Suddenly: no more sales

[MizBrown]

9 hours ago, sb photos said:

 

You may sell now that War of the Worlds is being shown, but it all depends upon the buyers requirements. Also, when PR photos are likely being distributed or can be requested, the hard reality is the media is likely to use a free photo rather than yours, even if yours is better. Knowing this, if I was in a position to shoot as you did, I would still have shot all of potential interest, and if possible, shot the key actors with a long lens, but without the expectation that they would definitely sell. Any sales would be a bonus.

 

Some production companies have a stills photographer on staff.  I know from Facebook of a Nicaraguan photographer who was the stills photographer for Miami Vice.  My guess is that most production companies either have a still photographer or pull publicity shots from the videos. 

The production company wants to control how its work is promoted. 

 

 

[Sally]

14 hours ago, Marb said:

Yes but a lot of my shots are not covered by the press, publicity etc. Some of mine are a bit more niche. sfx Shots of the dead bodies for instance, and other stuff.

 

16 hours ago, Marb said:

I have a lot of exclusive behind the scenes shots of the making of War of the worlds taken when filming in April 2018. A lot nobody else has coveted. The series is at long last being aired currently. And I haven't sold anything. Its unbelievable considering the high profile the series is getting worldwide, fan interest, sci fi, movie mags etc etc. Just goes to show if you put all your eggs in the Alamy basket it doesn't pay off. Now I will have to resort to conceding in making them available for personal use, or sell them on microstock sites. Very sad. 

I did reply on October 13th saying as below. I guess you missed it. This isn’t anything to do with the efficacy of Alamy.

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Sally

[marc]

On 19/11/2019 at 08:23, Marb said:

I have a lot of exclusive behind the scenes shots of the making of War of the worlds taken when filming in April 2018. A lot nobody else has coveted. The series is at long last being aired currently. And I haven't sold anything. Its unbelievable considering the high profile the series is getting worldwide, fan interest, sci fi, movie mags etc etc. Just goes to show if you put all your eggs in the Alamy basket it doesn't pay off. Now I will have to resort to conceding in making them available for personal use, or sell them on microstock sites. Very sad. 

I am also a writer and make a small distribution magazine (about 7,000 per issue). We often featured film, TV and theatre stories, and when I need an image to illustrate the story I will go to the relevant press and PR company and get the images I need. In the case of the War of the Worlds I would go the BBC press department.   Newspapers and magazines will all have images ready to go having been sent them along with a press release. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by marc

[marc]

On 19/11/2019 at 08:23, Marb said:

I have a lot of exclusive behind the scenes shots of the making of War of the worlds taken when filming in April 2018. A lot nobody else has coveted. The series is at long last being aired currently. And I haven't sold anything. Its unbelievable considering the high profile the series is getting worldwide, fan interest, sci fi, movie mags etc etc. Just goes to show if you put all your eggs in the Alamy basket it doesn't pay off. Now I will have to resort to conceding in making them available for personal use, or sell them on microstock sites. Very sad. 

I am also a writer and make a small distribution magazine (about 7,000 per issue). We often featured film, TV and theatre stories, and when I need an image to illustrate the story I will go to the relevant press and PR company and get the images I need. In the case of the War of the Worlds I would go the BBC.   Newspapers and magazines will all have images ready to go. 

[Phil Robinson]

This month I've had more $$$ sales than I can remember for years. Normally the first half of the month is quieter for me and I always keep my fingers crossed that the floodgates will open in the last week. This month has been great so far and hopefully, when the newspapers report, it will get better.

I hope I'm not sounding too smug or boastful - I just want to point out that these things go up and down and it's impossible to deduce a trend from a couple of months' sales. 

[Avpics]

2 hours ago, Phil Robinson said:

This month I've had more $$$ sales than I can remember for years. .....I hope I'm not sounding too smug or boastful - I just want to point out that these things go up and down and it's impossible to deduce a trend from a couple of months' sales. 

Likewise. There's been no pattern to the sales, no common factor, mostly old images that have been available and could have been bought at any time, just random subjects and licenses. All it proves is that it happens, so I hope it happens to all at some point.

[geogphotos]

Gradually, with a few peaks and troughs, I think that the overall trend has been obvious for years. But we often deceive ourselves when we want justification to continue with a course of action that we enjoy or which in the past brought a taste of success. 

 

Realistically, a residual income that slowly falls away over the years is what stock is going to bring for me. But yes I still deceive myself that uploading more will somehow make a difference. Actually I just tend to shoot the obscure stuff that interests me these days and the uploading for stock is kind of a instinctive part of my programming. More part of a habit than an expectation of much financial reward.

 

The thing is agencies no longer need to care a jot. They needed to when they started out and Alamy wanted to be the 'photographers' friend' and they went out and sweet-talked professionals to join them. But that was in the early 2000s. Now we just feed the machine, and anybody who drops off is replaced by others all new and bushy-tailed but with lower expectations. Agencies just don't need to care about individuals, and they don't, they just want to hoover up more and more images from more and more new sources.

Edited November 22, 2019 by geogphotos

[Brian Yarvin]

Ian, I've never understood the concept of "friendly" or "caring." There are people who work at Alamy who are friendly - it's their nature. But a whole agency can't be friendly - it's the nature of the business. To stay afloat, they have to serve their customers, not their suppliers. 

 

One of the more unique aspects of the stock photo industry is its infinite supply of images. This has been the case as far back as I can remember. (which is 1971 BTW) If you doubt this, just recall the huge number of people who've started shooting stock in the past decade. There can only be one explanation for doing this; they said "here's a whole industry that's contracting at a rate of five or ten percent a year - that's the business for me!" They said it and they do it.

 

I fed the machine in 1971 and still throw it a crumb or two now. In between, there were a few lunches, but not much more. It was still the machine. Today I seek revenue and recognition, not friendliness (at least not from stock agencies).

[geogphotos]

23 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

Ian, I've never understood the concept of "friendly" or "caring." There are people who work at Alamy who are friendly - it's their nature. But a whole agency can't be friendly - it's the nature of the business. To stay afloat, they have to serve their customers, not their suppliers. 

 

One of the more unique aspects of the stock photo industry is its infinite supply of images. This has been the case as far back as I can remember. (which is 1971 BTW) If you doubt this, just recall the huge number of people who've started shooting stock in the past decade. There can only be one explanation for doing this; they said "here's a whole industry that's contracting at a rate of five or ten percent a year - that's the business for me!" They said it and they do it.

 

I fed the machine in 1971 and still throw it a crumb or two now. In between, there were a few lunches, but not much more. It was still the machine. Today I seek revenue and recognition, not friendliness (at least not from stock agencies).

 

I didn't make myself clear. I am stating a fact not complaining when I comment about what agencies such as Alamy are like. But from what I remember it was Alamy that advertised themselves as the photographers' friend - but that was a long time ago, they do not need to do that now, and they don't do that now. The attitude now is more that nobody is forced to contribute and there are plenty more fish in the sea ( again this is a comment not a criticism).

 

But equally I understand that there are some specialist agencies that do make a point of caring for their suppliers. I also understand that Alamy isn't one of them.

 

As you say in the end it is about revenue. And that is the fundamental problem facing the individual contributor. And unless or until that ever matters to any particular agency nothing will change. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

On 19/11/2019 at 12:11, sb photos said:

  On 19/11/2019 at 10:23, Marb said:

Yes but a lot of my shots are not covered by the press, publicity etc. Some of mine are a bit more niche. sfx Shots of the dead bodies for instance, and other stuff.

A search brings up dozens of different BBC publicity images of WOTW. Shooting in HD also means that still frames from the footage are quite useable- there seem to be much more of these than behind-the-scenes material, and of course their photographer is on set. There aren't too many reasons to pay for images, at least before the show goes out.

[Cryptoprocta]

On 19/11/2019 at 10:23, Marb said:

Yes but a lot of my shots are not covered by the press, publicity etc. Some of mine are a bit more niche. sfx Shots of the dead bodies for instance, and other stuff.

Just because you've got niche stuff and I've got Alamywhacks doesn't mean anyone wants to license them.

[geogphotos]

I don't think that anybody can assume that just because they do a shoot that somebody will want to licence the pictures. Especially as in Marb's example they have their own photographers there already and are offering images for free in return for publicity.

 

Just put it down to experience and move on. 

 

You are just as likely to get a sale from taking a picture inside your own house of something very ordinary - food cans in a cupboard, a warm fire blazing, or books on a shelf  - and then you won't feel disappointed.

Edited November 23, 2019 by geogphotos

[John Mitchell]

27 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I don't think that anybody can assume that just because they do a shoot that somebody will want to licence the pictures. Especially as in Marb's example they have their own photographers there already and are offering images for free in return for publicity.

 

Just put it down to experience and move on. 

 

You are just as likely to get a sale from taking a picture inside your own house of something very ordinary - food cans in a cupboard, a warm fire blazing, or books on a shelf  - and then you won't feel disappointed.

 

This is a bit off-topic, I guess, but the vehicle in 2A504T4 is a "pickup truck" -- I noticed that you don't have that phrase in your keywords. It caught my eye because I like trucks from that era (late 40's early 50's probably). You might want to put "vintage" and "sun visor" in there as well.

[Betty LaRue]

36 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

This is a bit off-topic, I guess, but the vehicle in 2A504T4 is a "pickup truck" -- I noticed that you don't have that phrase in your keywords. It caught my eye because I like trucks from that era (late 40's early 50's probably). You might want to put "vintage" and "sun visor" in there as well.

Good catch, John. Also, these vehicles were often noted by tonnage, as in half-ton pickup truck, etc.  little research would tell what it is. This type ran from half-ton, 3/4 ton, and 1 ton. Not sure what year, but looks similar to 1948. I’m no vintage auto expert.

Edited November 23, 2019 by Betty LaRue

[Harry Harrison]

3 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

This is a bit off-topic, I guess, but the vehicle in 2A504T4 is a "pickup truck"

It's on Alamy already - WB92C5 - 1949 Chevrolet 3100 apparently.

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Good catch, John. Also, these vehicles were often noted by tonnage, as in half-ton pickup truck, etc.  little research would tell what it is. This type ran from half-ton, 3/4 ton, and 1 ton. Not sure what year, but looks similar to 1948. I’m no vintage auto expert.

 

Back in the early 70's, a friend of mine had an old red GMC pickup from the early 50's. He drove it all over BC for years. They were beautifully simple and very reliable trucks. Not exactly safe, though, with no seat belts, a metal dashboard (ouch), and a glass rear window instead of headrests. My friend's truck eventually came to rest on the Queen Charlotte Islands (now Haida Gwaii). Hopefully someone has fixed it up and is still driving it.

 

Hmmm... could this be it? Looks just like her.

Edited November 23, 2019 by John Mitchell

[John Mitchell]

3 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

It's on Alamy already - WB92C5 - 1949 Chevrolet 3100 apparently.

 

Yup, that looks like it. Same vintage as me.

[Marianne]

I was having a great year - making as much by July as I had all of last year. Then, since August my sales have trickled in for amounts such as $1.00 or $7.00 and the meter has barely moved at all. A four month slump is at least 3 months too long. But I've also gotten $$$ sales this year, and hope for a few more ... anything's possible.. it seems as easy to have a bad month as a good one. Fingers crossed that something good pops in before the month's end.   😎

 

Ironically, I've uploaded more in the past couple of months than usual, so feeding the beast as it were isn't necessarily the answer. Though again, there's a long tail so that I guess any benefit from increased uploads the past couple of months won't show up until December. Still 2019, so the year could improve. 

 

 

[geogphotos]

Thanks John and Betty for the vehicle information.

[Avpics]

16 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

..... is a "pickup truck"......

Everyday, school day, small details etc. I've always thought pick hyphen up was the correct spelling but it seems not. Images edited to suit. Maybe I'll sell one for a truckload (or is it truck-load?) 😃

[John Mitchell]

6 hours ago, Avpics said:

Everyday, school day, small details etc. I've always thought pick hyphen up was the correct spelling but it seems not. Images edited to suit. Maybe I'll sell one for a truckload (or is it truck-load?) 😃

 

I think that a "pick-up" truck would probably be another kind of a truck, the kind you might find parked outside a singles' bar. 😄

[Avpics]

4 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I think that a "pick-up" truck would probably be another kind of a truck, the kind you might find parked outside a singles' bar. 😄

Ah yes. As most of the images I have of pickups are in Essex I'll change them back to pick-up #stereotyping (that may not translate well outside the UK)

[Phil Robinson]

Today equaled the number of sales I made last year - over a month to go. 

Money received isn't as high yet, but given the change in commission that's not surprising - not that far short and still hoping to beat last year's total.

[rickboden]

There were a couple comments earlier in this thread about "photographer-friendly" agencies.  My standards are simple.  A company that pays the contributor 50% rather than 20% scores a lot of friendly points for me.

[Allan Bell]

After a dry spell (no licences) my last upload failed QC THEN I got a decent sale.

 

My policy in future is to fail QC more regularly.😎🤣

 

Allan