Commission change - James West comments

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Graham Morley said:

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.

 

 

I can point to, but won't name, a well-established stock agency based in Europe that has apparently gone down the drain because it slashed prices and allowed other agencies to dump their collections on them. From all accounts, contributors who used to see good returns have now all-but given up on them. Sounds like a cautionary tale to me.

[KevinS]

It's possible Alamy will modify. In 2013 Alamy tried to institute fees for certain pay-outs, but backed down.

 

http://www.photocritic.org/articles/alamy-payment-structure-back-down

[Duncan_Andison]

1 hour ago, KevinS said:

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.

 

Thanks.... they are all greyed out for me, can't select any of them?!?

 

Edit. Just realised they must be RM. 

[klod]

Cutting commissions for photographers is one route. Another avenue would consist in increasing fees for buyers. I would much prefer to see Alamy move in that direction. 

 

[Starsphinx]

10 minutes ago, klod said:

Cutting commissions for photographers is one route. Another avenue would consist in increasing fees for buyers. I would much prefer to see Alamy move in that direction. 

 

They can only move in that direction if they cut out large numbers of similar images that are available for less on other sites.  Which is has of course been strongly suggested they do.

[klod]

3 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

They can only move in that direction if they cut out large numbers of similar images that are available for less on other sites.  Which is has of course been strongly suggested they do.

I doubt corporate buyers spend much time - if any at all - searching for a cheaper image.  And if they do, that they will easilly find it.  I regularly do reverse image lookups. Obviously, some companies have their entire database excluded from specific search engines. Test for yourself, you'll see.  And Alamy can use in its sales pitch to buyers that it pays photographers fair commissions and promotes an equitable business model, not the cheapest.

 

[John Mitchell]

39 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

They can only move in that direction if they cut out large numbers of similar images that are available for less on other sites.  Which is has of course been strongly suggested they do.

 

I think that contributors bear some responsibility here as well. Many have put their Alamy images on sites that pay much less (e.g. microstock), thereby potentially undermining both Alamy and themselves.

 

Just sayin'...

[DCSmith]

Is Alamy still making those charitable contributions that they've bragged about in the past?

If so, what percentage of the operating budget does that entail?

[Chexy]

https://www.alamy.com/customer/help/affiliate-program.aspx

So Alamy offers an affiliate program  - "Our affiliate commission is the best in the stock photo industry..." "Some of our top affiliates earn more than $4,500 a month". AffiIiates do nothing other than supply a link and if affiliates can make that much while we the suppliers are shafted, something is not right with this picture. Is this where our proposed 20% cut is going? 

 

Do we get a percentage if someone wanders off our portfolio page and buys someone elses image via the all Alamy search box, I think not but in such a case we are providing the same service as an affiliate. Alamy straighten up your act and at least continue to reward your supplier photographers with a ''just' commission. Prove that you do indeed give commissions that are industry best. 50 50 is as fair as it gets.

[KevinS]

29 minutes ago, DCSmith said:

Is Alamy still making those charitable contributions that they've bragged about in the past?

If so, what percentage of the operating budget does that entail?

 

Sorry if I'm being repetitive, but this really irks me. I've looked into this and found that SBL (the lab on the first floor of Alamy) gets the bulk of it's funding from Alamy. There are other initiatives in education that also likely have paid staff. The staff of these "charities" may have families to sustain. I'm sure the scientists and educators are competent in their fields and do their jobs well, but the bulk of the funding comes from Alamy. Alamy gives their profit over to these organizations. It may be possible to change this arrangement, but that would be a long, slow change as employees and families depend on their jobs.

[KevinS]

5 minutes ago, Chexy said:

https://www.alamy.com/customer/help/affiliate-program.aspx

So Alamy offers an affiliate program  - "Our affiliate commission is the best in the stock photo industry..." "Some of our top affiliates earn more than $4,500 a month". AffiIiates do nothing other than supply a link and if affiliates can make that much while we the suppliers are shafted, something is not right with this picture. Is this where our proposed 20% cut is going? 

 

Does Alamy really need affiliates? And if so why should they get the best commission in the industry? Do we get a percentage if someone wanders off our portfolio page and buys someone elses image via the all Alamy search box, I think not but in such a case we are providing the same service as an affiliate. Alamy straighten up your act and at least continue to reward your supplier photographers with a ''just' commission. Prove that you do indeed give commissions that are industry best. 50 50 is as fair as it gets.

To make things worse, Alamy quietly changed the terms for affiliate sales a few months after implementation, from paying the contributor 50% to paying the contributor 38.5%. I saw that as the camel's nose under the tent and tried to draw attention to it at the time. It was just me and the crickets. Now this.

[DCSmith]

5 minutes ago, KevinS said:

 

Sorry if I'm being repetitive, but this really irks me. I've looked into this and found that SBL (the lab on the first floor of Alamy) gets the bulk of it's funding from Alamy. There are other initiatives in education that also likely have paid staff. The staff of these "charities" may have families to sustain. I'm sure the scientists and educators are competent in their fields and do their jobs well, but the bulk of the funding comes from Alamy. Alamy gives their profit over to these organizations. It may be possible to change this arrangement, but that would be a long, slow change as employees and families depend on their jobs.

 Really?
Then make the charitable contribution optional. Let each contributor decide if they want a percentage of their sales going to the charity.

Does anyone know how much the executives running the charity get in compensation?

[KevinS]

1 minute ago, DCSmith said:

Does anyone know how much the executives running the charity get in compensation?

One of those people might be Mike Fischer, James' uncle, who provided the start-up money for Alamy. No idea how much he's paid by any charity (non-profit company, really?).

[KevinS]

9 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

 

 

Meaning top affiliates licensing $45K/mo gross???!!
Who and How???

Is there way to find them -- Google "Alamy affiliate"?  Other?

Jeff,

$4500./month didn't seem like a plausible number when I first read it. They get 20% of any sale that results from the link on their site. Don't have to be connected to photography to be an affiliate. Any website with a lot of traffic would do. I put a link on my humble website (to profit from you lot), but removed it when the contributors share dropped below 50%.

[DCSmith]

22 minutes ago, KevinS said:

One of those people might be Mike Fischer, James' uncle, who provided the start-up money for Alamy. No idea how much he's paid by any charity (non-profit company, really?).

Sounds suspiciously like a possible money laundering scheme.

[KevinS]

27 minutes ago, DCSmith said:

Then make the charitable contribution optional. Let each contributor decide if they want a percentage of their sales going to the charity.

Unfortunately, Alamy was originally set up to give away a substantial portion of it's profits. The contributor gets a percentage of a sale, the rest is Alamy's. After expenses, Alamy may have a profit, of which a substantial portion goes to "charity". That includes companies started by Mr. Fischer, lamps to folks who need them, 100% of sales made by students, wildlife conservation, history museum, others. 

[KevinS]

Deleted; double post

[KevinS]

DCSmith,

Not saying the scheme is anything but legal. Tax reduction may be reason. Anyone can read these posts.

 

If I leave Alamy, this will be the main reason.

[KevinS]

57 minutes ago, KevinS said:

Jeff,

$4500./month didn't seem like a plausible number when I first read it. They get 20% of any sale that results from the link on their site. Don't have to be connected to photography to be an affiliate. Any website with a lot of traffic would do. I put a link on my humble website (to profit from you lot), but removed it when the contributors share dropped below 50%.

The affiliate sales page has recently changed (sorry Jeff!) and now reads 10%. The Alamy Commission Table in the contract still says 20%. Which is it Alamy?

[Panthera tigris]

After reading this page I think a couple of you have really gone a bit too far. You are contributors, what business is it of yours if Alamy funds charities, none of you own or manage Alamy. If you don't like contributing to Alamy then just stop doing so but smearing them with such comments is too much. 

 

 

[KevinS]

16 minutes ago, Panthera tigris said:

After reading this page I think a couple of you have really gone a bit too far. You are contributors, what business is it of yours if Alamy funds charities, none of you own or manage Alamy. If you don't like contributing to Alamy then just stop doing so but smearing them with such comments is too much. 

 

 

Alamy is changing the commission split because they want to invest rather than not.  OK, but many companies use their profits for such investment. As you suggest, I will stop contributing to Alamy when I see fit. By reducing the contributor's share they are asking contributors to fund investment, while they give away profits. It's their business, for sure, but one that gives away profit before necessary investments.

 

 

[Paul Mayall]

4 hours ago, Panthera tigris said:

After reading this page I think a couple of you have really gone a bit too far. You are contributors, what business is it of yours if Alamy funds charities, none of you own or manage Alamy. If you don't like contributing to Alamy then just stop doing so but smearing them with such comments is too much. 

+1

As much as we don't like it Alamy has made there decision and has informed us with suitable notice of the change in commission.

Realistically there is nothing we can do about it, except vent our thoughts here, smearing is not a good way to go about trying to get Alamy on our side.

 

[imageplotter]

7 hours ago, KevinS said:

One of those people might be Mike Fischer, James' uncle, who provided the start-up money for Alamy. No idea how much he's paid by any charity (non-profit company, really?).

The directors remunerations are in the Companies House accounts for both (A and charity).

[Skyscraperfan]

If contributors really have to pay half the 10% of the affiliate costs, that would be a major scandal. We were promised 50% and we should get 50. The affiliate program is a part of selling our images, which should be financed 100% from the Alamy share of the sale price. It's like payments for advertising. While we pay for our cameras, our photo software and our journeys, Alamy should pay for all the rest. Where in our account balance are those affiliate costs hidden?

[carrot]

In his video James made a comparison between stock agency royalty percentages and Alamy but did not make any comparison between celebrity or news focused agencies. The royalty percent that I currently get with these ranges from between 50% and 75%. By reducing its royalty rate to 40% Alamy now becomes the least attractive to me when I I am deciding where to put my images. Obviously at the end of the day I am concerned with total revenue which must also take into account sales volume and sales price, but I am not convinced that these will be sufficiently better in any event. 

Looking at the balance sheet of Alamy it appears to have a reasonable level of cash assets and I would recommend going here first. Also reduce payments to charity to nil and use this money for development if necessary, rather than corporate virtue signalling.

Creating what is effectively a 20% immediate reduction in revenue to contributors provides a big incentive to upload elsewhere. Also lets not forget that that is assuming a direct Alamy sale. If subagents are used does this now mean our royalty rate is reduced from 30% to 20%?

On the more positive side I must give some credit to James for his openness and I have found Alamy to generally be a very competent organisation with good systems and generally good treatment of photographers. However, please do not become complacent or take us for granted because if you lose the photographers you will be nothing and worth nothing. Any loss in images will affect your bottom line (profit) as other costs are likely to remain relatively fixed.