Jump to content
Alamy

Commission change - James West comments

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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? 

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.. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes 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.

 

There are 2 ways of looking at it - Alamy pay us to use our photographs as products they sell to make money,  or, We pay Alamy to sell out work to make money for us.

If you believe Alamy are paying us for our images and you don't like the reduction in price then simple - don't sell them to Alamy any more, go and find someone who pays an acceptable amount for them.  If you believe you are paying Alamy to sell images for us, then the deal on the table is they want to be paid more on the claim they will then sell more.  If you believe them you accept their higher price and stay and if you don't believe them you go and find someone who will sell more of your images.

Being real life the answer is probably somewhere in the middle and every individual person has to balance up where exactly they believe the answer lies and how much belief they have in Alamys "pay us more we will sell more" claim.

Like many others here I am in the camp where if someone is charging 80% to sell my photos but is making me $500 a month (yes I can dream) that is way preferable to someone charging 50% and making $50 a month.  I do have 2 years to hit that $500 a month figure - and it will not all be coming from the same place - but that is my reality which is probably very different from yours.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is the reality.

In 2011 my average gross sale was $90. This year and last year it is down to $28.

In 2011 I earned practically double that I did last year, so I saw no benefit from the last cut that was supposed to help fund the US office for all our benefit. I saw no benefit, just a cut in income. 

This year I have increased my port by Nearly 60%, my sales and income have grown 15%.

 

However Alamy try to dress it up, it will be the tipping point for me in as much as it will no longer be worth the time and effort and stamina to keep the treadmill rotating.

I have stopped uploading until we get a clear statement from James as to how they intend to proceed.

After a knee jerk initial reaction in uploading a few images to a tier 1 microstock agency, I have put this on hold also until we get a clear idea to what is going to happen.

 

 

As an aside I have noticed a few regular forum members who have made negligible if any contribution to this thread, it will do nobody any good by sitting on the fence. 

Edited by BobD
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BobD said:

As an aside I have noticed a few regular forum members who have made negligible if any contribution to this thread, it will do nobody any good by sitting on the fence. 

 

They are not necessarily sitting on the fence, just perhaps keeping their cards very close to their chest. This kind of situation can lead to extreme reaction and behaviour of many kinds; some will prefer to maintain a low profile; others will be formulating their response and discussing directly with Alamy, others quietly waiting before acting.  I'm sure that lots of things are going on behind the scenes, both at Alamy HQ and with many individual user accounts, large and small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

I'm sure you're right Sally - definitely in my case.  I haven't stopped uploading to live news just yet, but am definitely looking around to try and find alternatives, and will be giving them a go.   Although live news obviously pays more than general stock, it's time consuming and tends to dictate your day (in the case of events).  Once the cut starts to bite - which will be very soon because of the delays in invoicing - I'm going to have to question it's value in many cases.  Usages are very often online only by bulk buyers, where the price isn't amazing to start off with - take off another 20% and I'd be lucky to cover my petrol and parking - madness!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is also extremely frustrating is the fact that they keep our money in their account until it goes over $50 - I have at least 2 cups of reasonable coffee sitting in my account and I'm very thirsty!

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CAROL SAUNDERS said:

What is also extremely frustrating is the fact that they keep our money in their account until it goes over $50 - I have at least 2 cups of reasonable coffee sitting in my account and I'm very thirsty!

Its one of those add the price of 70,000 contributors 2 cups of coffee together and you have a sum earning reasonable interest for Alamy, not the contributors.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martin Carlsson said:

 

Nothing is ever fair, fair doesn't have a place here - fair is putting money in my pocket and looking after my interests. If you choose less net money in your pocket over being able to point to a  piece of paper that says 50% then we have very little in common. I'm prepared to pay for good service, make me money and I'm happy to share, without being hung up on the exact split. I'd like Alamy to grow and prosper to the point that it benefits me, if that means a cut I'll gladly take it, but give me more money, sustainability, worth my time etc.

 

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.

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Edited by MilesbeforeIsleep
clarification, apology
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Edited by Martin Carlsson
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

 

Edited by MilesbeforeIsleep
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.