Alamy annual revenue

[Tony Collins]

Someone referred to Alamy's annual figures recently, I can't find them. Numbers anyone?

[Joseph Clemson]

You'll find all their annual accounts filed at Companies House. 

[Tony Collins]

Thanks, I thought I remembered 22 million. So some rough figures back of fag packet sums then. 150 M images (after all the resignations), say £25M turnover next year. So each year on average each image generates 16p for Alamy and about 6p for the contributor at the new 40% commission allowing for the odd distributor sale. (This is of course nonsense perhaps as I expect that most income comes from a small percentage of the overall collection.) Even if with blind optimism individual images generate 10x6p over a decade can you shoot, edit, keyword and upload for 60p per image?  Some contributors are doing a lot better of course but for every one above average there will be a load below it. Food for thought?

 

[andremichel]

33 minutes ago, Tony Collins said:

Thanks, I thought I remembered 22 million. So some rough figures back of fag packet sums then. 150 M images (after all the resignations), say £25M turnover next year. So each year on average each image generates 16p for Alamy and about 6p for the contributor at the new 40% commission allowing for the odd distributor sale. (This is of course nonsense perhaps as I expect that most income comes from a small percentage of the overall collection.) Even if with blind optimism individual images generate 10x6p over a decade can you shoot, edit, keyword and upload for 60p per image?  Some contributors are doing a lot better of course but for every one above average there will be a load below it. Food for thought?

 

I think the large majority give up after a few years when they realise how little they earn. This forum can be misleading. Though it doesn't feel like it, most long term forum regulars are Alamy success stories when compared to the majority. 

[losdemas]

2 hours ago, andremichel said:

I think the large majority give up after a few years when they realise how little they earn. This forum can be misleading. Though it doesn't feel like it, most long term forum regulars are Alamy success stories when compared to the majority. 

 

That's a bit of a worrying statement!   Are you sure?!  I do agree that there are likely many dormant accounts here and some successful contributors who regularly post on the forum.  Doubtless, the majority of 'contributors' have tiny ports and have never bothered persevering, as they are seeking the instant gratification of MS, but I'm sure that there are many successful contributors who are too busy working to post on the forum!

[M.Chapman]

9 hours ago, Tony Collins said:

Thanks, I thought I remembered 22 million. So some rough figures back of fag packet sums then. 150 M images (after all the resignations), say £25M turnover next year. So each year on average each image generates 16p for Alamy and about 6p for the contributor at the new 40% commission allowing for the odd distributor sale. (This is of course nonsense perhaps as I expect that most income comes from a small percentage of the overall collection.) Even if with blind optimism individual images generate 10x6p over a decade can you shoot, edit, keyword and upload for 60p per image?  Some contributors are doing a lot better of course but for every one above average there will be a load below it. Food for thought?

 

 

Now try the same calculation for one of the Tier 1 Microstock organisations mentioned by James West in his video.... 170M images (i.e. a similar amount) but they generate $557M in turnover (around 20x more). Average commission paid per sale is however much lower, but sales occur much more often.  Very different business models (at the moment....).  

 

Mark

[regen]

very true Mark but can the two models be compared. Alamy is essentially an editorial site and trying to compete with the Tier 1 sites with their portfolio is possibly a non starter-after all they have tried in the past and failed miserably. May be they have saturated the editorial market and just adding more of the same is not going to help. I think they may have proved that point with their spectacular increase in files with and equally unspectacular increase in the photographers cut.

 

Regen

[Robert Convery]

My rough figures are 2900 images & gross revenue 4800 USD per year

 

Using an exchange rate of 1.3 USD/GBP then 50% commission gives 64p per image & 40% commission gives 51p.

 

I went to a mistletoe auction at Tenbury Wells and uploaded six photos of the event which should bring £3 a year.

 

I was there for two hours, plus an hour to sort the photos, so £1 per hour before the cost of running a car.

 

[Jill Morgan]

1 hour ago, Robert Convery said:

My rough figures are 2900 images & gross revenue 4800 USD per year

 

Using an exchange rate of 1.3 USD/GBP then 50% commission gives 64p per image & 40% commission gives 51p.

 

I went to a mistletoe auction at Tenbury Wells and uploaded six photos of the event which should bring £3 a year.

 

I was there for two hours, plus an hour to sort the photos, so £1 per hour before the cost of running a car.

 

 

To cost your time, you need to take your total average income per year divided by the number of hours you spend per year on photography and post processing.  You can't base it on what an image will bring in in one year as it is available for sale for many years.   We all have images that haven't brought in a penny for the time spent and other images that have brought in 100x what the costs were.  It's an average.  

 

I haven't spent any time uploading to Alamy this year yet have still equaled last years sales.  With no effort on my part whatsoever. 

 

Jill

[spacecadet]

2 hours ago, Robert Convery said:

My rough figures are 2900 images & gross revenue 4800 USD per year

 

Using an exchange rate of 1.3 USD/GBP then 50% commission gives 64p per image & 40% commission gives 51p.

 

I went to a mistletoe auction at Tenbury Wells and uploaded six photos of the event which should bring £3 a year.

 

I was there for two hours, plus an hour to sort the photos, so £1 per hour before the cost of running a car.

 

That is a very high figure in comparison with mine and, I suspect, many who contribute here.

However unlike you I spend nothing specifically to acquire images.

[Panthera tigris]

its on this page

 

Page 12 with figures