Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There have been a number of discussions lately about changing traditional RM images to RF editorial (editorial and personal use only).

 

For those who have chosen to do this for some images, what criteria did you use when deciding which RM images to change to RF editorial?  What types of traditionally RM images have you decided might do better as RF editorial?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish I could tell you that I gave it deep thought. But I didn’t! :lol: I won’t pretend to be an egghead.

 I have left some of my food RM, but changed some to RF.

Lately, I’ve been listing plants, trees, etc as RF

 

What you’ve asked, is RF editorial.  

I have some storefronts listed that way, not all.

I have quite a few of my family members

i noticed a cable company truck and workman, so I’m sure there are similars.

I just went through my port and randomly chose different ones. Mixing them up. I didn’t choose those I had little interest in, but those I thought had a good chance of selling no matter the license.

And then, of course a decent amount of the older ones listed RF or RF editorial to give them a boost. That’s why I sold three RFs from my junk pseudo this month. And they were A s!!  Two were food, can’t remember offhand the other.

Its kind of like fishing. What made me throw my bait there? A gut feeling.

edit to add. Just checked again. I only have 75 RF editorial. They are 3/4 people, a bunch from my St. Croix trip. So yeah, travel. The other 1600 plus are RF. So a lot of stuff you can’t get sued for! :D

 

 

Edited by Betty LaRue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did what I thought was a fair test. I made all my tabletop food pics RF for a year. As I recall, I had just one sale for low money. Basta!  Everything is RM now. In the past year I've had 9 tabletop food sales. Not great, but not that bad. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Rooney said:

I did what I thought was a fair test. I made all my tabletop food pics RF for a year. As I recall, I had just one sale for low money. Basta!  Everything is RM now. In the past year I've had 9 tabletop food sales. Not great, but not that bad. 

That really, IMHO, Ed, wasn’t a fair test. A fair test would have been a mix of subjects.  You picked a subject that is not in as much demand as your others. Half of my sales were RF or RF editorial this month, and it took me a lot longer wait to see it finally start happening. 

What you shot in NYC probably would fall in RF editorial rather than simple RF. 

Plus I have 1700 + listed mostly RF with 75 RF editorial,  and I doubt you even approached that number since you restricted to food.  Your port is the same as mine in size...I have 100 images more?

The fact is, my food sells roughly the same as yours, (at least the last time we discussed it) and it is my worst-selling subject. The fact I sold two (RF) food images this month is an anomaly. I’ve never sold two food in the same month no matter how listed.

Betty

ps...my, my. I’ve only sold 4 food shots in the rolling year, Ed.  Ya got me beat. The first two were RM, for a pittance each. The last two RF for a higher pittance.

Edited by Betty LaRue
Add text
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably looking for logic where there isn't any. That said, a while ago I chose a set of my images for which there are a lot of similar RM  photos and made them all RF Editorial in order to see if this might make them more attractive to buyers. Last month, one actually licensed. It was a fairly unexceptional image,  so I think there's a chance that the test might have worked. Unfortunately, the fee was so low that the sale didn't make much difference from a financial POV. :(

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we allowed to have similar images as a mix of RF and RM now?

 

Alamy used to stipulate that all similar images had to be either all RF or all RM (notwithstanding the presence of non-released "people").

Edited by Russell Watkins
added word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Russell Watkins said:

Are we allowed to have similar images as a mix of RF and RM now?

 

Alamy used to stipulate that all similar images had to be either all RF or all RM (notwithstanding the presence of non-released "people").

 

I believe that Alamy still discourages having a mix of RM and RF of similar images of the same subject. I changed all images in the same set (i.e. same subject) to RF for the "test" that I mentioned above.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to try to think of some logic here or there and just realised it's probably a waste of time/effort. I've decided to put everything but the live news stuff as RF editorial/commercial and be happy. Probably not a huge difference anymore with RM, it's all some sort of hybrid mutant micro-glorified license anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brasilnut said:

I used to try to think of some logic here or there and just realised it's probably a waste of time/effort. I've decided to put everything but the live news stuff as RF editorial/commercial and be happy. Probably not a huge difference anymore with RM, it's all some sort of hybrid mutant micro-glorified license anyway. 

 

That's quite eloquently put.

 

I still prefer RM, if only out of nostalgia. Shall keep experimenting with RF and RF Editorial, though. It helps keep me amused. B)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brasilnut said:

I used to try to think of some logic here or there and just realised it's probably a waste of time/effort. I've decided to put everything but the live news stuff as RF editorial/commercial and be happy. Probably not a huge difference anymore with RM, it's all some sort of hybrid mutant micro-glorified license anyway. 

Ha, I stick with RM for the same reason! Plus if sales are going to be low, e.g. UKNS, at least repeat payments are nice, and there's no evidence so far that RM files sell for more.

 

Because of not splitting similars between RM/RF, there's no objective way of telling. And with so few sales on Alamy anyway, it could just be coincidence that old unsold files sell when converted to RF. I had first sales of old (B) files as RM last month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ The most significant benefit of going down the RF route, in my opinion, is the flexibility that comes with being able to duplicate such material at other stock agencies. That should make up for any lost revenue from missed out multiple RM licenses and the rare but not impossible exclusive ones on here.

 

A contentious red arrow point, surely. :) 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Another angle on this is that any non-exclusive RF image could also be on microstock sites. No RM image should be.

 

@geogphotos When are you going to join "the dark side"? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.