Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

Not simple at all really. An image that licenses for $1.21 can license for $$$ on another occasion. Image content isn't usually the main factor when it comes to pricing. Best thing to do is opt out of NU when you can.

 

11 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

...

Nothing at all to do with quality or rarity of image. I had a photo of a minor UK celebrity, the only one of him on Alamy taken in the past 20+ years (one more has been added since) sell for c$6 gross. Do you honestly imagine the buyer phoning Alamy and saying, "That image looks 'micro' to me, I'm only going to pay $6"? (Good luck to him with that, there are no pics of him on the three big micros, which is as far as I looked.) BTW, until about four years ago (not now) the image quality requirement on micros was far higher than on Alamy.

 

You should bear in mind that Alamy knocked us all down from 60% from 50% "to fund the US office", which they say has "exceeded our expectations", so you are benefitting proportionately better from that sacrifice everyone was forced to make. I bet there are many contributors who don't even have 4% US content.

 

Agree with both of you that price often has very little to do with the quality of the image, and often it does not even reflect the rarity of the image nor its use.  Some of my highest value sales were taken with 6 or 12MP cameras, and I've had one of my best 42MP files licensed for advertising for only $50. 

 

My experience with European content vs US content, however, is surprisingly lopsided, and not in favor of US sales as one might expect given that I am from New York. 

 

European images make up only 6% of my portfolio. My European images, however, account for 12% of my sales (2% of my pix are from the UK but they account for 7% of my total sales).

More striking is the fact that half of my licenses were sold to European clients, and 24% of all sales were to the UK. The remaining 50% were licensed in the US.

About 75% of my images are US travel and/or nature shots (the rest are studio shots or other non-site-specific concepts), About 65% of my sales are US travel distributed pretty evenly between US and European clients. 

 

US sales do seem to have higher average prices.  All of my sales  >$100 were to US clients. Interestingly,  most of those higher priced sales were photos taken in Massachusetts (your home state, Chuck), with the rest from out west, or else they were from my small number of studio shots. In fact, photos from Massachusetts account for 37% of my sales here, although they account for <10% of my portfolio.

 

 

Edited by Marianne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Marianne said:

 

 

Agree with both of you that price often has very little to do with the quality of the image, and often it does not even reflect the rarity of the image nor its use.  Some of my highest value sales were taken with 6 or 12MP cameras, and I've had one of my best 42MP files licensed for advertising for only $50. 

 

My experience with European content vs US content, however, is surprisingly lopsided, and not in favor of US sales as one might expect given that I am from New York. 

 

European images make up only 6% of my portfolio. My European images, however, account for 12% of my sales (2% of my pix are from the UK but they account for 7% of my total sales).

More striking is the fact that half of my licenses were sold to European clients, and 24% of all sales were to the UK. The remaining 50% were licensed in the US.

About 75% of my images are US travel and/or nature shots (the rest are studio shots or other non-site-specific concepts), About 65% of my sales are US travel distributed pretty evenly between US and European clients. 

 

US sales do seem to have higher average prices.  All of my sales  >$100 were to US clients. Interestingly,  most of those higher priced sales were photos taken in Massachusetts (your home state, Chuck), with the rest from out west, or else they were from my small number of studio shots. In fact, photos from Massachusetts account for 37% of my sales here, although they account for <10% of my portfolio.

 

 

 

So far thus year, my $$$ sales are split 50/50 between the US and UK.

 

Only one of my US-content images has licensed in 2019, and it was for personal use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2019 at 02:32, CarloBo said:

Yeah you can still hit some decent sales here, i also had a 9k sale few months ago on G, but I believe RM is dead.

 

 

At one time, RF licenses often commanded higher prices than RM ones. Now buyers can get RF images galore for almost nothing on MS sites, so RF isn't really all that healthy either. Just sayin'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

At one time, RF licenses often commanded higher prices than RM ones. Now buyers can get RF images galore for almost nothing on MS sites, so RF isn't really all that healthy either. Just sayin'...

I haven't said it's healthy  indeed, sure  it is not for the photographer but it is  for these MS sites. S****K revenue is up every quarter, while Alamy  had to cut our commissions..

Edited by CarloBo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2019 at 23:16, Chuck Nacke said:

 

I will add that if you do not like "micro prices" don't take "micro pictures."  pretty simple.

 

Chuck

I don't: most of mine are unique artworks and magazines and books use them because there are no alternatives available. Yet Alamy still pops them out regularly for low $$ and extremely rarely $$$ - and increasingly, it seems, $ for editorial (including news) websites, of which I get diddly-squat. I don't think they understand their value. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I don't think they understand their value.

The value is what a client is willing to pay for them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

The value is what a client is willing to pay for them!

Exactly. It's just a file on a database which gets used in any way that the customer wants it to - within any limits of licence chosen by photographer or releases - returning a value related to that use. There's no algorithm for the sale for image quality or cost expended in taking the image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2019 at 09:24, Futterwithtrees said:

I have had another sale for a pittance. NU Editorial and Website use in perpetuity. $1.21 total. This is definitely not the Alamy I thought i was signing up to those years ago. I am genuinely beginning to think that Alamy is not worth the extra effort

I too have had only a couple of sales recently and both for low $ and sales for the year are down on last year.  No doubt the marketplace has changed but I am not about to give up. A thorough check of my sales here and at another library I use has shown me one area which does much better for me than the rest. I shall concentrate on that as regards submissions in future so maximising the use of my time both for shooting and submissions. That way my return for time invested should improve. Next April I too will opt out of NU and Personal if the gods allow it by then.

 

I am still considering whether to delete images outside my core area and leave my whole content focussed - or perhaps assign them to a different pseudonym. Does anyone have an opinion on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bill Allsopp said:

. Next April I too will opt out of NU and Personal if the gods allow it by then.

 

 

 

You can opt out of PU anytime. It's the terms of the licence, not a particular scheme like NU or UK newspapers.

Ask Alamy to put a restriction on all your images for no Personal Use use.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how deleting will help but a different pseudonym makes sense to me.

 

Paulette

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎12‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 04:32, Joseph Clemson said:

Had it been microstock it would very likely have been $0.35 or so with unlimited use thereafter, and no option to sell it as RM which at least gives the possibility of a repeat sale.

 

I still like my bread buttered on the Alamy side, even if the butter is increasingly like margarine.

+1  Keep agreeing with you Joseph (my middle name) BUT I do not do "Margarine."

 

Chuck

Edited by Chuck Nacke
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2019 at 11:15, Pearl said:

I opted out of NU last April as I hadn't signed up for those pathetic prices. No regrets so far.

 

Pearl

Me too. Originally NU was proposed as a way for people to use an image for a purpose that wasn't covered by the standard licenses - to put on a mug or a fridge magnet etc - and I was (reluctantly) OK with that, but it is now being used for sales that fit perfectly within existing licenses - use on a website with thousands of pages and millions of views is NOT 'novel use'. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2019 at 23:16, Chuck Nacke said:

 

I will add that if you do not like "micro prices" don't take "micro pictures."  pretty simple.

 

If only it were that simple.

Most of the images I had licenced as NU for 91c had previously sold for two and three figure sums.

They are not microfodder, they are the same editorial images I rely on for my income, being sold in bulk for nothing to people who should be charged 'proper' (whatever that means these days) fees. .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/07/2019 at 00:16, Chuck Nacke said:

I will add that if you do not like "micro prices" don't take "micro pictures."  pretty simple.

 

Chuck

Prices have nothing to do with image quality. Whoever has done stock for more than few minutes  knows that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2019 at 23:16, Chuck Nacke said:

+1. Don't use or eat "margarine" but I am with Joseph on Alamy.

 

I will add that if you do not like "micro prices" don't take "micro pictures."  pretty simple.

 

Chuck

Chuck, perhaps you would care to define "Micro Images". When I examine your small portfolio I see a range of images largely with a very specific emphasis on "celebrity or political" figures.This is clearly successful for you and you are in a position to pursue this type of image. If Alamy were depending on portfolios of this type alone it would be a much smaller and less profitable outfit.  I also see in your port a large McDonalds draped with a sign saying "Hiring Now" and other pics of a similar editorial nature..

 However when I look at some portfolios from other apparantley successful  Alamy contibutors I see a much wider range of subjects. My point being that Alamy's success appears to be built on the inclusion of a very wide range of image types

What exactly are you saying re "micro pictures"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's little to be gained in worrying over the lowest price that you get. There are just too many factors involved. The 2 dollar sale is annoying but it's the overall value of a portfolio that counts.

 

My worrying over low prices energy is directed towards revisiting old captions and key words, especially the ones that zoom but don't sell.

 

All the best.

 

Ps It's low fat cholesterol reducing spread in our house...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are here to make money for Alamy, not ourselves. And all of us are producing micro-grade images, because Alamy is converting our aRGB files to sRGB with no colour profile. They have given up on big-ticket clients and gone down-market, hence the abundance of PU sales, which seems to be their new target demographic.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

Ps It's low fat cholesterol reducing spread in our house...

 

 

That's right. The days of bland, trans-fat rich "margarine" are gone, thankfully. There's is a wide variety of healthful and tasty spreads to choose from now. 😏

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, DJ Myford said:

We are here to make money for Alamy, not ourselves. And all of us are producing micro-grade images, because Alamy is converting our aRGB files to sRGB with no colour profile. They have given up on big-ticket clients and gone down-market, hence the abundance of PU sales, which seems to be their new target demographic.

 

Of my12 sales so far this month only one is PU. All the rest are editorial, mostly books plus two $$$ TV licenses.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a very low Magazine sale, without quoting how much it was for after commision, I think it's fair to say I couldn't buy a copy of the mag for that!

BMP2BJ    maxi 04    Robert Cook    RM    "Country: United Kingdom ; Usage: Editorial ;  Media: Magazine - print, digital and electronic ;  Print run: up to 500,000 ;  Placement: Inside ;  Start: 01-June-2019 ; 
   Additional Details: Duration: 3 months. Any placement: Inside or cover."    


Wonder how much an advert is in this publication?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, York Photographer said:

Just had a very low Magazine sale, without quoting how much it was for after commision, I think it's fair to say I couldn't buy a copy of the mag for that!

BMP2BJ    maxi 04    Robert Cook    RM    "Country: United Kingdom ; Usage: Editorial ;  Media: Magazine - print, digital and electronic ;  Print run: up to 500,000 ;  Placement: Inside ;  Start: 01-June-2019 ; 
   Additional Details: Duration: 3 months. Any placement: Inside or cover."    


Wonder how much an advert is in this publication?

 

Its no consolation but my Dad had one of those...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Its no consolation but my Dad had one of those...

 

Probably worth about the same as my sale!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, York Photographer said:

  Additional Details: Duration: 3 months. Any placement: Inside or cover."    

I had one of these today too. I'm not sure how that duration works. Odd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

41 minutes ago, York Photographer said:

Usage: Editorial ;  Media: Magazine - print, digital and electronic ;  Print run: up to 500,000 ;  Placement: Inside ;  Start: 0ater1-June-2019

 

23 of them for me today.  The only consolation is that all my images are RM so each individual usage is paid for.  Oh, and they missed a couple of usages that I may well have to chase up later if they don't turn up in the next couple of months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had one of these too - for $. Very low for a magazine use.

 

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.