Jump to content

Commission change - James West comments


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

 

I don't think this is the answer, if anything Alamy has too many images.

A bloated offering frustrates the customer and slows down the website. It was, in my opinion an error for Alamy to allow images offered to microstock sites on here as well.

The customer rightly says why should I pay dollars here when they are available for cents elsewhere, the problem then is they then look at all images the same way and want cheaper and cheaper prices.

I know this will be controversial, but my suggestion would be.

1. To ask all contributors, with for arguments sake over 2000 images, to voluntary cut 10% of their old non-selling images. Failing which Alamy cut the oldest 10%.

2. Remove all portfolios that haven't been added to, or had any sales in the last 2-3 years.

3. Freeze all uploads from contributors with over 1000-2000 images at the present level and then allow an increase based on sales, say your limit would increase by 5-10 images for every sale made.

This would cut out a lot of the dead wood as well as encouraging contributors  to be more selective, it would certainly discourage uploading umpteen similar's.

 

 

Sorry Bob.... but, NO !! Many contributors here were with Alamy years before you joined and went through the lengthy process of scanning negs and slides, hours retouching and submitting TIFF files on disc .... do you really expect contributors, myself included, to ditch 10% of those images, many of which still licence? Sure, they may not look as good as they would if processed using modern up to date software but culling these is not really the answer in my opinion.

Alamy used to have a USP of having a collection that contained images that, in the main, could not be found anywhere else ... that's what drew the clients. For reasons best known to Alamy, they ditched that USP and started to import collections from other agencies ... resulting in the clients seeing repeats of the same images that had already been seen on numerous other agencies ... thus Alamy joined the race to the bottom.

I think that if any culling needs to be done, it is the removal of these collections that have not even been through QC .... Alamy needs to start looking back at what made it so successful in the earlier years.... including offering a fair split of the fees obtained. Ditching PU would also be a good move !

Just my personal thoughts ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

 

I don't think this is the answer, if anything Alamy has too many images.

A bloated offering frustrates the customer and slows down the website. It was, in my opinion an error for Alamy to allow images offered to microstock sites on here as well.

The customer rightly says why should I pay dollars here when they are available for cents elsewhere, the problem then is they then look at all images the same way and want cheaper and cheaper prices.

I know this will be controversial, but my suggestion would be.

1. To ask all contributors, with for arguments sake over 2000 images, to voluntary cut 10% of their old non-selling images. Failing which Alamy cut the oldest 10%.

2. Remove all portfolios that haven't been added to, or had any sales in the last 2-3 years.

3. Freeze all uploads from contributors with over 1000-2000 images at the present level and then allow an increase based on sales, say your limit would increase by 5-10 images for every sale made.

This would cut out a lot of the dead wood as well as encouraging contributors  to be more selective, it would certainly discourage uploading umpteen similar's.

 

Cutting old unselling images is never going to be the correct answer - todays old never sold image is tomorrows valuable historical reference in high demand (I work with a football academy - there is an outside chance one of the young men may at a future point appear in an FA televised round and do something spectacular - at which point my photos of him are going to be of major interest - note images not on here now because of no current interest)

Your number 2 has possibilities

Number 3 is not going to work either - you will find a significant amount of Alamys income comes from contributors with big ports - and from their new uploads.

However you have given me to think.

How about any sales from ports that  have not been updated for 2 years or more carry a 20% charge for storage.  Fees remain 50/50 but if you have not uploaded for 2 years it becomes 50 Alamy/20 storage (yes also Alamy)/30 contributor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Martyn said:

 

Sorry Bob.... but, NO !! Many contributors here were with Alamy years before you joined and went through the lengthy process of scanning negs and slides, hours retouching and submitting TIFF files on disc .... do you really expect contributors, myself included, to ditch 10% of those images, many of which still licence? Sure, they may not look as good as they would if processed using modern up to date software but culling these is not really the answer in my opinion.

Alamy used to have a USP of having a collection that contained images that, in the main, could not be found anywhere else ... that's what drew the clients. For reasons best known to Alamy, they ditched that USP and started to import collections from other agencies ... resulting in the clients seeing repeats of the same images that had already been seen on numerous other agencies ... thus Alamy joined the race to the bottom.

I think that if any culling needs to be done, it is the removal of these collections that have not even been through QC .... Alamy needs to start looking back at what made it so successful in the earlier years.... including offering a fair split of the fees obtained. Ditching PU would also be a good move !

Just my personal thoughts ....

You have my vote.  One of the reasons I only uploaded to Alamy was the "not available elsewhere" bit - with the drop to 60/40 I have uploaded elsewhere.

If Alamy want to go 60/40 for images available elsewhere and 50/50 for ones only available here,  and made a huge effort to make most of their stuff only available her, while tightening up massively on PU and NU abuses (mentioned elsewhere change the default from personal use)I would be cool with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 888 images I have online so far are already a result of strict filtering on my side. I do not need to upload 30 images of the same building, as only the two or three best of them will have a chance of being sold anyway. Without the filtering on my side, I would have between 5000 and 10000 photos online, but those would probably not generate more sales.

If I unsterstand the CTR right, it hurts your CTR if a client zooms your image, but later buys another one. So if you have ten similar photos, the client might zoom all ten of them and buy a maximum of 1. That's not good for your CTR.

By the way, for those of your with tons of images it might be a good idea to have more than one pseudonym. If you upload you best photos under a pseudonym, your other not so good or repetitive images will not hurt the CTR of that pseudonym. That might increase your overall sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Skyscraperfan said:

It shocks me that some of you do not show any solidarity towards new contributors. Some of you suggest that WE should get 50%, while new contributors should only get 40%. For me that sounds like a man saying that a woman should get less money for the same work.

It’s nothing to do with that type of issue.  There is a good case for those who joined earlier should be kept on the terms applicable when they joined, while newcomers make the decision to sign up (or not) on the terms currently on offer. 

 

That at is what happens with Stockimo (an Alamy company). Early bird contributors who signed up before 31 December 2014 are on one commission rate, those who signed up later on another (lower rate).  In fact, there are three tiers of commission rates on Stockimo: the best rates are reserved for those who are members of both platforms, Alamy and Stockimo.  I see no inherent problem or unfairness in maintaining terms for existing contibutors but revising terms for those who choose to join after a change has been announced.

 

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Cutting old unselling images is never going to be the correct answer - todays old never sold image is tomorrows valuable historical reference in high demand (I work with a football academy - there is an outside chance one of the young men may at a future point appear in an FA televised round and do something spectacular - at which point my photos of him are going to be of major interest - note images not on here now because of no current interest)

Your number 2 has possibilities

Number 3 is not going to work either - you will find a significant amount of Alamys income comes from contributors with big ports - and from their new uploads.

However you have given me to think.

How about any sales from ports that  have not been updated for 2 years or more carry a 20% charge for storage.  Fees remain 50/50 but if you have not uploaded for 2 years it becomes 50 Alamy/20 storage (yes also Alamy)/30 contributor.


There already is the "Alamy Rank" that does the job of putting images, that do not sell well, lower down in the search results.

Recent uploads are not so important, as some of my best selling images are from a journey I did in 2007. So people should not be forced to do new uploads. Otherwise they will just delete photos and upload them again to save the fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Graham said:

It’s nothing to do with that type of issue.  There is a good case for those who joined earlier should be kept on the terms applicable when they joined, while newcomers make the decision to sign up (or not) on the terms currently on offer. 

 

That at is what happens with Stockimo (an Alamy company). Early bird contributors who signed up before 31 December 2014 are on one commission rate, those who signed up later on another (lower rate).  In fact, there are three tiers of commission rates on Stockimo: the best rates are reserved for those who are members of both platforms, Alamy and Stockimo.  I see no inherent problem or unfairness in maintaining terms for existing contibutors but revising terms for those who choose to join after a change has been announced.

 

Graham


The system you suggest is used in major companies and leads to many conflicts there. Different workers do the same job and are paid differently, because they are not employed by the company directly, but by subcontractors. Over the years more and more normal paid jobs vanish and all new workers get the new low paid deal. The company tries all it can do to get rid of the old expensive workers and replace them with new cheap ones. That even happened to airline pilots with six figure salaries per year and for that reason pilots went on strike several times.

I want to be able to recommend Alamy to other photographers among my friends, who are interested in making some money in stock photography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Martyn said:

 

Sorry Bob.... but, NO !! Many contributors here were with Alamy years before you joined and went through the lengthy process of scanning negs and slides, hours retouching and submitting TIFF files on disc .... do you really expect contributors, myself included, to ditch 10% of those images, many of which still licence? Sure, they may not look as good as they would if processed using modern up to date software but culling these is not really the answer in my opinion.

Alamy used to have a USP of having a collection that contained images that, in the main, could not be found anywhere else ... that's what drew the clients. For reasons best known to Alamy, they ditched that USP and started to import collections from other agencies ... resulting in the clients seeing repeats of the same images that had already been seen on numerous other agencies ... thus Alamy joined the race to the bottom.

I think that if any culling needs to be done, it is the removal of these collections that have not even been through QC .... Alamy needs to start looking back at what made it so successful in the earlier years.... including offering a fair split of the fees obtained. Ditching PU would also be a good move !

Just my personal thoughts ....

 

I have actually been here since 2008, with a short break when the commission was last reduced, which is why my profile says 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Alternatives to 40/60.

My alternatives.  Your alternatives.  His.  Hers.

What most important is to email them to Decision-Makers James@ & Alan@

Make sure they know which one(s) you prefer..

 

I have already e-mailed James twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

I have actually been here since 2008, with a short break when the commission was last reduced, which is why my profile says 2015.

 Fair enough ! Then you remember the effort it used to take to grow our portfolios with Alamy ! It is up to us to cull if we think it is needed, not to have it enforced upon us arbitrarily !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Martyn said:

 Fair enough ! Then you remember the effort it used to take to grow our portfolios with Alamy ! It is up to us to cull if we think it is needed, not to have it enforced upon us arbitrarily !

 

I do understand but I am sure we all have some images we could delete. That is only one part of the suggestion in any case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:



Number 3 is not going to work either - you will find a significant amount of Alamys income comes from contributors with big ports - and from their new uploads.

 

 

Ah but those with large ports also have large sale, so for example a contributor with 5 sales a month could upload 50 images where as a contributor with a 100 sales a month could upload 1000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, BobD said:

Is it really necessary to have all those stupid red arrows for which is after all just my opinion. 

No.  Not at all.

Personally I never use red (unless someone claims something outrageous all politicians are wonderful) - I use green when I like what is said and hearts to acknowledge what is said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I did consider starting another thread to ask a poll question but decided it would probably cause more hassle especially if it set up unreasonable expectations.

Something that has come up repeatedly since the cut in fees has been announced is the idea of paying more for exclusive images - however, there seems a reasonable number of people who are not totally convinced by it.

So my question is how much commission would you need to be keeping from Alamy on exclusive images to accept the 60/40 split on non exclusive images?  50/50?  40/60? 30/70? 25/75?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

OK I did consider starting another thread to ask a poll question but decided it would probably cause more hassle especially if it set up unreasonable expectations.

Something that has come up repeatedly since the cut in fees has been announced is the idea of paying more for exclusive images - however, there seems a reasonable number of people who are not totally convinced by it.

So my question is how much commission would you need to be keeping from Alamy on exclusive images to accept the 60/40 split on non exclusive images?  50/50?  40/60? 30/70? 25/75?

 

I'd be happy to stick with 50/50, with my images exclusive to Alamy (and my own website, of course)

Alex

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

OK I did consider starting another thread to ask a poll question but decided it would probably cause more hassle especially if it set up unreasonable expectations.

Something that has come up repeatedly since the cut in fees has been announced is the idea of paying more for exclusive images - however, there seems a reasonable number of people who are not totally convinced by it.

So my question is how much commission would you need to be keeping from Alamy on exclusive images to accept the 60/40 split on non exclusive images?  50/50?  40/60? 30/70? 25/75?

 

I am only prepared to accept 50/50. For that I will leave my images exclusive. I think it would be unrealistic to expect more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the rush to the bottom on pricing does it really matter if we are paid 40% or 50%? We are missing the boat, in order to be successful In an era when editorial turnover has shrunk massively how can Alamy command higher pricing that will benefit all? I've stated before the quality route seems like the only option.

 

To that end I had proposed in an earlier comment the creation of  "Alamy Prime", limited to say 25-50 million images, that commands higher pricing. Images to be included in this segment will be selected by us individually, reflecting our best technical and key worded images, that meet new higher standards and are edited for correct keywords by Alamy. Additionally a new CTR algorithm for "AP" be created that takes into account rarity, the rarer the image, the more you can command for it. The reality is if you can find a similar the image at the Tier 1 agencies it’s going to be difficult to license the image for anything above today's pricing. If Alamy can present images that few others are creating, either by subject or the way it was shot they will have a market mostly to themselves and the leverage to command the fees that go along with the scarcity. Those contributors who upload dozens, hundreds of similars will soon find that "AP" is not their selling platform.

 

Of course, Alamy is constantly highlighting great and unique work on their website, but are prices commiserate? Is the sales team negotiating higher prices for that work or is all lumped together in the bargain bin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Martyn said:

 

Sorry Bob.... but, NO !! Many contributors here were with Alamy years before you joined and went through the lengthy process of scanning negs and slides, hours retouching and submitting TIFF files on disc .... do you really expect contributors, myself included, to ditch 10% of those images, many of which still licence? Sure, they may not look as good as they would if processed using modern up to date software but culling these is not really the answer in my opinion.

Alamy used to have a USP of having a collection that contained images that, in the main, could not be found anywhere else ... that's what drew the clients. For reasons best known to Alamy, they ditched that USP and started to import collections from other agencies ... resulting in the clients seeing repeats of the same images that had already been seen on numerous other agencies ... thus Alamy joined the race to the bottom.

I think that if any culling needs to be done, it is the removal of these collections that have not even been through QC .... Alamy needs to start looking back at what made it so successful in the earlier years.... including offering a fair split of the fees obtained. Ditching PU would also be a good move !

Just my personal thoughts ....

 

I agree. Alamy should never have let its collection be flooded with generic images from other agencies. Sucking up to microstock was also a really bad idea. These mistakes have caused Alamy to lose sight of what made them different -- i.e. their by-in-large unique collection and fair treatment of photographers. Alamy needs to get back to its roots. Hopefully it's not too late...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hotbrightsky said:

Dear Alamy,

 

Regarding your proposed changes to the terms of my contract...

 

 

45565623284_cd0843041d_o.png

 

I await your further response.

 

Yours,

 

A.N. Contributor


Interesting. That means that consumer goods is not included in any of those standard packages. Does that mean that licenses for consumer goods are more expensive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

 

 

Brilliant.  Plan to do similar Feb 19.

You restricted three of four possible choices?

Which choice did you leave unrestricted & why?

I want to leave highest price possibilities unrestricted,

which I assume are commercial uses...?

It will cause big big drop in $$ since most my

licenses are editorial...

If too many others DON'T take action of some sort,

those holding out may have to decide how long...

It will be revealing if someone monitors who is NOT

restricting their images & NOT fighting 40/60...


You should not wait until February. Images may be ordered now and invoiced later. Alamy should also see right now that we do not accept 40%.

My approach is to only leave the cheapest licenses. If a license is sold for $200, the drop means $20 less for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

 

 

Brilliant.  Plan to do similar Feb 19.

You restricted three of four possible choices?

Which choice did you leave unrestricted & why?

I want to leave highest price possibilities unrestricted,

which I assume are commercial uses...?

It will cause big big drop in $$ since most my

licenses are editorial...

If too many others DON'T take action of some sort,

those holding out may have to decide how long...

It will be revealing if someone monitors who is NOT

restricting their images & NOT fighting 40/60...

 

Where do you apply these restrictions? and can it be done to your entire port in one go?!? Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to mention a few experiences of my wife’s great grandfather, who was a professional photographer in the late Victorian/ Edwardian era that all these years later still has relevance to Alamy’s predicament.  There is nothing new under the sun.

 

He trained as a photographer using the complex process of wet plates, and he had a portrait studio in Taunton, UK, when the dry plate was introduced in the early 1880s.  The dry plate was a huge advance (a bit like digital challenging film in recent years), and suddenly several people set up as photographers in the same street as Great Grandad, and it was a race to the bottom in terms of prices.  This resulted in him going out of business as a portrait photographer in 1891.  Fortunately, he found a niche when he became a photographer for the Royal Navy, and when the portrait market stabilised  in the early 1900s, he set up a portrait studio, this time competing on quality, not price.

 

I personally have seen  picture libraries enter the doldrums in the mid-1970s after a number of libraries were set up, leading established libraries to cut prices.  This led to one l library I submitted to cutting its commission to new contributors to 50%, whilst it remained at 60% for previous contributors. Incidentally,I noticed that niche libraries seemed to weather the threat from the new libraries better than the general libraries.

 

Photographic markets have been changing since my wife’s Great Grandfather’s time and photographers have been adapting to changes ever since (as I myself have since I started out as an industrial and architectural photographer in 1970).

 

If Alamy is to have any hope of surviving the race to the bottom that it is engaged in, it too, must adapt in a positive and constructive way.

1.  Alamy must improve quality by editing the existing collection, with major culling of dross and similars. I know that Alamy has a lot of pictures, but it has to find a way.

2.  Alamy’s idea of accepting any subject (providing it meets fixed technical criteria)  has given it an edge in some markets, but certain editing for content should take place there, too.

3.  It must look for niches, but not engage in hair-brained schemes that sell rights for a pittance.

4.  It must not take on any large collection that include lots of dross.   

5.  It must get off the treadmill and abandon the race to the bottom on prices.

 

And finally Alamy must find a way to continue giving photographers 50% of licence fees, and tighten up on licence abuse and infringements.  Otherwise, loss of trust will be terminal, and it will loose the quality contributions that would give Alamy any hope for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Duncan_Andison said:

 

Where do you apply these restrictions? and can it be done to your entire port in one go?!? Cheers

In AIM, under the Optional tab. You can only apply 3 out of 4 restrictions. Check a sample image at alamy.com afterwards to see how it looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alamy locked and unpinned this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • 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.