. If you sell things on Pond5 you can set your own prices.. some people sell complex videos for almost nothing but I pri
  8. And what of 'advertorial' - that magazine space containing what appears to be a spread of reportage that is actually selling the reader a product and which makes Alamy sales often confusing. The lines can be blurred. Rgds, Richard.
  9. Well, I don't think the current state of the stock business - with Alamy as a fairly prominent member - is going to get the majority of contributors punching the air in triumph. And, of course, there are a few contributors who seem determined to be as grumpy as possible until the Grim Reaper comes calling. I'm happy to be scratching a living from doing two things I love - writing and photography - rather than, say, working in a shoe shop or a call centre. I'm happy with Alamy's transparent dealings... but not so thrilled about the price per image. So, on the whole, I'd say I'm stoical abou
  10. Discussing low pricing is fine by me, but telling the client exactly that his competitor is paying for Usage: Non-Editorial Electronic and web uses Media: Corporate website, single design Industry sector: General business services Image Size: Any size Start: 01 July 2013 End: 01 July 2016 5 years multiple web use incl. personal screensaver use: $pittance is not. Note: I would find this totally acceptable though: Usage: Non-Editorial Electronic and web uses Media: Corporate website, single design Industry sector: General business services Image Size: Any size Start: 01 July 201
  11. no refunds but i am through complaining on here; the world is changing and we all know why stock has fallen; it's no good to complain, it won't change anything. If you like photography keep shooting; if you're addicted you will keep uploading even for $1 sales.
  12. Exactly the same license details here, same refund... Also have one of the similar $33 sales that popped up at the same time. License details on that one are slightly different ("Editorial web use, multiple placement; rights granted in line with customer agreement which may vary from invoice details above."), though date range is exactly the same. May be the same client? -Jason
  13. Same here. I just checked and four $75.73 have been refunded and re-sold for $30.74. I now have an $88 negative total for August, whatever that means. On the plus side, a $33 sale popped up at the same time as the refunds. I guess $30 is the new $75. I had a $33 sale come in too. I guess I should be happy that I just a few bucks north of being negative! Let's hope those $33 sales don't get re-posted at $16.50. I think I am laughing and crying at the same time!
  14. Same here. I just checked and four $75.73 have been refunded and re-sold for $30.74. I now have an $88 negative total for August, whatever that means. On the plus side, a $33 sale popped up at the same time as the refunds. I guess $30 is the new $75. I had a $33 sale come in too. I guess I should be happy that I just a few bucks north of being negative! Let's hope those $33 sales don't get re-posted at $16.50.
  15. Same here. I just checked and four $75.73 sales have been refunded and re-sold for $30.74. I now have an $88 negative total for August, whatever that means. On the plus side, a $33 sale popped up at the same time as the refunds. I guess $30 is the new $75.
  16. Two more refunds tonight, two $75.73 sales now down to $30.74 each. There must be a half off sale going on!
  17. Had two refunds totalling $199 which sent me into negative total sales this month for the first time ever, disappointing, discouraging, but not the end of the world.
  18. Yup, 4 today refunded and replaced with 30$ sales Kumar
  19. As I said in another thread: did you check the calculator for the original sales? wim
  20. In the last 12 months I've had a $500, a $440, a $300, a $273, two $253s, a $243, $230, $220, $200, a couple of $180s and a few other 3figure sales. In the last three months things haven't been very healthy.
  21. Does this mean Alamy will have to spend MORE time policing the forum to make sure no one talks about certain subjects outside of the restricted section? And what do they do when someone does talk dirty outside the restricted section? Or will it be up to the red arrow brigade to bombard them anonymously, thereby beating them anonymously into compliance? Does it restrict any talk at all about the newspaper scheme? Or only some of the talk about the newspaper scheme? What about complaints about distributors? Questions about distributors but without mentioning prices? Praise for distributo
  22. Everyone is sourcing images the cheapest way they can these days. The BBC used to use Getty a lot (still do use them), but also source images from Geograph, Flickr, Google (street view, maps, etc.), mobiles from the public and they increasingly use stills from videos. While all this is worrying to some degree, I think that some businesses/organisations will increasingly try to remove themselves from the mass of info available on the Internet by marking themselves out as exclusive/premier in some way and move over to subscription models to access certain (if not most) content. Subscribers
  23. I never see my image sales reported on this thread, so figured I'd do my own reporting Thanks to Google Alerts; Bank levy to raise $733m as Rudd government strives for surplus The Guardian Photograph: Richard McDowell/Alamy. A new levy on Australia's banks will raise $733m, adding to a tobacco tax rise worth $5.3bn to be unveiled in the Rudd ...
  24. Yep and they recently cut most of their prices in half. I think the dip in shutterstocks stock value had very little to do with Yuri, he forgets to mention that shutterstocks shares have only been available for a short period of time and had frankly outpaced the sales of the company, and since he wrote his blog the share price is now higher than ever. I suspect the real reason is his portfolio of images sell a lot less than they used to since there is now so much quality work of the same type on micros, partly due to him publicly showing other photographers which of his images sell so well
×
×
  • 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.