Commission change - James West comments

[Cryptoprocta]

10 minutes ago, Skyscraperfan said:

Wouldn't it be a lot of work for a buyer to look if the image is elsewhere? Where should he start?

Exclusivity was also something that I saw as a downside of Getty. Exclusivity meant that only Getty could sell your work. That is quite a restriction. So if they do not sell one of your images, it will not be sold at all. And that exclusivity does not even cover your image, but also all of your images that look similar to that image, even if those similar images were rejected because of minor quality flaws. That means that Getty forbids you to sell those rejected images ANYWHERE. Not at Getty and also nowhere outside of Getty. So you have a photo and are not allowed to sell it AT ALL.

What I would reject though is an exclusivity on the customer side, which means that if somebody buys your image exclusive, you can never sell it again to some other customer - or at least not for a number of years. That might take some of your best selling images off the market.

1. S/he would start by Google Reverse Images.  However, although a file might be cheaper elsewhere, they would need to buy a subscription which may not suit some buyers.  If they needed lots of images, no doubt they'd have a good quantity discount via Alamy anyway. Single images can be surprisingly expensive via some of the sub-model agencies.

 

2. Presumably Alamy would also require similar/sister exclusivity, as they do now for RM (similars can't be sold RF anywhere else). And if you think Getty image exclusivity is a downside, their micro arm has artist exclusivity (for RF). But a much higher commission for exclusive (even though both rates are pitiful).

 

3. RM - exclusive is already available here on Alamy, and obviously the buyer has to pay much more for them. I think it's very rare on Alamy though (my experience, and that of others, is that we get enquiries, but it doesn't lead to anything).

[Duncan_Andison]

12 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

After sending an e-mail to James last night, I have already received a response from him, probably the same one most contributors got.

 

As others have said, it sounds as if Alamy is considering 50% for exclusive (on a per image basis, selling direct OK but not thru other agencies) and 40% for non-exclusive. 

 

Guess this isn't exactly breaking news but thought I'd post an update.

 

Personally, Alamy would be the last place I'd allow total exclusivity. They're too liberal with low licence fees at low sales volumes. They'd need a monumental increase in sales to even consider exclusivity and even then, given the way they've treated photographers earnings this time, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them now. It's just a question of time before they pull the same stunt again. As mentioned elsewhere, damage done.

[M.Chapman]

5 hours ago, cbimages said:

If 50% cut is offered for Alamy exclusive images, then 45 days notice is not enough. Many (most) of us have our images elsewhere as well, and it will take months to get them removed. And even then, we can't be 100% sure they have been due to distributor schemes. When I joined Alamy, there was no incentive to keep images exclusive, nor any way of even notifying Alamy that they were. If the goalposts are going to move, we all should be given the courtesy of time needed to organise our images should we want them to be Alamy exclusive.

 

After the tactless way Alamy announced the proposed change, I think it would be unwise to delete images from elsewhere.... If Alamy had been more open, described their problems and their business objectives and then asked contributors for ideas to help them achieve them, (i.e. a more collaborative approach that shows they value their contributors), I might feel differently. I certainly won't be deleting any of my images from elsewhere, I'll more likely be adding to them. If Alamy climb down now, after 11 days  and 1,400 mostly negative forum posts, contributors leaving, images being deleted and poor press, it will hardly feel like a collaboration...more like a change under duress.  And... I don't believe what they offer will last long before they have to change it again. At the moment I've lost confidence in Alamy which will be hard for them to recover.

 

Mark

[Starsphinx]

7 hours ago, MariaJ said:

 

AFAIK,  Disney is very protective of their copyrights and very restrictive in the selling of images (commercial or editorial) from their properties.  That's probably why there are so few images of their parks etc.  

You miss my point - teacup rides are exceptionally common - they are all over the place and seem to be a standard of park rides from the highest to the lowest (hence my mention of Disney) - so something as common, bright, colourful, cheerful as a teacup ride should have been covered to death for stock right?  It hasn't.  Not close.  The rides come in many colours and designs, can be shown from many different angles yet there is less than 300 photographs depicting them here and at other places including big microstock. 

A standard response when talking about industry issues of falling prices and fees is "stock is dead the market is saturated" - my point is that this is untrue, the market is not saturated in some subjects (for those rushing to photography teacup rides try researching other similar items - some are saturated some are most definitely not).  Some very common very easy to photograph subjects have only tiny (relatively) numbers of photographs,  and I suspect that photographers who make the effort to research what areas have not been saturated will do a lot better than those who blame saturation without looking to see if its true.

[Martin P Wilson]

3 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

You miss my point - teacup rides are exceptionally common - they are all over the place and seem to be a standard of park rides from the highest to the lowest (hence my mention of Disney) - so something as common, bright, colourful, cheerful as a teacup ride should have been covered to death for stock right?  It hasn't.  Not close.  The rides come in many colours and designs, can be shown from many different angles yet there is less than 300 photographs depicting them here and at other places including big microstock. 

A standard response when talking about industry issues of falling prices and fees is "stock is dead the market is saturated" - my point is that this is untrue, the market is not saturated in some subjects (for those rushing to photography teacup rides try researching other similar items - some are saturated some are most definitely not).  Some very common very easy to photograph subjects have only tiny (relatively) numbers of photographs,  and I suspect that photographers who make the effort to research what areas have not been saturated will do a lot better than those who blame saturation without looking to see if its true.

 

Indeed, but they will still attract the same pitiful rates that we see for stock generally I thought about being more analytical with my stock work, but the rates, not the competition, was what put me off.

 

[Starsphinx]

4 hours ago, cbimages said:

If 50% cut is offered for Alamy exclusive images, then 45 days notice is not enough. Many (most) of us have our images elsewhere as well, and it will take months to get them removed. And even then, we can't be 100% sure they have been due to distributor schemes. When I joined Alamy, there was no incentive to keep images exclusive, nor any way of even notifying Alamy that they were. If the goalposts are going to move, we all should be given the courtesy of time needed to organise our images should we want them to be Alamy exclusive.

 

I would also be looking at some kind of guarantee that exclusive images were not disadvantaged in the searches, because non exclusive images would make more $$ for Alamy.

I have to say if I was Alamy in this position the way I would do it is 40% for all images currently uploaded regardless of whether exclusivity is claimed or actual, and then differentiate on all new uploads - so when uploading to get 50% you make the image exclusive to Alamy and tick a box promising that you will not upload said image to any other agency either while it is exclusive to Alamy or for a minimum of say 6 months from removing the exclusivity,  with hefty legal penalties if you broke this word.  I would also add in some commitment about similars from the same shoot or something.
I would then take pictures that are uploaded under this new tight restriction and promote the hell out of them.

[Allan Bell]

39 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

I have to say if I was Alamy in this position the way I would do it is 40% for all images currently uploaded regardless of whether exclusivity is claimed or actual, and then differentiate on all new uploads - so when uploading to get 50% you make the image exclusive to Alamy and tick a box promising that you will not upload said image to any other agency either while it is exclusive to Alamy or for a minimum of say 6 months from removing the exclusivity,  with hefty legal penalties if you broke this word.  I would also add in some commitment about similars from the same shoot or something.
I would then take pictures that are uploaded under this new tight restriction and promote the hell out of them.

 

The red arrows show it all. I did not give you one of them BTW as I do not do that. But your suggestion would not work for the contributor or for Alamy as I see it.

 

Allan

 

 

[Starsphinx]

2 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

The red arrows show it all. I did not give you one of them BTW as I do not do that. But your suggestion would not work for the contributor or for Alamy as I see it.

 

Allan

 

 

I was not making it as a suggestion - and I do not say it would work - I am saying I see it as something that might be cooked up. 

If people want to red arrow it to show what they think of it not a problem - I just hope they are not red arrowing me for expressing the thought.

[spacecadet]

5 hours ago, DCSmith said:

Just pointing out the possibility of abuse.

I used to photograph charity events, before they started using amateurs from craigslist for free, and the amount of graft and skimming was astonishing. A lot of c suite execs. are routinely able to write off $1000 meals, airline travel, hotel stays, etc under the guise of soliciting donations. It would be much easier if the "donations" came from a source that you control and not able to exercise any oversight. Most charities that have large outside donors get audited regularly also.

Not the sort of thing that happens in the UK.

[spacecadet]

Exclusivity suits me- I'd be giving up nothing to agree it as I have nothing elsewhere, partly out of laziness but also the nature of my port which i suspect applies to a lot of contributors. Alamy did say "per-image" so you can still have images drop out of excusivity in future.

A pain for those who have taken advantage of non-exclusivity though, and a pretty big change in the Alamy "deal"- although the contract does say it's non-exclusive, and that will still be true. Non-exclusivity will just bear a price for the first time.

[Starsphinx]

9 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Not the sort of thing that happens in the UK.

With respect are you being naive?  Everything from the RSPCAs gorgeous new HQ a few years back to the local man whose local charity give him a very comfortable lifestyle I have seen plenty of charity employees getting fat on the hog.  All done perfectly legitimately of course, and charities have to offer high salaries and perks to attract the necessary calibre of staff.

[spacecadet]

5 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

With respect are you being naive?  Everything from the RSPCAs gorgeous new HQ a few years back to the local man whose local charity give him a very comfortable lifestyle I have seen plenty of charity employees getting fat on the hog.  All done perfectly legitimately of course, and charities have to offer high salaries and perks to attract the necessary calibre of staff.

The poster who accused Alamy of money laundering wasn't talking about nice premises and competitive salaries. He was talking about tax fraud in a country with no welfare.

Likewise, with respect, anyone can come up with a Daily Mail-type "scroungers" example if they need one.

[Broad Norfolk]

3 hours ago, Broad Norfolk said:

I would be happy with 50% image exclusivity to Alamy. My 9K+ are all exclusive to Alamy anyway. I submit to other libraries and in each case my submissions are exclusive - no duplicates anywhere.

Jim.

 

Further to my comment above I must add that I too am not happy with 20% reduction in commission.

Like many contributors, I run a small business of which income from Alamy represents around 5% of my income. I wish it was more! On average I upload around 70 images per month on a regular basis. My downfall is probably that I just like making images. In the light of the proposed reduction in commission one has to consider reality as I have a business to run as well as Alamy. I kept faith after the last reduction to 50% but this, together with overall price reductions, meant that the rest of my business has been subsidising my Alamy contributions. This obviously cannot continue.

My own answer I guess is rather simplistic. I just adjust the way I do things and put emphasis into other areas. In particular print sales, which I will describe as 'exhibition' quality and usually command $$$ prices. These particular images would never go into stock because of the anticipated low prices they are likely to realise which I consider would be an undervaluation of my work. I only need to sell one of these per month to exceed the income I get from stock. The current situation has now got me to thinking why on earth haven't I done this before?

If the commission remained at 50% I would probably grin and bear it as it's an outlet for my obsession of making images!!

Jim.

 

 

[BobD]

17 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

 

Exclusivity to retain 50/50 is the only counter by Alamy to now, AFAIK.

Another problem with exclusivity, there is history of contribs bending

rules, e.g., (5) similars limit, etc. (can't remember other examples)

Exclusivity will be violated -- guaranteed.

Those NOT violating it will be outraged & decide, hell, I'm doing it, too...

 

I believe most, but not all, would be honest

This of course would have to be contractual, flout the rules and maybe you would lose your account.

 

While I would prefer things to stay as they are, I can see the logic in a higher rate for exclusivity. But Alamy will have to play their part as well. If you have exclusive images then you must ask for higher prices. cut out the abuse and nonsense refunds.

 

Contributors will have to make their own decision as to what is best for their own interests. Be non-exclusive for 40% (with the potential to earn more per image by spreading them around) of be exclusive for 50% with the possible upside for maybe higher prices.

 

Either way it is better to have a 50/40 split for exclusivity than 40 for all. At least the choice will be in our own hands. 

[Martin P Wilson]

8 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

I believe most, but not all, would be honest

This of course would have to be contractual, flout the rules and maybe you would lose your account.

 

...

 

Like contributors do for keyword spamming, keyword plagiarism, and clients for 'erroneous' self-reporting of usage, or those why blatantly infringe copyright.

 

Does Alamy police its existing rules, let alone new, more complex, ones?

[Martin Carlsson]

1 hour ago, Starsphinx said:

I was not making it as a suggestion - and I do not say it would work - I am saying I see it as something that might be cooked up. 

If people want to red arrow it to show what they think of it not a problem - I just hope they are not red arrowing me for expressing the thought.

 

Don't worry about the arrows, regardless of the colour or let them prevent you from speaking your mind. We all get it wrong sometimes and right at other times.

[BobD]

1 hour ago, Starsphinx said:

I was not making it as a suggestion - and I do not say it would work - I am saying I see it as something that might be cooked up. 

If people want to red arrow it to show what they think of it not a problem - I just hope they are not red arrowing me for expressing the thought.

 

I just wish people would state their (presumably opposing position) and add to the debate rather than red arrow. 

[Martin Carlsson]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Exclusivity does not make any sense for me. We have been encouraged by Alamy not to be exclusive, individual sales fees are falling, revenue is falling. Alamy alone is not enough to make a decent stock income. It hasn't been enough for five or six years ( lack of market penetration that James West admits to) 

 

My view is that any tiered commission system should be based on performance, particularly actual Sales, so that it acts as an incentive. 

 

I have just passed $200,000 gross sales after actively contributing since December 2002. Not spectacular I know but steady commitment and loyalty and an individual achievement for a former teacher without professional training in photography.

 

As a reward ......why such a brutal kick in the teeth Alamy?

 

 

Don't know if I agree with having been encouraged, but definitely not discouraged.

 

However, I don't think it is the wrong time to turn over the leaf and shake things up and "get somewhere", not just the more or less treading water as a library.

 

Don't know exactly the best way forward, but trying to think of what is best for Alamy as that would likely benefit the majority of contributors as well. I'm convinced there would be ways that IMAGE exclusivity could be beneficial for both parties. I'm also, like yourself, inclined to implement something that reward those that fall into the category of making money rather than those that mainly clog up the system. There isn't a way that will make everyone "happy", standing still/status quo certainly doesn't make me happy, I would like to see a more aggressive Alamy going after market share, but not at the expense of lowering prices - thus exclusivity could be a great marketing tool.

 

Interesting to see your data. The following is hard to say/ask without sounding condescending, but please trust me that I'm not, I just have a curious mind and don't do "upmanship" etc., your data just left me with a lot of questions. What's your thoughts on self-curation or have you swapped the mindset to one of letting the market/buyers do it completely for you? Looks very much like a brute-force approach if I may say so? I can't but help noticing the extremely low net RPI, don't you find that demotivating and in extension doesn't this approach hurt your CTR/Alamy Rank significantly, ending up being counter-productive? Perhaps that is what one should do, just like the libraries i.e. personally open the floodgates/taps to "everything"? Do you find this approach better, because not that I keep notes, but I do seem to recall you being more "restrictive" in the past?

 

With the best of intentions, from a curious mind, that just like everyone is trying to work out the best way forward.

[Scott]

Exclusivity, for those who contribute to multiple agencies or libraries, would reduce the contributor’s diversity of revenue streams and thus subject the contributor to greater, future Alamy pricing power over them, correct?  Exclusivity may work when there is a guaranteed benefit or return to the contributor for not only sold image licenses but also for unsold images that they have restricted from sale through other libraries or agencies.   After all, who is clairvoyant and knows what images, marked as exclusive on Alamy, would ever sell on Alamy?  Alamy's current way of working regarding exclusivity forces an all or none approach by contributors with the only benefit being associated to that one out of many thousands of images actually licensed as exclusive at the expense of restricting all other image sales anywhere else.

 

Perhaps 70/30 split (in contributors favor) for sales of all licensed images marked as exclusive in the portfolio along with the expected, enhanced licensing fees if an image is sold as exclusive.  For those images not marked as exclusive, a 50/50 split and normal licensing fees apply.  So, in essence, contributors get additional benefit in the form of a higher split for making their images exclusive to Alamy,  sold or unsold as exclusive.  Why try to claw back to a 50/50 arrangement?

 

James was proud to say that Alamy has no debt.  But from the outside looking in,  eschewing a decade long run of historically low interest rates, for example, is not using all the levers of business to grow the business and do all the novel things you want to do to disrupt his industry.   Private equity placements?   I'm sure you are doing this, but when you see Koch making a non-controlling 500MUSD investment, you wonder why not Alamy?  My point here is bootstrapping operations and growth on the backs of contributors = slow growth - to eventually be a follower v. leader, a taker v. disrupter, and I'm sure that is not the vision James had starting up.

[KevinS]

James proposed this change under duress. Sure, any path to compromise appeals. Exclusivity doesn't make Alamy attractive, 50/50 did. 

[andremichel]

9 minutes ago, funkyworm said:

 

The cards may be in their hands, but they are our cards. All 150m. They are only in their hands because we let them.

 

Quoting Varys from Game of Thrones: “power lies where we think it lies.”

[andremichel]

4 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Exclusivity does not make any sense for me. We have been encouraged by Alamy not to be exclusive, individual sales fees are falling, revenue is falling. Alamy alone is not enough to make a decent stock income. It hasn't been enough for five or six years ( lack of market penetration that James West admits to) 

 

My view is that any tiered commission system should be based on performance, particularly actual Sales, so that it acts as an incentive. 

 

I have just passed $200,000 gross sales after actively contributing since December 2002. Not spectacular I know but steady commitment and loyalty and an individual achievement for a former teacher without professional training in photography.

 

As a reward ......why such a brutal kick in the teeth Alamy?

 

 

Congratulations on joining the $200,000 club. Great achievement showing 16 years of dedication to Alamy.

 

Maybe you can do one of those PR articles for Alamy to attract new contributors.

 

[BobD]

8 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

When I asked previously simply having my pics priced on my own Photoshelter website was sufficient prohibition to be exclusive on Alamy. 

 

This is not my understanding of James' e-mail. 

 

quote.

'a. Exclusive with Alamy (you can sell elsewhere direct but not via other stock agencies) for 50%'

 

 

[BobD]

1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

Is Alamy a stock agency? 

 

 

That is beside the point really, the point being is you should be able to sell direct via your photoshelter account.

 

 

[Duncan_Andison]

With exclusivity you're tied to the way the one agency works and what they offer you. If they decided to change what is on offer, you are in no position to react quickly to protect your income. Basically, it would take months to build up work with other agencies again in order to get to the point you were at before the next 20% cut. Load the gun, spin the barrel and hope for the best is not the way I like to manage risk.

 

Now, if you're not reliant on the money (not main income) then exclusivity can work as it saves time and might boost your earnings..... provided the fees aren't slashed further. However, it feels like a delivery driver with one van, no breakdown cover and no income protection insurance..... just hoping each day his van keeps going but at the same time knowing at some point you're going to be saddled with a sizeable bill just to keep it going.

 

Edit.

Personally, over the last year I've been trying to spread the risk and become less reliant on one/two agencies. All it takes is for an unfavourable change to the search algorithm and, well, you're stuffed.