Paulstw Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I think that if the payment threshold is becoming a problem, then maybe the portfolio isn't appealing enough to buyers. I've never heard a peep out of folk who earn a lot and have regular sales, with regards to thresholds. Why? Because they have rock solid sales potential in their libraries. I count myself into this theory too, but if we are so worried about payment thresholds and having to get them lowered, then maybe there's a deeper issue with regards to our contribution to Alamy. This Alamy system requires work. Research, investigation and an eye for an image telling a story or a great travel shot. Snapping a shot from a window because it's raining outside not only shows a sheer lack of commitment but it will show in the views/zooms and lack of sales. I use the above as an example, because I've done it myself loads of times. If there was a great amount of sales in a large number of peoples work, then we wouldn't be shouting at Alamy at all for keeping the threshold at $175. We'd all be clearing that every month. Lowering it, means that you'll never strive to earn more. You'll always be floating about in the fine line of the threshold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirco Vacca Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I think that if the payment threshold is becoming a problem, then maybe the portfolio isn't appealing enough to buyers. I've never heard a peep out of folk who earn a lot and have regular sales, with regards to thresholds. Why? Because they have rock solid sales potential in their libraries. I count myself into this theory too, but if we are so worried about payment thresholds and having to get them lowered, then maybe there's a deeper issue with regards to our contribution to Alamy. This Alamy system requires work. Research, investigation and an eye for an image telling a story or a great travel shot. Snapping a shot from a window because it's raining outside not only shows a sheer lack of commitment but it will show in the views/zooms and lack of sales. I use the above as an example, because I've done it myself loads of times. If there was a great amount of sales in a large number of peoples work, then we wouldn't be shouting at Alamy at all for keeping the threshold at $175. We'd all be clearing that every month. Lowering it, means that you'll never strive to earn more. You'll always be floating about in the fine line of the threshold. Actually i was thinking like this also ...... i am just afraid of red arrows . But indeed it is better to use the energy to try making more money then rescue 6 dollars..... Mirco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulstw Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I think that if the payment threshold is becoming a problem, then maybe the portfolio isn't appealing enough to buyers. I've never heard a peep out of folk who earn a lot and have regular sales, with regards to thresholds. Why? Because they have rock solid sales potential in their libraries. I count myself into this theory too, but if we are so worried about payment thresholds and having to get them lowered, then maybe there's a deeper issue with regards to our contribution to Alamy. This Alamy system requires work. Research, investigation and an eye for an image telling a story or a great travel shot. Snapping a shot from a window because it's raining outside not only shows a sheer lack of commitment but it will show in the views/zooms and lack of sales. I use the above as an example, because I've done it myself loads of times. If there was a great amount of sales in a large number of peoples work, then we wouldn't be shouting at Alamy at all for keeping the threshold at $175. We'd all be clearing that every month. Lowering it, means that you'll never strive to earn more. You'll always be floating about in the fine line of the threshold. Actually i was thinking like this also ...... i am just afraid of red arrows . But indeed it is better to use the energy to try making more money then rescue 6 dollars..... Mirco Red arrows don't frighten me Mirco. If people want to mark me down for my opinion then it's fine. I do think there's something fundamentally wrong though if photographers are not continually exceeding the payment threshold if they are entirely happy with their portfolio. It's a tough game this, and it needs your full attention to get off the ground. You're a great example of how it can be done. I got lazy and just started submitting loads to the news feed for a while. That laziness came through in QC and 3 months later still paying the price. However, learning is key and I think floating about the payment threshold all the time should be staring folk right in the face as to why. Especially since there is success on Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 But on Skrill it's said I'll be charged up to 10€ for sending money from it. Only if you use the Skrill account to make payments. Withdrawing to a bank account costs €2.95 or 3.50 depending whether it's done by SWIFT or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 My question is why ALAMY lowered the payment threshold from $175 to $100 when most of contributors would not benefit that much from? There have been many requests for it over the last couple of years. It featured highly in both 'Ask James' video presentations. Absolutely - there was a fair bit of wittering about the threshold for 'Ask James', while legit questions about the Scheming Newspapers Arrangements were quietly kicked into the long grass - I am far more concerned that current arrangements allow newpapers to syndicate commercially our images by including images which they have licensed in their syndication arrangements for no extra charge, and to pay a single license to cover every title and every type of media in a group. Sort that lot out and you'd probably reach the old threshold anyway.... David, it's an interesting exercise to compare the total energy spilled complaining about the threshold fallout to that spilled over the "no extra charge" commercial syndication you so often try to remind us all of. You would think the energy would be directly proportional to the overall effect of each fact on our collective earnings . . . you would think . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photocatseyes Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Well, as an occassional seller, I'd rather pay a small percentage to get my money than to see my money stand on Alamy's bank account for months in a row. On the other hand, if I would be a high seller, and I would have a 200 sale profit every month, I would not mind to pay a certain percentage to get it to me, because a small fee would not hurt as much. It's all relative. I think it should not be a hard thing to accomplish to give people an opt in or out and let them decide at what threshold they want to get paid, 100 or 200, or for that matter 300 if they don't need the money. I have always found it a shame that small sellers who really could use the money can't get it because they just don't sell enough. Common sense people, common sense... And boy would I like to be one of the big sellers. It's as if some of the big selling commenters on these forums like to belittle and offend the small sellers. Everybody wants to sell, that's why we are working for Alamy. And we all want our money as soon as possible... Especially in times like today, where all the little bits help. I have no clue whether my american husband will get a pay check in fourteen days, so the 139 dollar that has been on Alamy's bank account will get us two weeks of food... that is if I could get to it. Just sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Once the dust as settled I wonder how long it will be before some people start complaining about the $100 threshold and start demanding a $50 threshold. Some people would find paradise inconvenient. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alamy Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Hi We made the decision to lower the payment threshold because it would unlock money from contributor’s accounts and give you the opportunity to be paid more regularly. The balance between how and when to pay contributors and all of the various fees associated with international money transfers has always been a tricky equation. We made the change knowing that for the majority of contributors it is still free to receive money and with Skrill there is a free option for all. We are going to close this thread down now as we feel it’s run its course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.