Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thank you for posting this, Mark. I always find it helpful to have an insight into Alamy's state of being. The tsunami of figures in a set of accounts may be largely incomprehensible to many here, so I for one am glad of any insight which can be offered by those who can interpret these things.

 

One thing I would say though is that even the numerically challenged should take the time to read the first few pages of the accounts; the Group Strategic Report gives some useful insights into how Alamy operates.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

NB. This does not give any idea of the average sales revenue per image sold, but does give some insight into the average income generated per image in Alamy's collection

 

Mark

And can be compared with a certain microstock company that is listed on the stock market, 0.08 GBP per file in Alamy vs 0.88 USD per file in this microstock with 260 mio files both based on commission paid and end of the year amount of images-file.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BobPhoto said:

And can be compared with a certain microstock company that is listed on the stock market, 0.08 GBP per file in Alamy vs 0.88 USD per file in this microstock with 260 mio files both based on commission paid and end of the year amount of images-file.

 

Mmm... that's interesting...

 

So Alamy generated a gross revenue of £22M from a collection 124M images (at the end of 2017).

A stockmarket listed Microstock agency (maybe we are talking about the same one) appears to have generated $557M from 170M images (+9M videos and other stuff) at the end of 2017

 

It's not quite comparing apples with apples as Alamy only offer images, but that's 25x more revenue!

I'm not sure if this is a fair comparison, or if I've missed something fundamental?

 

Mark

 

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Mmm... that's interesting...

 

So Alamy generated a revenue of £22M from a collection 124M images (at the end of 2017).

A stockmarket listed Microstock agency (maybe we are talking about the same one) appears to have generated $557M from 170M images (+9M videos and other stuff) at the end of 2017

 

It's not quite comparing apples with apples as Alamy only offer images, but that's 25x more revenue!

I'm not sure if this is a fair comparison, or if I've missed something fundamental?

 

Mark

 

 

While no comparison are perfect, it does give a good preview of the earning power of the two. My calculation considers the lower commission for the micro, so the difference is not that large as when comparing agency revenues. It always good to have numbers instead of just "dogmatic" opinions.

Adding video in the number is not that unfair, as they do generate higher sales, they also require quite a bit more work than photos. My return per video per year is a few times more than for images, but need much more time to process and shoot them, at the end I feel they are equivalent in terms of working time.

Edited by BobPhoto
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Comments on my collection size were mostly negative 2004-2010

e.g., dilutes quality of collection, causes buyers to stay away, etc. etc. blah blah

Comments on my collection size in recent years magically transformed toward admiration...

 

It seems my gross/image/yr is currently ~£0.40 & must have been thrice that 2004-2010...

So can I raise my previously lowered head when I walk by once-critical-now-ex-stockers...? :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: 

 

It looks like my gross/image/yr on Alamy in 2017 was  $0.50. So we're both above the overall Alamy average.

 

Looking through the forum "how was your 2017 thread" shows (as expected) a very wide range of $/image/year, but the average from this thread is around $0.55 (although my crude analysis is skewed downwards slightly because contributors have added images since 2017). It might be interesting to repeat at the end of 2018? 

 

Mark

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

 

 

Comments on my collection size were mostly negative 2004-2010

e.g., dilutes quality of collection, causes buyers to stay away, etc. etc. blah blah

Comments on my collection size in recent years magically transformed toward admiration...

 

It seems my gross/image/yr is currently ~£0.40 & must have been thrice that 2004-2010...

So can I raise my previously lowered head when I walk by once-critical-now-ex-stockers...? :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: 

 

 

Yes Jeff but because of your way with people you have been able to make images that stand out from the crowd, as well as increase your collection size.

 

A big collection full of images that stand out from the crowd is the secret to your success. Many stock photographers harm themselves by only concentrating on collection size at the expense of images that stand out from the crowd.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/10/2018 at 21:21, JeffGreenberg said:

 

 

Comments on my collection size were mostly negative 2004-2010

e.g., dilutes quality of collection, causes buyers to stay away, etc. etc. blah blah

Comments on my collection size in recent years magically transformed toward admiration...

 

It seems my gross/image/yr is currently ~£0.40 & must have been thrice that 2004-2010...

So can I raise my previously lowered head when I walk by once-critical-now-ex-stockers...? :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: 

 

Hi Jeff

Just had a quick look at your collection and noticed lots of images taken inside the British Museum. I have avoided putting up inside museum shots due to the various photography policies. Wondered what your, or anyone else’s, take on this is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Sally, yes I do have one image of the public area atrium, but I would never try to sell images of the individual exhibits, that's just not cricket.

 

Quote from the British Museum website...

 

Quote

 

Professional filming/photography in the Museum

The Broadcast Unit deals with all professional and commercial requests to photograph exhibits and locations within the Museum. Commercial or professional photography must be arranged in advance through the Broadcast Unit. Please email filming@britishmuseum.org.


 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

 

Did a Yankee Triple Check:

a. found no limitation signs at attraction entrance

b. found no limitation notices attraction website

c. Alamy search returned hundreds-thousands inside attraction, implying no limitation

 

Regardless, if wrong, action will be taken...

I think the onus must be on the photographer to find out what the policy is, surely. Action is unlikely to be taken, however.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a number of sales of exhibits in museums, here and throughout Europe. One in particular accounts for 10% of my total sales. If I think it's saleable, and there's enough light, it's mine, especially in a national collection I've paid for through taxation.

This is why the National Trust policy is so galling. The NT often acquires properties in lieu of tax- tax that I then have to pay instead.

There are supposed to be some restrictions in German law, but I have good sellers there too.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

I have a number of sales of exhibits in museums, here and throughout Europe. One in particular accounts for 10% of my total sales. If I think it's saleable, and there's enough light, it's mine, especially in a national collection I've paid for through taxation.

This is why the National Trust policy is so galling. The NT often acquires properties in lieu of tax- tax that I then have to pay instead.

There are supposed to be some restrictions in German law, but I have good sellers there too.

I agree with the sentiment about being a taxpayer for national museums etc. Not all photographers taking photos are taxpayers of that country, of course, but we can consider it a quid pro quo. However, it doesn’t stop museums and national publicly funded bodies having photography policies prohibiting commercial photography but I wonder what the legal status of such policies is. The other argument I have heard is that publicly funded institutions have a public duty to control and make the most of their assets to increase their revenue in order to have less call on public funds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sally said:

I agree with the sentiment about being a taxpayer for national museums etc. Not all photographers taking photos are taxpayers of that country, of course, but we can consider it a quid pro quo. However, it doesn’t stop museums and national publicly funded bodies having photography policies prohibiting commercial photography but I wonder what the legal status of such policies is. The other argument I have heard is that publicly funded institutions have a public duty to control and make the most of their assets to increase their revenue in order to have less call on public funds.

IMO the only legal status they have is to make you a trespasser if you breach them. So you could be asked to leave- with your images, of course. The damages a museum could possibly achieve at court would be derisory. That's why the NT, for example, doesn't want its byelaw tested. It knows it's worthless, which is why it just threatens and strongarms picture libraries.

The revenue argument is another example of the creeping privatisation of the public realm.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sally said:

The other argument I have heard is that publicly funded institutions have a public duty to control and make the most of their assets to increase their revenue in order to have less call on public funds.

 

Yes they do. But... allowing free editorial photography usually results in more images being used in positive publicity for the venue, leading to more visitors and more revenue for them. This revenue gain more than offsets the loss of a few sales of images for editorial purposes from their own collection. Restricting commercial use (calendars and greeting cards etc.) is a different matter, but IMHO restricting editorial photography in such venues, based on the idea it makes the most of their assets, is misguided.

 

Mark   

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2018 at 21:15, M.Chapman said:

 

Mmm... that's interesting...

 

So Alamy generated a gross revenue of £22M from a collection 124M images (at the end of 2017).

A stockmarket listed Microstock agency (maybe we are talking about the same one) appears to have generated $557M from 170M images (+9M videos and other stuff) at the end of 2017

 

It's not quite comparing apples with apples as Alamy only offer images, but that's 25x more revenue!

I'm not sure if this is a fair comparison, or if I've missed something fundamental?

 

Mark

 

You are totally right. But better is to compare the payouts made to contributors since this is the money that we see. I think Alamy had around 10 million paid to contributors. The micro agency you mention paid 150 million to contributors.  Yes it is a large difference but still i think 10 million is a large amount. This micro agency is just the world number 1 thats all. Nobody should be scared away from numbers. Just do what works for you and i know that Alamy works very well for many.

 

Mirco

  • Upvote 1
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.