Commission change - James West comments

[Betty LaRue]

2 hours ago, Martin Carlsson said:

 

What do "we" want though? Overall growth and increase in market share footprint, long-term sustainability and perhaps even positivity for the future and the long-haul or come hell or high water 50%, but a slow steady decline with diminishing returns?

 

Think it boils down to whether one actually believes in the Alamy management or not - if we "give" them more money will they turn that into something bigger/better or is it just about looking after themselves? They don't need to listen to us/me, but I expect them to know better than me and "deliver" as I continue to hold up my end of the bargain, that's the deal right? So go on Alamy, infuse us with some positivity, dare to have big great ambitions, put yourself under pressure to deliver, be the best you can be, no more mr nicey-nice average guy/girl, go get proper market share, steal, rob, lie, outsmart, be bold, take chances, collect reward - whatever it takes to grow market share and line my pocket, be a leader not a follower,  no more just tinkering along below the speed limit  - pedal to the metal and go go go. I expect you to have the answers/remedies/drive/clever tactics whilst I concentrate on doing my stuff, I can't do both - show me the money!  Thanks!  

Martin, I just think Alamy should plow profits back into the business and should have done from the start. Instead they have plowed them into a charity instead.  Now they need upgrades that should have been done all along, but not on our backs, but out of their profits over years. 

Alamy has poor business sense.

If the charity was an integral part of getting start-up funds in the beginning, there should have been a clause about needed upgrades coming first. Alamy has drained the coffers themselves and want the contributors to pay for their mistakes. They have boxed themselves into a corner.

I don’t believe that is right to expect us to bail them out.  Get a loan, for cryin’ out loud.

Betty

[KevinS]

13 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Martin, I just think Alamy should plow profits back into the business and should have done from the start. Instead they have plowed them into a charity instead.  Now they need upgrades that should have been done all along, but not on our backs, but out of their profits over years. 

Alamy has poor business sense.

If the charity was an integral part of getting start-up funds in the beginning, there should have been a clause about needed upgrades coming first. Alamy has drained the coffers themselves and want the contributors to pay for their mistakes. They have boxed themselves into a corner.

I don’t believe that is right to expect us to bail them out.  Get a loan, for cryin’ out loud.

Betty

This is exactly how I feel about Alamy, and the reason I may pull out. Alamy is clearly hobbled by the original terms set out by CEO's uncle. I doubt this will change. The recent good years were the direct result of a good economy, not anything Alamy did. If Alamy's past actions were responsible for those good years, why the sudden leveling off? Fool me once...

[ernest]

10 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

The percentage of LOAFers determines the future of 40/60.

(LackOfActionFatalists)

 

Many contributors are not native english speakers, they are not fluent in english so they remain silent. But surely they disapprove the new split. Who likes losing money ?

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

30 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Martin, I just think Alamy should plow profits back into the business and should have done from the start. Instead they have plowed them into a charity instead.  Now they need upgrades that should have been done all along, but not on our backs, but out of their profits over years. 

Alamy has poor business sense.

If the charity was an integral part of getting start-up funds in the beginning, there should have been a clause about needed upgrades coming first. Alamy has drained the coffers themselves and want the contributors to pay for their mistakes. They have boxed themselves into a corner.

I don’t believe that is right to expect us to bail them out.  Get a loan, for cryin’ out loud.

Betty

Good post, Betty.

 

[Findlay]

2 hours ago, Sally said:

Those of us not voicing opinions here about this may be doing things behind the scenes, some of which Alamy should already have started noticing, and which are likely to be just as effective as complaining here or on You Tube. It strikes me that there have been many fewer pages of Live News images, for example, than is usual since the announcement. I also suspect that the number of stock submissions has dropped. Perhaps Alamy hope that this will pick up again once we get used to the idea. I, for one, have taken steps to widen my scope, but not by submitting to microstock. I don’t believe that that is the answer. I’m not about to sell any photos for cents, no matter whether they add up to some dollars. 

 

Sally,

 

I agree with you 100%. I too have taken steps to withdraw from what I thought was a close relationship with Alamy and now looking  for other outlets and revenue streams. If Alamy thinks that a small or temporary reduction in uploads won’t have a serious effect on their business, they are being quite myopic. If (unhappy) contibutors mark all their images “non-exclusive” and “non-distributer sales”, then

put out to other Agencies, I think the financial impact on Alamy would be significant as well as curtailing its world wide standing.

Even with my (many) years of wrestling with suppliers, cash flows and customers I have never experienced what seems to be such a radical and ill-conceived financial plan.

 

I have followed this thread since I first got the initial email, but decided to take time to consider my options and not jump in with my opinions. On reflection,  I think that was wise. I may have said something I might have later regretted.

 

Mr West could easily have consolidated the obvious contributor loyalty, utilised the breadth of experience here and taken advice and soundings from outside his office. But no, Punish his suppliers after all it must be their fault.

 

In another thread, someone complains about an image selling for $1.00 Well, I can beat that. I had notification of a sale for $0.99!

To be fair, Alamy said they would pay me $0.50. How generous, more than 50%! Exchange that into GDP and I don’t have enough to pay

the electricity to recharge my camera battery.

 

I have a moderate portfolio here and that provides a (very) small income. That has taken years to accrue. Heaven help those who have less than 1000 images and have been hoodwinked by Alamy’s sales pitch of glorious returns. 

 

Things move on. Perhaps I was becoming too comfortable. One thing is for certain, it doesn’t matter what happens now, Mr West has a serious uphill struggle to win back the ground he has lost. I suspect he is hoping that giving out the bad news with so much notice, come February the disgruntled will have burnt themselves out and peace and harmony will return. My advice, for what it’s worth is - think again!

 

Findlay BA DPMgt ARPS

 

[Martin Carlsson]

1 hour ago, Skyscraperfan said:

We have to pay Alamy for its services? No, Alamy sells our photos and pays US for them, because we took them. Why should Alamy pay less money for our photos?

I already knew years ago that there is another famous agency, where I could earn much more money with the same photos, although that agency only pays 20% commission. I did not apply there though, because anything below 50% is just unfair.

 

 

Besides deliberately misunderstanding me...yawn Zzz. So this is not work for you, the money is not important? 

[Martin Carlsson]

2 hours ago, andremichel said:

I think you have your answer from the 28 pages of comments. You are insinuating that we being selfish for standing up for our interests. If we don't then nobody else will. No I do not believe cutting the commission will be beneficial or help long term sustainability. The video lacks credibility. Saying they have a bunch of ideas on how to spend our money doesn't amount to a good business plan. If an agent can't be successful with a 50% cut then it is poorly managed and wasteful or has severe structural problems that need to be addressed instead of going for the easy fix of demanding we hand over even more.. 

 

I didn't insinuate that, at least not deliberately. Stand up all you want for what you believe in, of course you should. Be careful on cracking down on me for doing the same or it starts to look hypocritical. Anyway, I'm not here to exchange insults. I see your position, I respect it, yet I can't turn a blind eye towards the fact that pretty much all libraries don't have a good BP then as very few come close to 40-50% , and let's not even get started at what the more successful ones are at. Why do we expect that Alamy miraculously could be different? It's a logical question, at least I think so. 

[Martin Carlsson]

3 hours ago, Skyscraperfan said:

Even if sales triple after the commission cut, 40% are still unfair. So I would rather have a fair 50% with lower sales than 40% with higher sales.

 

Libraries have gone under with lower commissions - does long term matter are "we" happy with sharing the same pot with an ever increasing number of contributors amongst an ever increasing number of images? Am I alone in desiring some serious growth and attempts to grab market share - I prefer success at Alamy over so many other places, and YES I'm prepared to sacrifice the short term for the long term success given the choice if I believe that could be the case.

[Martin Carlsson]

1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

Martin, I just think Alamy should plow profits back into the business and should have done from the start. Instead they have plowed them into a charity instead.  Now they need upgrades that should have been done all along, but not on our backs, but out of their profits over years. 

Alamy has poor business sense.

If the charity was an integral part of getting start-up funds in the beginning, there should have been a clause about needed upgrades coming first. Alamy has drained the coffers themselves and want the contributors to pay for their mistakes. They have boxed themselves into a corner.

I don’t believe that is right to expect us to bail them out.  Get a loan, for cryin’ out loud.

Betty

 

I agree with you mainly and of course "it sucks". I think most fail to see my point - which is pretty much "why are we expecting Alamy to be successful and grow etc. at 50% when the "others" can only do it at 15-40%? " 

 

I'm not even getting into the charity thing, it's odd to begin with, counter-productive if wanting growth, however net profits always goes somewhere - most often shareholders. 

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

1 hour ago, Martin Carlsson said:

 

Libraries have gone under with lower commissions - does long term matter are "we" happy with sharing the same pot with an ever increasing number of contributors amongst an ever increasing number of images? Am I alone in desiring some serious growth and attempts to grab market share - I prefer success at Alamy over so many other places, and YES I'm prepared to sacrifice the short term for the long term success given the choice if I believe that could be the case.

Well that's fine.  But what evidence do we have that Alamy has coherent plans to achieve these things?  All we've been told is that James sees "storm clouds coming", and they have a million (or was it only a thousand) "things" they want to spend our money on.   And in any case, an immediate 20% reduction in income is a show-stopper for almost anyone except, apparently, you. 

        Having had (in a part-time second profession) considerable training and experience in reading the behavior of sketchy characters, Mr. West's performance fits a classic profile of someone who may try to cut your throat in the next few seconds--nervous, rambling monologue, avoiding eye contact, thousand yard stare.

        My point is simply that we haven't seen, and you haven't provided evidence for, any of what your dreams for the ambitions and plans of Alamy might be.  All the information we've been given is that they intend to reduce payments by 1/5th.   

       And in spite of claims by politicians and James West, hope is not a strategy.

 

Post Edit:   I apologize for the unsavory analogy and critique of Mr. West's character above.   I would delete it, but it's already been quoted in another post.   My own background and circumstance makes for a rather hard-edged view of the world which is not appropriate for all audiences.  Again, Mr. West, I apologize for the personal comments. 

[Skyscraperfan]

32 minutes ago, Martin Carlsson said:

 

Besides deliberately misunderstanding me...yawn Zzz. So this is not work for you, the money is not important? 

Of course I would like to have as much money as possible and invest it into journeys and camera gear. I still want to be able to look into the mirror each morning though. People who accept a low commission (or have done that in the past) are the reason that commission were able to get down to a point where some agencies just pay 20%. It's like people accepting a low payment for their job. If enough people do that, the payment goes down for all and the employer is the only one who profits from that. The number of photographers is much bigger than the number of stock agencies. So it is quite easy for them to divide us. Some photographers may even be happy that some "rivals" do no longer offer their photos. We should stand together more though. Do you really think that 50% of a photo sale is not enough money for an agency to cover its costs?

Compare it with a local dealer in your hometown! He get's a much lower margin than 50%, although his costs are much higher, as he sells products who need a lot of physical space and a lot of manpower to handle them. Alamy sells digital products, which are much cheaper to handle. 50% so really be enough. Compare it with digital bookstores for example, who usally charge 30% commission for a sale of an e-book you have published there. Or with an app on an app store, which also leaves 70% of the sale price to you.

 

It's the same problem as in the Ultimatum Game I described earlier: Someone is given $100 and has to share it with you. He has to decide how much he gives you, but if you don't accept his offer, he will also loose his share. Would you really accept 40% there, because it is still more than nothing.
 

[Martin Carlsson]

1 hour ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

The question is not so much whether it is fair or not (fairness has no tangible reality in this Universe I grant you this) but rather if the interests of Alamy and the interests of the contributors are still converging on that particular point. And everyone has one's own answer to this question. 

I'm also prepared to pay for good service but, at least to me, there is nothing in James West's video that justifies that cut. I heard nothing "bold" or "outsmart" (ton of things worth investing in have been identified to grow Alamy… WOW…) that would indicate me how it is going to "make me money" or benefit me in any way… I only heard that:

• we have to pay for the Brexit and the uncertainty about economy in general

• we may get back on our feet in a 3 or 5 years timescale

• maybe they will not have to do it again but maybe we should stop being naive also

About "sustainability", It kind of reminds me years back when some of my friends took the Microstock path and seemed happy with the peanuts they got from images sold. I thought they were just shooting themselves in the foot, and in the industry's foot in general.

I chose Alamy because of the 60% for contributors and because their prices seemed adequate to me. There is an image I have been selling every year since 2015 for the same usage (…). It now sells for 50% of the price it sold in 2015 and 2016. The contributor's commission has already been reduced from 60% to 50% and now 40%?

Don't get me wrong, I also want Alamy to grow and prosper, but I am beginning to wonder if this growth is going to benefit me or if it will be at my expense.

 

 

Good post. I also wish that more would be said by James as to future plans for growth, gaining market share i.e. making us more money, instead I'm stuck in "believing" this to be case for the cut, which of course is based on trust, which in turn is a bit fragile at the moment. Really wish Alamy would communicate how they see the future for the market and their role in it. I'm not so interested in just strolling along, more interested in seeing some confidence and at least have the ambition to grab growth by the horn, not just the crumbs that happen to fall into their lap. If I can believe in Alamy and their future, then the actual % is of less importance - the dollars in my wallet that feeds the family is what interests me. Fighting for fair etc. is all nice and idealistic, but that went out the window a long time ago - that's just not the reality. I know my place, expendable/replaceable and all - so I look after myself, but I've enjoyed working with Alamy for a long time, right now I need to hear that they have a plan and without promises are confident that they can put more dollars in our pockets if we stay put through this cut. That's where I'm at right now - I'm giving Alamy a hell of a lot of benefit of the doubt at the moment, sincerely hoping that I'm not wrong. But I'm a gut guy and for the time being, regardless of cut or no cut I will remain, but I might leave if actual numbers start to tell me other things i.e. that I'm wasting time here.

[Martin Carlsson]

1 hour ago, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

Well that's fine.  But what evidence do we have that Alamy has coherent plans to achieve these things?  All we've been told is that James sees "storm clouds coming", and they have a million (or was it only a thousand) "things" they want to spend our money on.   And in any case, an immediate 20% reduction in income is a show-stopper for almost anyone except, apparently, you. 

        Having had (in a part-time second profession) considerable training and experience in reading the behavior of sketchy characters, Mr. West's performance fits a classic profile of someone who may try to cut your throat in the next few seconds--nervous, rambling monologue, avoiding eye contact, thousand yard stare.

        My point is simply that we haven't seen, and you haven't provided evidence for, any of what your dreams for the ambitions and plans of Alamy might be.  All the information we've been given is that they intend to reduce payments by 1/5th.   

       And in spite of claims by politicians and James West, hope is not a strategy.

 

Can we not lay off the personal remarks towards poor James, I'm pretty sure he's human and some of the comments are out of order, personal, below the belt - now basically painting him as potential murderer? Thought the forum was to be used for adults discussing and helping each other, not on-line bullying?

 

Regardless of the distasteful comparison I adress your post. I don't have any evidence whatsoever, but it would be shocking to find a business of this magnitude without a serious plan for growth i.e. a 5-year plan, which I hope is realistic but ambitious. Alamy has in my opinion (and what do I know) been overly careful in the past. I wish that they will be braver, taking tough decisions if necessary - it's business. It would be immensely helpful to hear Alamy's thoughts on the future, for them, the overall market and their role within it. Right now I'm going on "trust" and believe that a good plan exist, because the contrary would be shocking and more a reason for leaving than the cut. Make moves Alamy, make moves, show us strength and confidence and reasons for us to stay positive and motivated.

 

"And in any case, an immediate 20% reduction in income is a show-stopper for almost anyone except, apparently, you." I didn't know that you'd spoken to all the Alamy contributors...don't think that it is wise to base your assumptions of the few vocal people that frequent the forum, a mere fraction of the contributor base, again photographers overestimating themselves and unwarranted designating themselves as a spokesperson for the masses, instead of being realistic and level-headed, with a wee bit of patience before making rash decisions based on ill-based pre-emptive conclusions. Anyway, are you saying that a mass-exodus is about to go down and I'm the only one staying? It be well lonely here then!

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

45 minutes ago, Martin Carlsson said:

 

Can we not lay off the personal remarks towards poor James, I'm pretty sure he's human and some of the comments are out of order, personal, below the belt - now basically painting him as potential murderer? Thought the forum was to be used for adults discussing and helping each other, not on-line bullying?

 

Regardless of the distasteful comparison I adress your post. I don't have any evidence whatsoever, but it would be shocking to find a business of this magnitude without a serious plan for growth. I would immensely helpful to hear Alamy's thoughts on the future, for them, the overall market and their role within it. Right now I'm going on "trust" and believe that a good plan exist, because the contrary would be shocking and more a reason for leaving than the cut. Make moves Alamy, make moves, show us strength and confidence and reasons for us to stay positive and motivated.

I am not, and was not, bullying James or anyone.  I was describing my opinion of his behavior based on training and experience in private protection work.   Not everyone who looks "sketchy" is a murderer, potential or otherwise, and I did not accuse him of him of that, but commented on what his behavior was 'like'.   Suffice it to say, Mr. West does not present a confidence-inspiring presence in that video.    I'm certain James is a very nice man.   But what he has perfunctorily announced doing to his loyal vendors severely dampens his credibility in several areas.

 

I've said all, and probably more, than I should say about this, and will bow out of further discussions.  I have pictures to take.  I hope to be a positive contributing member of Alamy for years to come.  

 

Post edit:  I have apologized to Mr. West in an edit to the original post.  

 

 

[Martin Carlsson]

13 minutes ago, Skyscraperfan said:

Of course I would like to have as much money as possible and invest it into journeys and camera gear. I still want to be able to look into the mirror each morning though. People who accept a low commission (or have done that in the past) are the reason that commission were able to get down to a point where some agencies just pay 20%. It's like people accepting a low payment for their job. If enough people do that, the payment goes down for all and the employer is the only one who profits from that. The number of photographers is much bigger than the number of stock agencies. So it is quite easy for them to divide us. Some photographers may even be happy that some "rivals" do no longer offer their photos. We should stand together more though. Do you really think that 50% of a photo sale is not enough money for an agency to cover its costs?

Compare it with a local dealer in your hometown! He get's a much lower margin than 50%, although his costs are much higher, as he sells products who need a lot of physical space and a lot of manpower to handle them. Alamy sells digital products, which are much cheaper to handle. 50% so really be enough. Compare it with digital bookstores for example, who usally charge 30% commission for a sale of an e-book you have published there. Or with an app on an app store, which also leaves 70% of the sale price to you.

 

It's the same problem as in the Ultimatum Game I described earlier: Someone is given $100 and has to share it with you. He has to decide how much he gives you, but if you don't accept his offer, he will also loose his share. Would you really accept 40% there, because it is still more than nothing.
 

 

At least we're now moving into big picture territory. (Stock) photographers have always been their own worst enemy, lack of organisation being the main culprint and too many believing that THEY are right and know better.

 

Do I believe that 50% is enough? Yes, could be fine - so could 60% or 40% be - I'm not so hung up on the % - I'm just not, I care about the net income and staying in control of my images/videos. I accept that there is a lot of profits made of my/our images, I wish that I didn't have to share proceeds with anyone, hence why I for a long time did direct selling which was extremely lucrative back in the days and a reason for starting that back up again, but with a different approach.

 

Please don't misunderstand me - nobody in their right mind likes a cut in income. I don't have any evidence bar the longstanding fruitful business relationship that currently blindly makes me believe that even if dropping to 40% it will continue to be meaningful for me. If it won't I'll leave, I left Getty when I didn't agree with their practises. So I'm blindly believing, for the time being, that Alamy is going to make it worth the short term "hurt" for a long term gain. I welcome them feeling the pressure of delivering because it is quite evident that this move is pushing a lot of contributors buttons and it is time to mature in a business sense and make moves. I'm not here for the camera club feel or the feel good factor, I'm here for the $, nothing else and I don't like wasting my time.

[Skyscraperfan]

If Alamy really is in financial trouble now and therefore makes a cut to 40%, do you really think Alamy would really go back to 50% if the financial trouble is over and it makes huge profits?

It's like taxes. If the government needs money, they raise taxes quite quickly, but in better times they will not lower taxes back to the point where they once were, because politicians love having more money to spend on their favourite projects. With companies it is the same.

[Martin Carlsson]

9 minutes ago, Skyscraperfan said:

If Alamy really is in financial trouble now and therefore makes a cut to 40%, do you really think Alamy would really go back to 50% if the financial trouble is over and it makes huge profits?

It's like taxes. If the government needs money, they raise taxes quite quickly, but in better times they will not lower taxes back to the point where they once were, because politicians love having more money to spend on their favourite projects. With companies it is the same.

 

- Agree, once down it won't go back up.

- Do you find me deluded in thinking that Alamy would like to grow and gain market share and that these things cost?

 

Anyway, I'm not defending the cut, I'm not happy about the cut - but I'm choosing to stay positive and motivated, at this moment in time to assume that the sky isn't falling just yet. It isn't falling for me personally, as I don't stand or fall with Alamy, I certainly hope that others haven't put themselves in a position like that. At 40% Alamy would still be one of the outlets that offer the highest royalty split - an observation.

[KevinS]

Skyscraperfan asks "If Alamy really is in financial trouble now and therefore makes a cut to 40%, do you really think Alamy would really go back to 50% if the financial trouble is over and it makes huge profits?"

 

No, they're not in trouble as far as I can see and NO, they're not at all likely to ever go back.  If so, there would be no proposed change today. M Chapman posted this in the other thread;

 

Re: Dividends

£423K paid out in 2017

Profits also rose from £619K to £1,420K, so dividends may have been set according to that.

 

Alamy's accounts can be found here https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03807789/filing-history

 

Mark

[KevinS]

Lots of info at the link above.

[ChrisC]

On 12/10/2018 at 20:03, KevinS said:

Chris,

 

I posted one page back that Alamy has changed the address they send from, at least to me. This change triggered a spam filter at my provider. The update message never made it to my computer. I view this as an Alamy-caused problem. I don't believe I was notified of the change in the sender address Alamy used.

 

        That address is; contibutors@em.alamy.com

 

The "em" refers to some email software Alamy is using to send bulk emails.  

There is nothing in my spam filter on my phone or PC, so I't'd be interesting to see who the e-mail was sent to? Is it just the top earners, or those with the biggest amount of images perhaps?

[Starsphinx]

25 minutes ago, Bear said:

 

 

Being new here I thought it best to hear the long time members.  I was trying to figure out some post about the 20%,  when I was in school 40 from 50 is 10.  So in, I guess it was in 2010 Alamy went from 60% to 50%, so I thought that was it, now with 40% would make 20%.  Then someone brought up 60 from 40 is the 20%.  Anyway been chasing rabbits.....

 

 

I have not uploaded since receiving the email.

No it is 50 to 40 that is a 20% cut - it is 10 percentage points when counting out of 100 - but work out what 10 is as a percentage of 50.  Or think of it this way - last week you got paid £50.  This week you get paid £40 - how much have your wages shrank?

[Martin Carlsson]

7 minutes ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

I might be repeating myself here but, you know, the problem we are discussing here might be exactly the fact that Alamy wants to gain market share in some kind of way. The first thing that comes to mind (at least for the less creative managers) when it comes to gaining market share, is to lower the prices of what you are selling, whatever it is. And to keep your benefits high, you pressure your suppliers (in this case, guess who…). Nothing new. And I do not say that it is exactly what is happening, just something that we have seen so many times that we cannot help thinking about it. And so back to the question: have we reached the point where Alamy's interests and the interests of the contributors are not converging anymore?

 

I'm sure the interest continues to converge, but it might become less "buddy buddy"/camera club around here going forward and real world non-sheltered cushy-cushy harsh business. At times it has been very much camera-club feel with all the "got a camera yesterday and today I want to earn money" people popping in today gone tomorrow. Is of course Alamy's prerogative who they let through the door, but personally I'm convinced that it might be more profitable to be less "nice" and personal, and more harsh reality business-like for both them and those of us that it is more than a feather in the hat for to license images. Not trying to sound pompous or pushing down on anyone, but well I'm sure most know what I mean, there is an awful lot of sub-standard stuff clogging up the system, the systems that now needs upgraded... Said with the best of intentions, without trying to hurt anyone's feelings.

[KevinS]

29 minutes ago, ChrisC said:

There is nothing in my spam filter on my phone or PC, so I't'd be interesting to see who the e-mail was sent to? Is it just the top earners, or those with the biggest amount of images perhaps?

On Oct 18 Alamy said;

 

Hi everyone

 

We are sorry to hear not everyone have received an email yet. Because of new regulations it's harder than before to email large groups of people who have unsubscribed from our mailing list. We are working on a fix for contract notifications and an email should be with all of you as soon as possible.

 

Still working on a fix?

[Ollie]

16 hours ago, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

I have just watched the James West video for the 3rd(?) time, and it shows itself as more preposterous with each viewing.  

 

Firstly, I don't know everything.  I am only a retired business owner/operator of a small US furniture company.  My primary customers were other--much larger--companies.   I was a vendor of completed wood furniture to them.  And I think of how such shenanigans as Alamy is trying to pull would have fared in my 3+ decades in business. 

 

Had I announced to my parts and supplies vendors that I was cutting my prices to them, so that I could invest and enlarge my business, they would have laughed and said 'good luck'--and that would have been the end of the relationships.  Certainly, at times, and in certain limited circumstances I was able to negotiate changes (usually in payment terms).  But a wholesale reduction of their prices would have been impossible and, indeed, would have been self-defeating for me, as these vendors were worth far more than just the goods they sold me.  Pricing is not arbitrary.  It represents real costs and benefits.  Profit is not arbitrary.  It represents work done.  Or should.

 

Inversely, I once had a customer--for whom I was a vendor--waltz into my office and announce there would have to be a reduction in my pricing to him, else he would leave.  In truth, I needed this customer.  He was my second largest.  But I could see by the attitude with which he essentially "told" me  what was going to happen that, even should I agree, things were not going to go well thereafter.   So I told him--in words I don't think are kosher on this site (remember, I am an American) where to find the front door.

 

It hurt me.  It hurt others.  I had to lay off  a couple of employees.  But  I recovered, and my best days were to come. As with photography, furniture manufacturing is a low profit business.   Two per cent profit?  That was just fine.

 

Alamy thinks that, because they have SO MANY vendors, that they will not be damaged by the fallout from this move. Thing is, though it may look like it, they are not all vendors of the same product.   Each is unique.  And each is necessary to provide purchasers with a well-rounded catalog from which to choose. 

 

Fact is, Alamy probably won't know how it has hurt them.---as reasons for economic success and failure are many, and entertwined.  People, especially politicians and bad businessmen, tend to take credit for successes and blame "the economy" for failures.   I think that's what Mr. West did with his little chart showing the uptick after reducing commissions previously.   The fact is, they rode the economic boom that everyone else rode.  

 

Damage will be done in this case, perhaps already is done.   'Good Will' is one of the chief assets of any business, and that comes both from customers and vendors.  You can't do without both.  And this is the days of instant news.  The proposed reduction in commissions has already spread 'round the world.  And it will matter.  Probably a lot.

 

Now, for a very basic course in how to run a business:  You don't finance growth by damaging/destroying what has made you successful in the first place.  You contemplate growth when you have need for growth, and when you have both the assets and the credit worthiness to finance that growth. 

 

I am a new (8 month) vendor to Alamy, with less than 900 images on board.  I have made them two sales thus far.  I am small potatoes.  But the vendors they are insulting, belittling, and financially harming are the core of their business.  How can someone be so blind?

 

PS:  Posted the last half of this diatribe to the Youtube video comments--starting with   "Alamy thinks that...."

 

Your experience and the way you have written it up deserve to be sent to James West directly.  I have written him twice in the last ten days and have received an answer each time, the most recent one being fairly detailed (though he cut and pasted part of his original reply where he asked if I would consider giving Alamy exclusive representation in exchange for maintaining the 50% commission).  This tells me that he is reading and responding to personal emails.  I'd be surprised if he has time to read this forum or watch YouTube comments.  They are obviously giving thought to maintaining the 50-50 commission.  People with well-reasoned, cogently expressed advice and experience should write him directly.  I don't think this is the time to raise other issues, such as PU sales, or failure to chase infringements.  Those are tangential to the core question of the commission rate and under what terms it is maintained. 

[Alamy]

5 minutes ago, KevinS said:

On Oct 18 Alamy said;

 

Hi everyone

 

We are sorry to hear not everyone have received an email yet. Because of new regulations it's harder than before to email large groups of people who have unsubscribed from our mailing list. We are working on a fix for contract notifications and an email should be with all of you as soon as possible.

 

Still working on a fix?

 

For clarity, everyone who has images on Alamy was emailed this advanced notification of the upcoming 45 day notice period on the same day.

If you have unsubscribed from our emails then it does mean that the process is not as straight-forward, but the email was still sent to the same email address you registered with. The quote above refers to us looking at other ways to notify you in the future, perhaps through your dashboard, but for now we can confirm that everyone who has images with us was emailed.

 

This thread is for feedback on the commission change so if you have any concerns regarding email notifications from Alamy, please email contributors@alamy.com who will be happy to help.

 

Thanks,

 

Alamy