Jump to content
Alamy

Commission change - James West comments

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, KevinS said:

Thanks!

My pleasure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

a very small little known stock agency EASILY raised £419,830

via crowdfunding: https://www.crowdcube.com/companies/picfair/pitches/bdYP1q

why can't Alamy do same???!!

 

I know you like to see what EPUK are saying. They published this link  https://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2012/11/alamys-fuzzy-math-when-10-royalty.html?fbclid=IwAR0E37_K4EjVtm81CprarOifm9LqBC-9lK-mL5RCdvuatTwSTXqwAtIYPJU

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shutterstock is a ripoff. "Earn up to 30% of the sale price of your content." That means 30% or even less! Why would anyone sign up there? Even if I could earn thousands of dollars there, I would never accept that deal.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, chris_rabe said:

 

That's the one. Am reading up on them.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

I find the way some people are pricing their own images quite bizarre...

 

I do keep meaning to do more video, so don't mind that too much.

 

It amazes me how the stock industry has devalued photography - for seamingly no reason other than pricing competitors out the window.

 

Setting one's own price is useful but can be dangerous. In 2106 the microstock agency we are discussing had to introduce a minimum price for footage to prevent a race to the bottom on prices. It was a race which many contributors there resisted but, through the actions of the minority of less commercially aware contributors, which was beginning to undercut their sales and, more importantly, impact customer expectations on lower prices across the board). The desire to give away one's creative work for little or no recompense, especially when the custoemrs are profit-making  concerns, is a notion that is utterly baffling to me. Fortunately, this agency eventually realised that the race to the bottom affected their bottom line too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Skyscraperfan said:

Shutterstock is a ripoff. "Earn up to 30% of the sale price of your content." That means 30% or even less! Why would anyone sign up there? Even if I could earn thousands of dollars there, I would never accept that deal.

Maybe, but they move large volumes of photos, for me 5-10% of my portfolio per month with instant payment and no refunds. I sold 3 images today that I only uploaded yesterday, yes, the average was only $2.48 but that is a lot more than those images have sold here.... As you sell more your share gets larger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EPUK; Link goes to 2012 article.

Edited by KevinS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rudix said:

As you sell more your share gets larger.


That's true, but 30% is already the maximum. The share for beginners is just 20%. That is just unfair. If they pay you $100, they will make $400 for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Just found an interesting article that people may want to read right now  https://www.microstockman.com/microstock-photography-sites/

 

The summary of each of the microstock sites in this article is way out of date and the rosy picture painted in most cases would be disputed by seasoned microstockers.  Read while distributing a large pinch of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rudix said:

Maybe, but they move large volumes of photos, for me 5-10% of my portfolio per month with instant payment and no refunds. I sold 3 images today that I only uploaded yesterday, yes, the average was only $2.48 but that is a lot more than those images have sold here.... As you sell more your share gets larger.

Sounds interesting - When I have finished uploading to my old MS agency I will pay them a visit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skyscraperfan said:


That's true, but 30% is already the maximum. The share for beginners is just 20%. That is just unfair. If they pay you $100, they will make $400 for themselves.

I do not argue, but they do make you more money than the others so their operating costs like marketing might be larger. But I am not trying to justify it, the 50/50 split was why I joined Alamy and only had a tiny portfolio there. But if I needed the money I know where I would go......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

The summary of each of the microstock sites in this article is way out of date and the rosy picture painted in most cases would be disputed by seasoned microstockers.  Read while distributing a large pinch of salt.

It does say updated for 2018 - and what it says about the distributor I am familiar with fits - and what it says about other distributors matches what people have been saying on here the last couple of days.  Everyone has to start somewhere - it provides links people can visit and experiment.  The way I see it is I have  a couple of hundred images I have already done 90% of the work on because they are on here - I might as well make the small effort to put these other places - then in 6 to 12 months time I will see what has happened where.  I suspect for some of my stuff Alamy will remain the best option - but for other stuff, it will do better elsewhere.  I would love to be able to take the correct moral position 50/50 or nothing but that is not realistic for me personally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Sounds interesting - When I have finished uploading to my old MS agency I will pay them a visit.

Ok, let me try to figure out who your "old MS" agency is....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rudix said:

Ok, let me try to figure out who your "old MS" agency is....

The one directly underneath the one you like.  2nd on the list.  And this is getting darn silly.  It is screamingly obvious that when you tell your suppliers en mass that you are cutting their fees by 20% that those suppliers are going to discuss amongst themselves if there is anywhere else they can sell.  You either believe you still have a tight business model and are offering the best the market can afford in which case discussion will come to nothing so why try and stop it - or you are screwing your suppliers in which case trying to stop discussion just highlights that you are screwing them.

PS right now it is not so old - it is getting a darn sight more of my creative attention than here

Edited by Starsphinx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Starsphinx said:

The one directly underneath the one you like.  2nd on the list.  And this is getting darn silly.  It is screamingly obvious that when you tell your suppliers en mass that you are cutting their fees by 20% that those suppliers are going to discuss amongst themselves if there is anywhere else they can sell.  You either believe you still have a tight business model and are offering the best the market can afford in which case discussion will come to nothing so why try and stop it - or you are screwing your suppliers in which case trying to stop discussion just highlights that you are screwing them.

PS right now it is not so old - it is getting a darn sight more of my creative attention than here

Hehe, thanks! Yes, I do have an account with them but only 35 images, that made my $105 while they have been there, forgot about them for a long time, just logged in again and fixed my payment options and tax status.

Share this post


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

Hehe, thanks! Yes, I do have an account with them but only 35 images, that made my $105 while they have been there, forgot about them for a long time, just logged in again and fixed my payment options and tax status.

They definitely have a way of keeping working while you forget them lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Starsphinx said:

They definitely have a way of keeping working while you forget them lol

Yes, I am looking at the time spent on preparing images and adding meta-data as a long term investment.
BTW, love your football photos! Saw them on FB and your web page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rudix said:

Yes, I am looking at the time spent on preparing images and adding meta-data as a long term investment.
BTW, love your football photos! Saw them on FB and your web page.

Thank you. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Others have mentioned option of super-restricting without deleting.

 

How does that work & is it reversible???

Does it kick in & out with daily system updating?

Is it only possible in April each year...?


On the "optional" page of your photos in your image manager your have four possible restrictions at the bottom. You can enable a maximum of three of them. Then there only is personal use left for example.

It says that changes take up to 48 hours to go into effect, but for me it already worked the next day. You can test that by searching your images with another browser where you are not logged in.

And of course these restrictions can be reversed as fast as you have enabled them.

PS: I don't know if there is a limit om images you can edit at the same time. Then it could take a while to do it for your 132k images.

Edited by Skyscraperfan

Share this post


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

 

 

Thanks for info.

How is restriction enforced?

By some kind of red notice only?

By actual blocking?

I assume if many took this approach, staff can override?


On the page where you can buy the most common usage packages from $9.99 to $179.99 only the $9.99 package for personal use is available to customers once you apply that restriction. The others have a red notice saying " Sorry, this image isn't available for this license ".

The idea that a customer likes my photo and wants to publish it in his magazine, but I do not allow that, really breaks my heart, but I simply can't accept the 40% deal.

Edited by Skyscraperfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Skyscraperfan said:

Shutterstock is a ripoff. "Earn up to 30% of the sale price of your content." That means 30% or even less! Why would anyone sign up there? Even if I could earn thousands of dollars there, I would never accept that deal.

It is interesting to see how people here see themself, mostly as suppliers. For me, I see me as a customer of the agencies I work with. They provide me a service that is to license my images and are paid by taking a commission. I don't expect to pay 30 usd to stay at Hilton and I dont expect to pay 250 usd to stay at the local crappy motel. I am also with the bigger tier 1 agency that most people hate here who pay me 25% on average. I am very happy to be with them as they provide me great service, i.e. selling a lot of my images. That's why they can propose such low commission levels. Pushing the argument to the extreme, I would not mind an agency to take 99% of sales value if they generate 5 millions of sales a year!

 

However in this case, I don't believe that Alamy service price increase, i.e. lower our commission, is justified by a better service as I don't believe the measures they intend to do will bring significant higher sales. Would be glad to be wrong. It is like lowering the commission to pay for US office, now that it is done and sales increased according to them, they should bring back our 60%. It is also BS to me to lower our commission while they will not decrease their "charity" and dividend, this is why profits are done, to invest and to increase profits in the future.

 

PS: I never understood why people here tough that Alamy was fair, nice and so on compared with others...

PS2: I really would like to see geogphoto opening a microstock account and sell RF :)

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Skyscraperfan said:


On the page where you can buy the most common usage packages from $9.99 to $179.99 only the $9.99 package for personal use is available to customers once you apply that restriction. The others have a red notice saying " Sorry, this image isn't available for this license ".

The idea that a customer likes my photo and wants to publish it in his magazine, but I do not allow that, really breaks my heart, but I simply can't accept the 40% deal.

 

Mathias, I don't get it. You're now only allowing 9.99 Personal use but you're blocking all other uses? Why not allowing only the most expensive?

 

wim

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wiskerke said:

 

Mathias, I don't get it. You're now only allowing 9.99 Personal use but you're blocking all other uses? Why not allowing only the most expensive?

 

wim


Because on the most expensive use Alamy will benefit the most from the commission cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Skyscraperfan said:


Because on the most expensive use Alamy will benefit the most from the commission cut.

 

Ah that'll teach them!

;-)

 

wim

  • Like 2

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.