Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just had a magazine sale appear

 

"Country: United Kingdom ; Usage: Editorial ;  Media: Magazine - print, digital and electronic ;  Print run: up to 500,000 ;  Placement: Inside ;  Start: 01-July-2018 ; End: 01-July-2023 ; 
   Additional Details: Duration: 3 months. Any placement: Inside or cover."

I haven't included the price, but it wouldn't buy a copy of any UK magazine on a newstand!

Given the opportunity I'd opt of whatever "Deal" alamy has done with the publishing company.

MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I had a similar report some time ago which I wasn't happy with until a saw it on the shelf. It was roughly the size of a stamp on the cover and inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Avpics said:

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I had a similar report some time ago which I wasn't happy with until a saw it on the shelf. It was roughly the size of a stamp on the cover and inside.

+1.

It'll be spot size. Anything bigger is licensed by 1/4 page or whatever.

I hope so, anyway.:blink:

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

+1.

It'll be spot size. Anything bigger is licensed by 1/4 page or whatever.

I hope so, anyway.:blink:

Not necessarily.  These "any placement" deals can be just that.  One magazine that uses my images quite a lot has one of those deals and a DPS or cover is exactly same price as spot size. Sickening really.

 

Pearl

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of how big it was, that was shot in expensive studio space, with expensive studio lighting, metered on an expensive light meter, on an expensive camera system, and processed on an expensive computer, using expensive software. Notwithstanding my Valuable time!

As a Professional, Something is NEVER better than nothing, I would rather they didn't "Buy" it!

Use Something cheaper, it won't be what you want, but it'll be cheaper!

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, York Photographer said:

Regardless of how big it was, that was shot in expensive studio space, with expensive studio lighting, metered on an expensive light meter, on an expensive camera system, and processed on an expensive computer, using expensive software. Notwithstanding my Valuable time!

As a Professional, Something is NEVER better than nothing, I would rather they didn't "Buy" it!

Use Something cheaper, it won't be what you want, but it'll be cheaper!

 

 

I hear you York.  I think we can all agree that we would like to see higher fees for our photos but in the stock biz, the cost to produce an image or the degree of difficulty (or time involved) is never a factor in pricing.  If a magazine illustrates a story on a tropical island, lets say, they would likely pay the same, for the same page size, for a fairly easy beach shot taken on a Sony RX100 as they would an underwater shot taken with an expensive camera and housing, not to mention all the scuba gear and skills to get the shot.   We don't get to control the pricing when an agency represents us so I just take the good with the bad.  When it gets to be where it is simply not worthwhile, then I will find the exit door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

I hear you York.  I think we can all agree that we would like to see higher fees for our photos but in the stock biz, the cost to produce an image or the degree of difficulty (or time involved) is never a factor in pricing.  If a magazine illustrates a story on a tropical island, lets say, they would likely pay the same, for the same page size, for a fairly easy beach shot taken on a Sony RX100 as they would an underwater shot taken with an expensive camera and housing, not to mention all the scuba gear and skills to get the shot.   We don't get to control the pricing when an agency represents us so I just take the good with the bad.  When it gets to be where it is simply not worthwhile, then I will find the exit door.


I understand where you are coming from, but I would like to be able to opt out of these ridiculous low fee deals, which don't even provide a sensible return on the time taken to keyword an image, let alone kit and expenses.

I'm not interested in making sales at any price, I wonder how much an advert is, in whichever magazine this was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read this thread I wonder if Stock agencies should start allowing photographers to set minimum prices on their own photos on a case by case basis - shot in a back garden with 10-year-old camera costs minimal - tropical beach from underwater with latest technology specially purchased costs considerably higher.

Or maybe a suggested minimum price so if a purchaser offers lower they have to dicker direct and be told exactly why if they want this image, not the one over there that is available for what they are offering, it is going to cost them more money.

Photographers who are over-optimistic and set their prices too high will lose out - minimum pricing should be kept totally anonymous to prevent price fixing - but isn't it about time agencies started allowing photographers to explain to customers that great photos don't happen for free.

Edited by Starsphinx
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankfully with stock photography you can get to sell images taken for no expense, either locally or whilst doing something else, and sometimes for good values helping to equalise the costs of those at the other extremes.  We sign up for the whole package.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Having read this thread I wonder if Stock agencies should start allowing photographers to set minimum prices on their own photos on a case by case basis - shot in a back garden with 10-year-old camera costs minimal - tropical beach from underwater with latest technology specially purchased costs considerably higher.

Or maybe a suggested minimum price so if a purchaser offers lower they have to dicker direct and be told exactly why if they want this image, not the one over there that is available for what they are offering, it is going to cost them more money.

Photographers who are over-optimistic and set their prices too high will lose out - minimum pricing should be kept totally anonymous to prevent price fixing - but isn't it about time agencies started allowing photographers to explain to customers that great photos don't happen for free.

 

We cannot discuss Alamy competitors here, but nevertheless if you search this forum, you'll see there are agencies that let you do that. The fact that you have never heard of them though may be telling you something. ;-)

 

wim

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just shown up in Sales History

Country: United Kingdom
Usage: Editorial
Media: Magazine - print, digital and electronic
Print run: up to 500,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1 page
Start: 01 July 2018
End: 01 July 2023
Duration: 3 months. Any placement: Inside or cover.

Full page, up to 1/2 a million print run, for less than the cover price!

PATHETIC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Avpics said:

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I had a similar report some time ago which I wasn't happy with until a saw it on the shelf. It was roughly the size of a stamp on the cover and inside.

Yes, I also had that (after I'd had Alamy chase up the sale).

The magazine mine was in was one of a huge international publishing stable, so I guess they can negotiate a deep discount.

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


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

Thankfully with stock photography you can get to sell images taken for no expense, either locally or whilst doing something else, and sometimes for good values helping to equalise the costs of those at the other extremes.  We sign up for the whole package.

Are you sure there is no expense?  Cameras have to be bought and serviced.  Same with computers and then there is software - and the electric and the broadband connection.  Sure these may all be minimal because they are also used for other things but they do exist.   Yes, we sign up for both extremes but photography is never cost-free.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, clearly the word 'minimal' should have been in there somewhere, but the point is still valid. Neither Alamy or the customer are going to worry about how much or how little it cost to produce the image, but will pay a large sum or a pittance depending on the licence type. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Avpics said:

OK, clearly the word 'minimal' should have been in there somewhere, but the point is still valid. Neither Alamy or the customer are going to worry about how much or how little it cost to produce the image, but will pay a large sum or a pittance depending on the licence type. ...

... and the negotiated discount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Avpics said:

OK, clearly the word 'minimal' should have been in there somewhere, but the point is still valid. Neither Alamy or the customer are going to worry about how much or how little it cost to produce the image, but will pay a large sum or a pittance depending on the licence type. 

For a market to work the agent/customer has to if not worry at least be aware of the costs of production - otherwise, the market will fail.  I think there is a problem with the perception that "taking a picture doesn't cost anything"  especially when even photographers get into the same perception.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

I think we have had this discussion before. Usually I say my thing and you go *yawn*. 

 

But come on why do you think buyers have this much leverage? 

Supply and demand. Basic economics.

 

The reason I 'yawn' is that that horse can't be returned to the stable, it's about how we cope with the current reality. There comes a point where the costs won't be worth it. For a while, it may be that people living in less expensive countries can keep up the supply for a while, then ...?

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

But for this market of stock photography the majority of suppliers do it for fun.

 

There are even sites that charge for you to upload and then sell or give away the images.

In which case the question becomes exactly what is the market and who are the suppliers and who the purchasers.
You have people trying to supply images, people wanting to buy images, people wanting to buy ego strokes ("I'm published!) and people willing to supply ego strokes.  Then the 2 markets get confused.
 

Share this post


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

Low fees are really disappointing but compared with elsewhere Alamy is a dream.

 certainly applies to all the pile em high sell em cheap agencies but the traditional agencies i supply are consistantly achieving prices at least 4 times higher for the same volume of sales month on month and I don't have to keyword. The downside is that they probably only accept about 50% of what i submit where as Alamy take the lot.

 

I have just had 3 of these sales pop up and the only winners are the customer and Alamy and the reason why I have not submitted for several years.

 

Regen

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Maybe the way to think of Alamy is not so much as an agency ( it isn't) but as a platform or portal that allows the contributor to place any image on sale.  Whether anything sells is down to the contributor.

 

I guess it depends on ones definition of an agency- I upload the pictures,alamy check them and put them on line and then  sell them at prices and to outlets of their choice either directly or via a distributor for a commission identical to the trads -pretty much Identical to my traditional agencies except Alamy expect me to do the keywording whereas the trads prefer to do it themselves. 

 

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Nobody likes these low fees - I also had one of these - but not all the fees are this low. And as we know the buyer has other options.

 

I agree but its the licence details which really hurt 500,000 full page or COVER for not very much

 

Regen

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

I'm assuming garden or science specialists? I'm neither! :(

 

Maybe the way to think of Alamy is not so much as an agency ( it isn't) but as a platform or portal that allows the contributor to place any image on sale.  Whether anything sells is down to the contributor.

 

Nobody likes these low fees - I also had one of these - but not all the fees are this low. And as we know the buyer has other options. 

If Alamy was a platform allowing contributors to place images on sale it would be the contributors who set the prices not the platform.  Ebay is a platform - the sellers choose their starting price.  Imagine if Ebay set the prices for everything - you upload a description and photo of your whatever and Ebay set how much it would be sold for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2018 at 09:00, York Photographer said:

Just shown up in Sales History

Country: United Kingdom
Usage: Editorial
Media: Magazine - print, digital and electronic
Print run: up to 500,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1 page
Start: 01 July 2018
End: 01 July 2023
Duration: 3 months. Any placement: Inside or cover.

Full page, up to 1/2 a million print run, for less than the cover price!

PATHETIC!

 

I had one of those on the same day as well.  No doubt similar price.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, funkyworm said:

Taking the rough with the smooth is an OK argument as long as there is a smooth. If not then suppliers take a long hard look at what they are doing. Cutting costs and shooting low hanging fruit is one answer but leads to millions of photos of fruit.

If that were to happen, eventually (years down the line) the buyers might realise they have to pay more for new images.

Of course, what's expensive for me to shoot may be low hanging fruit for other people (live locally, already have equipment, easy access ...) and vice versa.

I'm still wondering if sales are going to be <$1 net, should I waste any time at all in post cleaning up images (removing chewing gum, bird droppings, litter, etc.) - except that I certainly can't work out what might sell for more, I can't work out a pattern in my own sales of 1. What will sell, or 2. How much it will sell for. There will certainly be a point where the lowering rpd stops me doing that, some time before it stops me uploading altogether.

Edited by Cryptoprocta
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/08/2018 at 12:11, geogphotos said:

 

Alamy does not sell images, it licenses them.

 

You can't set the prices on Alamy, never have been able to. But you can opt out of low paying schemes and low paying distributors.

 

Alamy needs to be free to negotiate deals on a case by case basis. That is what we have signed up to. It won't work being held back by millions of individual restrictions on price points. 

Which still makes Alamy not a platform - which is my point

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.