Commission change - James West comments

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

2 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

And as I said when I asked about this previously the answer I got was different. So what guarantee is that for the future?

In the future there is no future.

 

If Alamy does an exclusive option, they need to devise and publish a plan for how they will use that exclusivity for the benefit of both themselves and contributors.  Just having a box to check will achieve nothing in increased sales and income.  So far, Alamy has come up short on published plans.  Hopefully that will improve, along with any new changes to the contract. 

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

If Alamy has an exclusive option offering more money that exclusive box will be ticked.

Indeed, though since they can sell any image for any price, there certainly needs to be a lot of detail in the published 'plan'.

 

What would be most important, imho, is that you guys with substantial high quality catalogs and histories of making them money participate in the exclusive scheme--assuming your port is already de facto exclusive.   There needs to be a strong incentive for Alamy not to push the 50% images below the 40% ones in the algorithm. 

[Phil]

8 minutes ago, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

 

If Alamy does an exclusive option, they need to devise and publish a plan for how they will use that exclusivity for the benefit of both themselves and contributors.  Just having a box to check will achieve nothing in increased sales and income. 

Yep - the Alamy exclusive check box has been available for sometime.  Has Alamy made any real attempt to capitalize on it?   Has anyone seen any obvious increase in marketing, sales, or income for exclusive images as a result?

 

If they keep 50% commission for exclusive images they also need to present a real reason to be image exclusive - otherwise it's a crap shoot.

 

 

 

[MarkK]

6 hours 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.

I think that is easier to say when you haven't been uploading photos to the database for many years to Alamy like many in this forum have (I only have been doing this a couple years but sure have a lot of empathy for those who have been doing it for much longer as well as for those just starting out).  There are some on here who have consistently been uploading to Alamy almost 20 years.  That is a LOT of investment on many levels.  To suggest that all images currently uploaded be at the 40% is likely based on your longevity and portfolio size and not taking into account the collective whole of contributors.  I have only been with Alamy for two years and have done it full time expecting that in the future the time/energy will pay off.  I presume a lot of others have been uploading for years under this same framework. I have been awestruck by the non-contributor informed decision to make the cuts and have yet to determine how I will react but it is based a lot on the transparent response by James on what I consider a crisis.   I think that solutions/strategies forward must keep into context that we are all individuals with our own levels of investment and longevity with Alamy and that solutions need to be viewed from the many different contributor vantagepoints.  I don't see how the suggestion of 40% for all currently uploaded content is fair, ethical, or in the best interest of Alamy.  On the contrary, I see that content contributed under the 50/50 framework be grandfathered in and shielded from the proposed 20% cut.

[Duncan_Andison]

7 minutes ago, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

Indeed, though since they can sell any image for any price, there certainly needs to be a lot of detail in the published 'plan'.

 

What would be most important, imho, is that you guys with substantial high quality catalogs and histories of making them money participate in the exclusive scheme--assuming your port is already de facto exclusive.   There needs to be a strong incentive for Alamy not to push the 50% images below the 40% ones in the algorithm. 

 

That is another risk and there is no way to know or, guarantee it won't happen. No agency publishes the variables used to determine search position as this would leave them open to people gaming the system.

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

Yep - the Alamy exclusive check box has been available for sometime.  Has Alamy made any real attempt to capitalize on it?   Has anyone seen any obvious increase in marketing, sales, or income for exclusive images as a result?

 

If they keep 50% commission for exclusive images they also need to present a real reason to be image exclusive - otherwise it's a crap shoot.

 

 

 

Exactly.   They need to promote this as a substantial new service for their clients. 

[regen]

8 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

If Alamy wants images on an exclusive basis they have taken nearly 20 years to decide on that.

 

What has changed? Why?

Edited 5 minutes ago by geogphotos

 

Nothing really apart from Alamy realising they are on a slippery slope and deciding that the quickest and most profitable way of delaying the inevitable is to take 20% of your hard earned cash without offering anything concrete in return. They are now,maybe,offering exclusivity simply because it is something they can manage within their present systems with the minimum of input from them. If it turns out like stacking, stemming,visibility and some of their other offerings then it will be interesting!

 

I gave up after the last cut so retaining the 50%,even if it means giving exclusivity,works for me. Alamy was never a first choice for specialist material but for a few years did reach a few markets where the trads did not go. I have never been keen on putting the same files with different agencies as I have always felt this,together with oversupply and placing with sub agencies has helped to kill the stock business. 

 

Regen

 

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

1 minute ago, Duncan_Andison said:

 

That is another risk and there is no way to know or, guarantee it won't happen. No agency publishes the variables used to determine search position as this would leave them open to people gaming the system.

Yes.  But it's my impression that the majority of the largest and most important contributors (at least as represented in this forum) are already de facto exclusive, even though they may not have "checked the box".   If The majority of the best images are made exclusive, Alamy would have to promote and sell them. 

 

And if there is a market for exclusives, then those are the ones they have to sell.   Of course, if there is little or no market, as some say, it won't work out quite as well, though one has to assume that the best images will still sell.

 

 

[Duncan_Andison]

10 minutes ago, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

Yes.  But it's my impression that the majority of the largest and most important contributors (at least as represented in this forum) are already de facto exclusive, even though they may not have "checked the box".   If The majority of the best images are made exclusive, Alamy would have to promote and sell them. 

 

And if there is a market for exclusives, then those are the ones they have to sell.   Of course, if there is little or no market, as some say, it won't work out quite as well, though one has to assume that the best images will still sell.

 

 

 

Maybe some but I know there are quite a few that submit to other editorial agencies. It will come down to how much Alamy makes for them. Given the squeeze on fees and Alamy's willingness to cut commissions it would be a brave individual to place all your stock eggs in this particular basket. Alamy would have to come up with a good package and that, may or may not, offset anything they may make from those left at 40%..... if they're the smaller group in terms of image volumes. Especially as it will be the 40%'ers that will be funding Alamy's bright ideas.

[Bill Brooks]

19 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

We are all still waiting for a "Public Response" from Mr. West.

 

I will add that as far as I am concerned, the damage has been

done and I do not think it can be repaired.

 

Chuck Nacke

 

Chuck, anything can be repaired.

News photography is entirely different, and requires much more effort than Stock photography.

News should remain at 50%, no question.

 

Looking at stock photography from 30,000 feet, the 40% for stock photography could be accommodated if it means my sales total rises, and my monthly photographers payment for stock sales goes up considerably. With my stock only library it is not about the price, not about the percentage, it is about the size of the monthly Alamy payment for images in my stock library.

 

Bill

[andremichel]

29 minutes ago, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

Yes.  But it's my impression that the majority of the largest and most important contributors (at least as represented in this forum) are already de facto exclusive

 

I'm not convinced that's accurate. I can think of several who probably are and several who certainly aren't. 

[John Mitchell]

8 hours ago, Duncan_Andison said:

 

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.

 

Hate to say it, but I think that Alamy might just grasping at straws with the 50% for exclusivity idea. They have opened a Pandora's box and are now looking for an easy way to close it. Hopefully Alamy is now thinking through all the possible complications. There's no simple way out of this mess now.

[Martin P Wilson]

I don't believe Alamy are capable of exploiting exclusivity  (or their scale) effectively with significantly increased prices and so with Alamy's smaller commission (than non-exc) they are more likely to find it most profitable to push non-exclusive images. Exclusivity does not really matter for basic editorial images.

 

My images are effectively exclusive in that I am no longer represented elsewhere. I am not going to make them exclusive either, I have thought about pulling them, I would not notice the tiny income loss, but I suspect it would not be worth the effort toput them elsewhere (or doing any work on them at Alamy). So I could just leave them but it does not make my views clear to Alamy and possibly contributes to Alamy feeling they have got away with it and that would hurt those that have to stay (at least for the moment) because it is a major part of their income.

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, Martin P Wilson said:

 Exclusivity does not really matter for basic editorial images.

 

 

Thats an interesting and rather profound assertion.   Especially since Alamy is usually perceived as mostly an editorial image portal.

 

it would make the case for exclusivity even weaker.

 

[Duncan_Andison]

10 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Hate to say it, but I think that Alamy might just grasping at straws with the 50% for exclusivity idea. They have opened a Pandora's box and are now looking for an easy way to close it. Hopefully Alamy is now thinking through all the possible complications. There's no simple way out of this mess now.

 

Agree 100%..... sort of confirms they just took it for granted that they could take money off contributors and that they'd just roll over.

[Skyscraperfan]

I got the impression that the cut came from a position of power. Alamy knows that each photographer here has his own goals. So there might not be a united front against the cut.

That reminds me of the Brexit negotiations. The EU is in the position of power and knows that Britain at some point has to sign a treaty it does not really want, because the alternative is even worse for Britain. As a German I feel really bad about how the EU treats Britain. I do not want to treat others like that just because I can.

[John Mitchell]

11 minutes ago, Duncan_Andison said:

 

Agree 100%..... sort of confirms they just took it for granted that they could take money off contributors and that they'd just roll over.

 

Come to think of it, there is one easy way out after all -- keep the current fair 50/50 split and rethink the funding plan.

 

But someone might have already mentioned that...

[Shergar]

5 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Come to think of it, there is one easy way out after all -- keep the current fair 50/50 split and rethink the funding plan.

 

But someone might have already mentioned that...

They very well might have John , But I for one will not get fed up of hearing it! If James can figure a way to come out of all this publicity smelling of roses he just might end up having a tier one company on his hands. 

 

[John Mitchell]

6 minutes ago, Shergar said:

They very well might have John , But I for one will not get fed up of hearing it! If James can figure a way to come out of all this publicity smelling of roses he just might end up having a tier one company on his hands. 

 

 

And I'm sure we'll all stop and smell the roses if he does.

[Martin P Wilson]

10 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

And I'm sure we'll all stop and smell the roses if he does.

 

Nope, not me.

 

I have finished submitting, the only decision is whether I pull my account. But as I say it is not a big issue for me but I am conscious of a collective purpose (rare for me), see my earlier post at top of page 34.

[Starsphinx]

6 hours ago, Martin Carlsson said:

 

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.

 

5 hours ago, BobD said:

 

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

Gents don't worry about me and arrows - if there is one thing I do better than photography it is full on no holds barred debating up to and including being the owner and admin of a successful free debate forum several years back.  I have been an active political campaigner doing both doorstep and stalls in town centres  (and had a Labour candidate complain I was intimidating him when I was in the audience at a public meeting).  I live in a Lib Dem town, worked for the Leave campaign am pro Brexit (obviously) and pro hunting.   Trust me when I say that this place is a peaceful well-mannered haven with a generally polite exchange of views.

1 hour ago, MarkK said:

I think that is easier to say when you haven't been uploading photos to the database for many years to Alamy like many in this forum have (I only have been doing this a couple years but sure have a lot of empathy for those who have been doing it for much longer as well as for those just starting out).  There are some on here who have consistently been uploading to Alamy almost 20 years.  That is a LOT of investment on many levels.  To suggest that all images currently uploaded be at the 40% is likely based on your longevity and portfolio size and not taking into account the collective whole of contributors.  I have only been with Alamy for two years and have done it full time expecting that in the future the time/energy will pay off.  I presume a lot of others have been uploading for years under this same framework. I have been awestruck by the non-contributor informed decision to make the cuts and have yet to determine how I will react but it is based a lot on the transparent response by James on what I consider a crisis.   I think that solutions/strategies forward must keep into context that we are all individuals with our own levels of investment and longevity with Alamy and that solutions need to be viewed from the many different contributor vantagepoints.  I don't see how the suggestion of 40% for all currently uploaded content is fair, ethical, or in the best interest of Alamy.  On the contrary, I see that content contributed under the 50/50 framework be grandfathered in and shielded from the proposed 20% cut.

Again, in case you missed my subsequent post, - this is not a suggestion this is me imagining what a company proposing a 20% cut might do to try and make an equally unattractive outcome look nicer.   If they did try it I would object - I am just trying to get people alert before it happens so they can greet the idea with a response it deserves.

[Skyscraperfan]

People should not take red arrows too personally. If I agree to a post, I might click the green arrow, and if I disagree, I might click the red arrow. That's what those arrows are for. They make opinions more visible. Of course I will still write my opinion down.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Am hearing reports that rate of uploading new images is NOT slowing.

That's a reason for Alamy to ignore 40/60 outrage.

 

 

That doesn't surprise me. I wonder how many of Alamy's tens of thousands (I lost count) of contributors are even aware of the proposed change in commission. This forum is a tiny sampling.

[Starsphinx]

1 minute ago, John Mitchell said:

 

That doesn't surprise me. I wonder how many of Alamy's tens of thousands (I lost count) of contributors are even aware of the proposed change in commission? This forum is a tiny sampling.

I was just thinking exactly the same thing - think how many of us on the forum only found out about the contract change through reading the forum, because the email came from a different address and went to spam, or did not arrive at all.  There are probably an awful lot of people who do not come on the forum happily oblivious to what is going on - if the 45 days notice comes from that same address or is plagued by the same issues of total non-delivery the first thing they are going to know about is when they get a sale and only get 40%.  At which point they are going to contact Alamy - then it will get interesting.

I should think it would be best for Alamy to make the contract change require positive acknowledgement and suspend uploading for contributors that do not tick they have seen the change - but I bet that does not happen.

[John Mitchell]

replied to wrong post