£2 for a lead photo in The Sun?

[Zollikon]

Just emailed member sevices re this and got bounced to here by their automated reply.

 

The Sun says "a massive 29.03million people read The Sun online"

 

Alamy says - here's £2 for a photo The Sun leads a web page/story with.

 

Is this really sustainable? Not for me, I've given photography the heave-ho for a few months to concentrate on actually earning some money.

 

This kind of payment is an insult. Am I right?

 

Edited September 27, 2019 by Zollikon

[dov makabaw]

As far as I know Alamy does a quantity deal with the newspapers and receive a fixed sum per month which is divided between the sellers regardless of size and prominence. They have become like NU's!

[Phil]

1 hour ago, dov makabaw said:

As far as I know Alamy does a quantity deal with the newspapers and receive a fixed sum per month which is divided between the sellers regardless of size and prominence. They have become like NU's!

 

Perhaps time to consider opting out of the UK Newspaper scheme?

[Pete Snelling]

Rates for online use has always been low, had the same with a BBC useage earlier this month. But when you get a fullpage print, it makes all the difference $245!

 

[Avpics]

5 hours ago, Pete Snelling said:

Rates for online use has always been low, had the same with a BBC useage earlier this month. But when you get a fullpage print, it makes all the difference $245!

 

I've come to not only accept the rough with the smooth, but also that the 'roughs' will accumulate. Sometimes I'll have a 'precious' moment but it soon passes.

[spacecadet]

There aren't an awful lot of smooths at the mo.

[geogphotos]

Fees such as this are all too frequent. Sadly it's just the way that things are. You can either put up with it or not bother. Most of us carry on in some sort of vague hope that things will get better but without much expectation that they will.

 

For most of us Alamy contributors posting on the forum it seems that stock is a part-time income stream either as a hobby or as pension supplement. It can still be a kick getting nice sales but you also have to put up with loads of tiddlers.

 

Whether it is 'worth it' is a subjective call. There is still enjoyment to be had from stock and I love doing it but business wise the situation isn't great.

[Bill Allsopp]

The MD of another image library told me earlier this year that "The XX (UK Daily Newspaper) has an image carousel across it’s outlets that uses 600 images very 4 hours, so 2400 images per day........" hence the low prices. Enjoy a share of the bulk usage seems to be the message here. 😥

[Matt Ashmore]

On 30/09/2019 at 20:25, Avpics said:

I've come to not only accept the rough with the smooth, but also that the 'roughs' will accumulate. Sometimes I'll have a 'precious' moment but it soon passes.

 

I think this is the most healthy attitude that you can take. As suggested by Phil, another option is to opt out of the newspaper scheme but then the next complaint is that you're not making as many sales. For me personally I'll take the $2 over no sale at all.

 

On 30/09/2019 at 21:19, geogphotos said:

Whether it is 'worth it' is a subjective call. There is still enjoyment to be had from stock and I love doing it but business wise the situation isn't great.

 

Absolutely! I think you have to look at your own individual situation as to why you contribute to Alamy. If it is as a main income then maybe you need to find another option. If it is as a side income whereby you take the photos anyway and uploading to Alamy is down to a bit of time to upload, write captions and add keywords then I guess it depends on how valuable that 'bit of time' is to you and what you might choose to do otherwise. If it is as a hobby then maybe the enjoyment factor still motivates?

 

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by Matt Ashmore

[sb photos]

5 hours ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

I think this is the most healthy attitude that you can take. As suggested by Phil, another option is to opt out of the newspaper scheme but then the next complaint is that you're not making as many sales. For me personally I'll take the $2 over no sale at all.

 

I agree with you Matt. My tiddlers mainly originate from the Sun, and something is better than nothing. Luckily photos from the same or similar shoots sell for much more.

 

[Mr Standfast]

On 30/09/2019 at 21:19, geogphotos said:

 There is still enjoyment to be had from stock and I love doing it but ...

 

6 hours ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 For me personally I'll take the $2 over no sale at all.

 

 

 

I'll drink to that.

 

 

(Ian, forgive me for peaking, but it's Canon Square not Union Square. 😉)

 

[spacecadet]

1 minute ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

 

I'll drink to that.

 

 

 

You won't drink much.

[Mr Standfast]

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

You won't drink much.

 

I nearly wrote  - Filter coffee no biscuit...🙄

[Ed Rooney]

Andrew, there is no reason for you not be upset by that sale. Every year, my portfolio gets larger and my sales increase. But I'm making less money. This has become life on Earth . . . as a stock photographer. 

[geogphotos]

On 04/10/2019 at 18:35, Mr Standfast said:

 

(Ian, forgive me for peaking, but it's Canon Square not Union Square. 😉)

 

 

Just noticed this. Feel free to peak!

 

Thanks😊

Edited October 10, 2019 by geogphotos