Falling Price of Stock

[Foreign Export]

8 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

If you make great images they will be licensed, either now or in the future.  This year and for the last several years Alamy as well as other agencies I've contributed to over the decades have licensed my fire pictures shot in 1989 in California, USA.

 

Chuck

 

thanks - and good point - i will keep an open mind on shooting the current bush fires

[Colblimp]

13 hours ago, Foreign Export said:

 

Same here - tempted to travel the four hour round trip to shoot some of the bush fires and the firefighters who are tackling them- but will i return a profit ? - doubt it so wet be travelling specifically for these shots

You'd be mad not to shoot the bush fires - history is happening.  Any dramatic pics are surely going to be published, if not as live news then further down the line.  Just do it!

[Lynchpics]

On 21/12/2019 at 11:37, LawrensonPhoto said:

The biggest blow for me was the huge drop in price for live news online use sales, how do you go from $50-55 an image to $12!!!???

I use to make regular trips to Hastings, a 45 min drive, as with the sale of a couple of images it would cover my fuel costs.

I don't bother any more.

I'm hoping one day SS and Getty will implode then we might see price rises again 🙄

I think that huge drop in price for live news online usage is going to put a lot of people off. If the fees paid do not even cover the cost of getting to a location to do a live news shoot, why would anyone cover an event on 'spec', it's a no brainer. I see that many successful and prolific live news contributors also upload to other outlets so perhaps that is an option to investigate. 

[ChrisC]

I think it's time Alamy had a  minimum price banding for contributors to put their images into, ie over x amount of dollars per sale. 

 

I've just had this one for a gross less what you'd pay for a coffee in most high street coffee shops....in perpetuity!

 

Since being kicked off Live news & the 20% deduction in commission, I've hardly uploaded, at these prices it does seem pointless, spending time on stock, even though I have loads of images I could upload, but perhaps I can do it when I retire, if the stock industry is still going

  

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Editorial website
Industry sector: Travel & tourism
Image Size: Any size
Start: 10 January 2020
End: 10 January 2025
Editorial website and app multiple use, in perpetuity

[Steve Tucker]

I have just sold an image I inadvertently left available for Personal use, for a little over $8 so aroond £2.50 to me. Okay my fault for not opting it out for PU but its an old image which I have sold mutliple times for as much as $225. I guess I'd better go through my small collection and see how many I have missed and tick that box.

[meanderingemu]

24 minutes ago, ChrisC said:

I think it's time Alamy had a  minimum price banding for contributors to put their images into, ie over x amount of dollars per sale. 

 

I've just had this one for a gross less what you'd pay for a coffee in most high street coffee shops....in perpetuity!

 

Since being kicked off Live news & the 20% deduction in commission, I've hardly uploaded, at these prices it does seem pointless, spending time on stock, even though I have loads of images I could upload, but perhaps I can do it when I retire, if the stock industry is still going

  

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Editorial website
Industry sector: Travel & tourism
Image Size: Any size
Start: 10 January 2020
End: 10 January 2025
Editorial website and app multiple use, in perpetuity

 

 

looks like you got Culture Tripped 

[spacecadet]

5 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

looks like you got Culture Tripped 

Same here, a spritz Aperol at Florian's in Venice, won't even pay for one of the olives.

[spacecadet]

8 minutes ago, Steve Tucker said:

I have just sold an image I inadvertently left available for Personal use, for a little over $8 so aroond £2.50 to me. Okay my fault for not opting it out for PU but its an old image which I have sold mutliple times for as much as $225. I guess I'd better go through my small collection and see how many I have missed and tick that box.

I excluded my archive from PU for some reason- not sure it  makes much difference as the presentation licence is much the same.

But that pseudo outperforms the main one by so much that it's not a fair test.

[ChrisC]

28 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

looks like you got Culture Tripped 

It certainly was when it's a photo of cyclists taken in central Copenhagen

[ChrisC]

24 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Same here, a spritz Aperol at Florian's in Venice, won't even pay for one of the olives.

Yeah mine was Central Copenhegan, certainly wouldn't pay for a full Smørrebrød, sandwich, especially "in perpetuity"

[AlbertSnapper]

1 hour ago, Steve Tucker said:

I have just sold an image I inadvertently left available for Personal use, for a little over $8 so aroond £2.50 to me. Okay my fault for not opting it out for PU but its an old image which I have sold mutliple times for as much as $225. I guess I'd better go through my small collection and see how many I have missed and tick that box.

 

Alamy can put a restriction on all your of images for no Personal Use if you ask them to.

That'll save you checking each individual image then.

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by AlbertSnapper

[mickfly]

I had an overall block on personal use which I have now asked Alamy to lift as the price of PU can be much higher than some of the distro deals.
I asked and they agreed, way back on December 5th, but they are still restricted so maybe I'll drop them a reminder...they did seem miffed about the 'difficulty' of doing it as the email reply to my request was a little curt.

[griangraf]

18 hours ago, ChrisC said:

I think it's time Alamy had a  minimum price banding for contributors to put their images into, ie over x amount of dollars per sale. 

 

I've just had this one for a gross less what you'd pay for a coffee in most high street coffee shops....in perpetuity!

 

Since being kicked off Live news & the 20% deduction in commission, I've hardly uploaded, at these prices it does seem pointless, spending time on stock, even though I have loads of images I could upload, but perhaps I can do it when I retire, if the stock industry is still going

  

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Editorial website
Industry sector: Travel & tourism
Image Size: Any size
Start: 10 January 2020
End: 10 January 2025
Editorial website and app multiple use, in perpetuity

Your reaction is probably one that's becoming more common among stock photographers as the market gets even more bloated ........ why the heck bother.  That's the issue for me right now....when will photographers decide to boycott microstock and low prices because it simply makes no financial sense to keep submitting. I too would favour a minimum price which contributors could impose.

[geogphotos]

6 minutes ago, griangraf said:

 

Rock formation in the Burren County Clare, ireland 

- Image ID: 2AFA20E

 

This rock type is Carboniferous Limestone.

[Thomas Kyhn]

43 minutes ago, griangraf said:

I too would favour a minimum price which contributors could impose.

 

This is a good idea. Has anyone here asked Alamy if they would consider this?

[griangraf]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Rock formation in the Burren County Clare, ireland 

- Image ID: 2AFA20E

 

This rock type is Carboniferous Limestone.

Thanks a lot , much appreciated. I'll add the term.

[Brian Yarvin]

2 hours ago, griangraf said:

Your reaction is probably one that's becoming more common among stock photographers as the market gets even more bloated ........ why the heck bother.  That's the issue for me right now....when will photographers decide to boycott microstock and low prices because it simply makes no financial sense to keep submitting. I too would favour a minimum price which contributors could impose.

 

Liam, I just thought I'd step in and answer your question. Many stock photographers measure their businesses by earnings per photo per year. If you consider your collection as a whole and how much you earn over a given year, then a very high percentage of stock photographers do far better with micro. Judging your business by the amounts of single sales is a way of looking at things, but not the only way. 

 

It can be worse - there are people who judge their own self-worth by individual sale amounts. When somebody tells me that their own happiness and esteem are dependent on specific business conditions, I find that to be my own reason for sadness.

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

Many stock photographers measure their businesses by earnings per photo per year. If you consider your collection as a whole and how much you earn over a given year, then a very high percentage of stock photographers do far better with micro.

+1

Indeed, and as Alamy’s revenue / sale continues to fall that’s becoming even more true for me.

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

+1

Indeed, and as Alamy’s revenue / sale continues to fall that’s becoming even more true for me.

 

Mark

 

 

Isn't this a self-fulfilling cycle?

 

The more support that photographers give to micro-stock sites ( even if it does bring in much needed income) the less chance Alamy has of maintaining:

 

1) sales

2) sales at decent prices

 

Though I completely understand the frustration and the reason that people try micro-stock sites to compensate for falling revenue.

[rickboden]

On the subject of minimum pricing, I'd much rather see maximum sizing.

[John Mitchell]

5 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Liam, I just thought I'd step in and answer your question. Many stock photographers measure their businesses by earnings per photo per year. If you consider your collection as a whole and how much you earn over a given year, then a very high percentage of stock photographers do far better with micro. Judging your business by the amounts of single sales is a way of looking at things, but not the only way. 

 

 

 

That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that microstock is a highly exploitative (of photographers) business model.

[Steve Tucker]

On 11/01/2020 at 16:12, AlbertSnapper said:

 

Alamy can put a restriction on all your of images for no Personal Use if you ask them to.

That'll save you checking each individual image then.

 

Thank you, helpful tip.

[M.Chapman]

On 12/01/2020 at 17:21, geogphotos said:

Isn't this a self-fulfilling cycle?

 

The more support that photographers give to micro-stock sites ( even if it does bring in much needed income) the less chance Alamy has of maintaining:

 

1) sales

2) sales at decent prices

 

Though I completely understand the frustration and the reason that people try micro-stock sites to compensate for falling revenue.

 

Unfortunately yes. If Alamy had used more of the funds it generated by cutting the photographer's commission since 2013 to grow the business and create more unique selling points (rather than funding Manything Systems Ltd and paying big dividends to the Directors) maybe they could have resisted the slide? But, they have, in general, prioritised quantity over quality and as a result are trying to compete head on with MS agencies, at least one of which runs a very much more efficient operation (one example being automatic payment on download) and generates significantly more revenue (over 10x) and profit per image in their portfolios.

 

Mark

Edited January 14, 2020 by M.Chapman

[Brian Yarvin]

John, now that you've said that, you've got the challenge of convincing the photographers who are thriving in the micro world and who've flopped at Alamy that your point of view is the correct one. This is no small challenge.

 

And Ian, no not at all. Flooding an agency with images it can't sell won't make them sell and won't have any real impact on the agencies that are selling. You and I have both seen this before. If you want images to generate revenue, you've got to put them where they can be seen by people who are actually paying.

 

Once of the basics of stock photography is that the demand for images is completely unrelated to the supply. Adding a million or a hundred million images of the London Eye won't increase the number of (paying) requests for that subject. The reverse works too. If you remove a hundred million images of a given topic, you won't have any effect on the number of requests either.

 

 

[spacecadet]

9 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

paying big dividends to the Directors

No. I don't know why some people want to perpetuate this myth.

Directors' remuneration 2012-£567691

Directors' remuneration 2018-£644780. It hasn't even kept up with inflation.

Edited January 12, 2020 by spacecadet