Barely the price of my sandwich

[jayembee69]

I'm quite new to Alamy and very new to this forum.

 

What has driven me to write is the low fee that I've been paid for the sale of a  photo.

 

It barely covers the cost of the sandwich I had for lunch that day.

 

According to Alamy's own site, a photo sold on the following basis:

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 August 2018
End: 01 August 2023
Duration: 3 months. Any placement: Inside or cover.

 

... should have sold for about $120 of which I receive half.

 

Trouble is that the photo sold for less than $10 (of which I get half) .

 

As far as I can see $9.99 is shown as the lowest a photo can sell for on Alamy - and that's merely for personal use.

 

Can someone tell me what on earth is going on as I am feeling ripped off ?

[spacecadet]

Prices vary.  Alamy gets the best prices it can but few sales bear any relation to the fee calculator. That's the deal with an agent- he sets the prices, we don't. Swings and roundabouts.

BTW I and many others don't usually quote low prices here- it's a public forum. And it's not the lowest fee you will see.

 

[Colin Woods]

Is it national "Give spacecadet a red arrow" day?

[spacecadet]

I've got a stalker!

Is it nice to be popular, or not?

[Bill Brooks]

Totally undeserved 2 down arrows for good advice from spacecadet. Have a +1 spacecadet.

[Richard Baker]

And another Green from me. No-one has to answer and offer help.

[Craig Yates]

If you are new to ALAMY you should take time to read the contract you signed up to.

[Avpics]

18 minutes ago, Craig Yates said:

If you are new to ALAMY you should take time to read the contract you signed up to.

And let those of us that have been around longer do the moaning (use the search function for 'hacked off' or similar)

[Starsphinx]

44 minutes ago, Craig Yates said:

If you are new to ALAMY you should take time to read the contract you signed up to.

To be fair it is kind of easy to miss seeing as the Alamy big selling point to photographers and one oft repeated on here is how they pay more than microstock.  It can come as a slight shock to get a sale at microstock prices from somewhere claiming they pay more.

[John Mitchell]

3 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

To be fair it is kind of easy to miss seeing as the Alamy big selling point to photographers and one oft repeated on here is how they pay more than microstock.  It can come as a slight shock to get a sale at microstock prices from somewhere claiming they pay more.

 

For sure, the OP's reaction as a newcomer is totally understandable.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of pricing remains a mystery (to us anyway), but it's the way things are FBFW, hopefully FB in the long run.

[Starsphinx]

1 minute ago, John Mitchell said:

 

For sure, the OP's reaction as a newcomer is totally understandable.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of pricing remains a mystery (to us anyway), but it's the way things are FBFW, hopefully FB in the long run.

I just couldn't get someone snapping at him for what is, after all, a common and obvious moan be it newbie or old timer.

[John Mitchell]

1 minute ago, Starsphinx said:

I just couldn't get someone snapping at him for what is, after all, a common and obvious moan be it newbie or old timer.

 

Yes, I would have felt the same way as a newbie. Prices are all over the lot these days. There is often no rhyme or reason.

 

We're all just hanging on to our life rafts and riding the waves as best we can.

[Craig Yates]

1 hour ago, Starsphinx said:

To be fair it is kind of easy to miss seeing as the Alamy big selling point to photographers and one oft repeated on here is how they pay more than microstock.  It can come as a slight shock to get a sale at microstock prices from somewhere claiming they pay more.

 

No, when you sign up to something the small print matters,we were all new at some stage,some people cannot be arsed to do the research and find out the facts for themselves, and expect everyone else to spoon feed them the information.

[Craig Yates]

8 minutes ago, David Pimborough said:

 

Jason has been here for two years and I've been here considerably longer (2011) and I was surprised to get the same license (though I've seen lower returns) it does leave an unpleasant taste in the mouth.

 

 

 

 It does leave an unpleasant taste in the mouth, but it's a pointless exercise putting fingers onto keyboard to express disappointment, you just have to crack on with it. 

You will not change the pricing or change the way Alamy operates, it is their train set and they will run it as they seem fit.

 

[John Richmond]

7 of those licences for me today.  

 

What it shows is the buying power of a massive media conglomerate with multiple titles, all voracious consumers of imagery.  Alamy either ignores that market or gets the best deal it can.  The consolation is that they are not getting unlimited or long term usage of those images (for RM, at least).  For example, last month I had the same image reported and paid for three separate uses.  Other images have been used twice within the same magazine issue - and paid for each usage.  Individually, not for much.  Collectively, it's about the same as I get for a similar type of usage with another magazine group but with unlimited usage over a 5 year period.  I know which I prefer.

 

 

[NYCat]

Jason, I took a quick look at your photos and i would say you definitely deserve good prices for your images. in the last year my sales have ranged from $2.27 to $330. Enough of mine have had a decent price to keep me happy. I try to shrug off the wee ones. The price calculator has never been accurate since I have been here.

 

Paulette

[John Mitchell]

28 minutes ago, John Richmond said:

7 of those licences for me today.  

 

What it shows is the buying power of a massive media conglomerate with multiple titles, all voracious consumers of imagery.  Alamy either ignores that market or gets the best deal it can.  The consolation is that they are not getting unlimited or long term usage of those images (for RM, at least).  For example, last month I had the same image reported and paid for three separate uses.  Other images have been used twice within the same magazine issue - and paid for each usage.  Individually, not for much.  Collectively, it's about the same as I get for a similar type of usage with another magazine group but with unlimited usage over a 5 year period.  I know which I prefer.

 

 

 

Perhaps the usage terms should have included the explanatory phrase "bulk discount" or something similar. It would have helped the OP understand the low price.

 

Just sayin'...

[Cryptoprocta]

31 minutes ago, NYCat said:

Jason, I took a quick look at your photos and i would say you definitely deserve good prices for your images.

But Alamy have said that prices have nothing to do with the quality or rarity of the image, but are all about the discount negotiated by the buyer.

[NYCat]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

But Alamy have said that prices have nothing to do with the quality or rarity of the image, but are all about the discount negotiated by the buyer.

 

That was kind of my point. Poorly expressed, I suppose. I wanted to say that the low price did not reflect low quality in his images.

 

Paulette

[Cryptoprocta]

7 hours ago, NYCat said:

 

That was kind of my point. Poorly expressed, I suppose. I wanted to say that the low price did not reflect low quality in his images.

 

Paulette

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Certainly I can get bemused looking at which of my own pics sell for what price!

[John Mitchell]

10 hours ago, funkyworm said:

 

I queried the terms of an RM licence earlier this month and found out that that the licence was in essence RF, the publisher could use the same image again and again at will across publications without extra payment.

 

I think there is nothing wrong with the OP questioning the prices. I'm off this afternoon to a meeting of creatives in The Hague with MP's to discuss this situation where in the name of the holy market large corporations can put the thumbscrews on agents, leaving those down the supply chain thinking, what the heck? Do I think that meeting opposition MP's in a small European country will change everything. Probably not. But if they aren't aware, they cant react (or not.) 

 

I agree -- "What the heck?" is a totally legitimate (and necessary) question to ask these days. Good luck.

[wiskerke]

On 9/27/2018 at 22:11, funkyworm said:

For the Dutch linguists (AUB Wim) a PDF about the subject produced by the umbrella organisation.

http://www.platformmakers.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Werken-voor-een-kratje-bier-en-andere-onbillijke-voorstellen.pdf

 

Thank you for that depressing read!

 

wim

[York Photographer]

On 9/26/2018 at 15:26, jayembee69 said:

I'm quite new to Alamy and very new to this forum.

 

What has driven me to write is the low fee that I've been paid for the sale of a  photo.

 

It barely covers the cost of the sandwich I had for lunch that day.

 

According to Alamy's own site, a photo sold on the following basis:

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 August 2018
End: 01 August 2023
Duration: 3 months. Any placement: Inside or cover.

 

... should have sold for about $120 of which I receive half.

 

Trouble is that the photo sold for less than $10 (of which I get half) .

 

As far as I can see $9.99 is shown as the lowest a photo can sell for on Alamy - and that's merely for personal use.

 

Can someone tell me what on earth is going on as I am feeling ripped off ?

Congratulations, you just Subsidised your first Publication!

[John Mitchell]

5 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

Thank you for that depressing read!

 

wim

 

Glad I don't read Dutch.

 

Actually, I think I can figure out what this line means: "Werken voor een kratje bier..."

 

bier...

 

 

Werken voor een kratje

bier...

 

 

 

[John Mitchell]

10 hours ago, funkyworm said:

 

 

More frustrating is that on stock agency forums an income which will cover one beer, not even the crate, gets greeted by whoops and high fives.

 

That said, whilst we can concentrate on the negatives... there are some postives. The fact that all the creative organisations are getting together to lobby and are being heard is a positive. The bickering amongst rival organisations is disappearing. To talk in acronyms that probably Dutch photographers understand... the NVF is now cooperating with DuPho and the NSP has openly supported one 'togs court case (backed by the NVF) against one of our press groups vis a vis tarifs.

 

The meeting I was at in the week at a large publisher here in Amsterdam was about open access science. I went along mainly to lobby our case (ok... moan...), but it was interesting in other ways. There is a correlation between the scientists and our positions. They are overly dependent on one party who can then dictate terms and conditions. That party seems to have now overplayed their hand (41% profit, €10,5 million for the CEO whilst charging large amounts public institutions for access to publications financed by public institutions) and the scientists are looking to take them out of the equation. The shame is that they could/should be partners.

 

I wish I could say there would be a positive outcome for stock agencies but I am not so sure. I have the feeling that many suppliers are so heavily invested in channels involved in the race to the bottom that they see no way out.

 

 

 

 

Such is the nature of crowdsourcing. I've seen this movie before as I did freelance travel writing for magazines and newspapers for many years. When the Web opened the floodgates, the freelance business model -- such as it was -- became so eroded by people willing to work for virtually nothing and sign ludicrous contracts with publishers that there was no point in pursuing writing any longer, at least not from a financial POV.