Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I agree with Brazilnut and James Allsworth.

 

Often an image on microstock is more expensive, than an image on Alamy. Listen to the complaining about low prices on this forum. Price is not the only criterion when buying an image. Photo buyers do not have the time to scour the net, and visit multiple sites for cheaper duplicates. Service is important to buyers. Some buyers only buy at Alamy. Some buyers have a special deal with Alamy that discourages them from looking elsewhere.

 

If a photo researcher is buying a large number of images for a project, they need Alamy service. They do not have time to shop around. Think of the client buying 3,000 images for a Geography program. He needs service. He needs a reasonable price based on quantity. He has a deadline. He has to meet with a selection committee. He has to consult educational advisors. He doesn't care if he can buy 200 of the 3,000 Alamy images on a microstock site.

 

Think about the photo researcher looking for thousands of historic stills for a TV  documentary. Same thing !!

 

Often the same macrostock image can be found on multiple, not microstock, sites at different price points. Do agents in the Alamy international division all sell at the same price? If Alamy buyers scour the net for lower prices, then Alamy buyers would all buy from one of Alamy's international partners.

 

What about buyers saving the 50% Alamy commission by approaching photographers direct? The number that do that is insignificant, because it is not worth the trouble.

 

It has become a forum myth that the same image on microstock will harm your sales on Alamy because the price may be lower. Not true in my opinion.

 

I think ChrisG is collecting information from everyone,  and then making an informed decision based on his reality.
 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Often an image on microstock is more expensive, than an image on Alamy. 

 

 

Really? How often is that?

 

Or do you mean sometimes, occasionally, now and again?

 

If not then why is it called microstock?

 

I quoted James so those were not my words, but what I think he means is that the real value for customers come from the subscriptions, 30 images a day for $150/month or whatever. However, this is for quite basic usages, mainly for digital....max 72 dpi and 1200px, etc. 

 

For one-off Extended Licenses for merchandising and large-scale reproductions, the cost can be quite substantial and over and above what one may pay on Alamy, generally speaking. Need to see on a case-by-case basis. 

 

The subs are the backbone of the business model and what differentiates between a "microstock" agency and one that is not. Such stock agencies which don't offer subs should not be considered microstock. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is the content of your images, be professional and do some research see what sells. Make pictures of life, about human issues, worries, problems, celebration, joy, love, fear, fun..

I have just one image that fits just one of those emotions that has sold 126 times, 90% of my sales ($42112.9)  would fit into those emotions. Then I pick up a dribble of sales from the rest.

 

I do have a lot of dross that I should delete if I ever get the time




 

Edited by Mark Baigent
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The problem is the content of your images, be professional and do some research see what sells. Make pictures of life, about human issues, worries, problems, celebration, joy, love, fear, fun..

 

Quite a few of the photos posted in the "Images sold in …" threads have no humans in them though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Thomas Kyhn said:

 

Quite a few of the photos posted in the "Images sold in …" threads have no humans in them though.

indeed, I was talking generally. The OP wants sales so they should photograph what sells and that is generally people. Pick a magazine and see the ratio of pics with people to those without. Of course there are exceptions, but photographing as I suggested means over 40k in sales more than the OPs sales. Shooting people is easy as MOST of us know people that we could use, a days shooting at home could generate sales.

To be really general the OPs images do not have much of a market place. they have probably been made without a market place in mind. 

Edited by Mark Baigent
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Thomas Kyhn said:

 

Quite a few of the photos posted in the "Images sold in …" threads have no humans in them though.

I should add, I started like the OP, sales did not become meaningful until I thought about what sells and where. Without that approach we need many tens of thousands of images to get a few sales.

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.