Falling Price of Stock

[BobD]

I think to ask for a Alamy to produce a premium collection is to fundamentally misunderstand their business model. Alamy in my opinion uses software solutions wherever it can, however much it may be a good idea, I just cannot see Alamy becoming a labour intensive outfit.

[meanderingemu]

6 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

Estelle, a rarity premium could work for journalistic photos - these images often have value because a skilled photographer made an image where nobody else did - or perhaps everybody else's is of relatively poor quality. Obviously, in the case of popular genres like travel, there can be no rarity because there will always be somebody else there to take the photo. 

 

Ian, in theory, I agree with you, but those buyers would have to be convinced that the service is there and worth contacting. That would take costly advertising. It's also worth repeating that these customers are paying for research services, not image quality. 

 

In any case, our potential seller would have to see if there's any market out there at all. And worst of all, they would have to overcome the dreadful reputation that stock photography has brought upon itself during the past two decades. I think that this is the toughest challenge of them all.

 

 

i do think there is some rarity in the Travel spectrum... If we look at the "what should i shout"  39% of the requests are listed under Travel.  So there does seem to be some "rarities".  Am i'm going to go out of my way for a potential $10 to capture them, no. 

 

i have events and circumstances specific travel images, that can only be reproduced once a year (and yet i'm the only one who has taken them, yes i'm maybe weird).  So yes if someone wants that image they can wait for someone to copy what i did next time- but will anyone go out there for a potential $, i am not sure, but at this point i have rarity....  

[John Mitchell]

3 hours ago, BobD said:

I think to ask for a Alamy to produce a premium collection is to fundamentally misunderstand their business model. Alamy in my opinion uses software solutions wherever it can, however much it may be a good idea, I just cannot see Alamy becoming a labour intensive outfit.

 

I tend to agree with you. Perhaps photographers looking to market what they consider to be "premium" work should look for other, more appropriate outlets for their images, where they might (or at least should) earn more for their efforts. My guess is that Alamy will want to maintain a level playing field for its contributors, which works for the majority.

[Michael Ventura]

I seriously doubt that a premium collection would work all that well at Alamy. At least not for me. Of my 8000+ photos, not sure how many, if any, would be considered “premium”.  And I fear that all the rest would be devalued ever more.

[geogphotos]

31 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

I seriously doubt that a premium collection would work all that well at Alamy. At least not for me. Of my 8000+ photos, not sure how many, if any, would be considered “premium”.  And I fear that all the rest would be devalued ever more.

 

 

That was the reason I suggested external selection, curation, and marketing and none of that happening within Alamy itself - just attempting to make more use of the selected images by adding value through specialist sales platforms using expert knowledge of the subject matter.

 

It wouldn't mean that non-selected images were rejects or inferior. For starters there may not be any specialist covering those subjects.

 

I know it isn't going to happen....just imagining.

Edited January 18, 2020 by geogphotos

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

I seriously doubt that a premium collection would work all that well at Alamy. At least not for me. Of my 8000+ photos, not sure how many, if any, would be considered “premium”.  And I fear that all the rest would be devalued ever more.

 

Yes, I have to admit that the term "premium" doesn't mean a lot to me. Below is a list of synonyms for "premium" that I dug up. They don't particularly suit my humble collection. 🙃

 

superior, premier, high-end, top-end, exclusive, elite, top, select, choice, deluxe, luxurious, classy, prime, first-rate, high-quality, top-quality, high-grade, five-star, fine, finest, upmarket, upscale

[Brian Yarvin]

3 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Yes, I have to admit that the term "premium" doesn't mean a lot to me. Below is a list of synonyms for "premium" that I dug up. They don't particularly suit my humble collection. 🙃

 

superior, premier, high-end, top-end, exclusive, elite, top, select, choice, deluxe, luxurious, classy, prime, first-rate, high-quality, top-quality, high-grade, five-star, fine, finest, upmarket, upscale

 

Fascinating list there, John. Every last one of them a word that was once used to describe stock photography and no longer is. Your list is more than that though - it's a summary of the reasons that people pay more for something. 

 

May I suggest that you - all of you who are reading - go down that list and recall a publication or publisher that suits one or more of those words and imagine your work being used by them. Will it make it? Are you reaching out? Reaching up? This is the real first step to getting higher prices - doing better work. Some of us here aren't hobbyists. Our very lives depend on making better images and finding better markets for them. For us, that list of words should be an inspiration.

[BobD]

Apart from anything else can you imagine the outrage there would be if a contributor assumes their images to be premium to then find out they are not included in alamy's premium collection.

[Brian Yarvin]

12 minutes ago, BobD said:

Apart from anything else can you imagine the outrage there would be if a contributor assumes their images to be premium to then find out they are not included in alamy's premium collection.

 

While I was hoping to remain positive, and I aspire to be inspiring, this has been my point during the past day or two - just not presented the way I wanted.

[meanderingemu]

48 minutes ago, BobD said:

Apart from anything else can you imagine the outrage there would be if a contributor assumes their images to be premium to then find out they are not included in alamy's premium collection.

 

or like a certain MS does

 

Signature - Best Quality

Essential - Lowest Price

 

 

(and if you are not exclusive with them all your images are not best quality)

[John Mitchell]

3 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Fascinating list there, John. Every last one of them a word that was once used to describe stock photography and no longer is. Your list is more than that though - it's a summary of the reasons that people pay more for something. 

 

May I suggest that you - all of you who are reading - go down that list and recall a publication or publisher that suits one or more of those words and imagine your work being used by them. Will it make it? Are you reaching out? Reaching up? This is the real first step to getting higher prices - doing better work. Some of us here aren't hobbyists. Our very lives depend on making better images and finding better markets for them. For us, that list of words should be an inspiration.

 

Brian, the problem with all of those synonyms is that they are highly subjective -- a bit like "Make America Great Again." What the heck does "great" mean? Answer: Many different things to many different people. If one of my images licenses several times at decent prices, I'd be happy to dub it "Premium." Someone else will have a much different notion about what premium or first-class means. I'm not just trying to be a smart aleck. I understand your point of view. However, I think there are valid reasons why Alamy has wanted to keep as democratic a playing field as possible. That said, I'm sure that there is a lot that can be done to improve the organization and marketing of Alamy's huge collection. That's a bit above my pay grade, though. I'll leave it up to you experts.

 

 

[Brian Yarvin]

John, this is a really interesting point. I sincerely and honestly never had any idea that objectivity played a role in the marketing of stock photography. What I thought (and still think) is this: good salespeople get buyers to believe that the images they have are great. In general, they do this by showing the buyers the work and then offering reasons - often using the same words you listed - why they should pay more. 

 

I'll take this all into consideration but I'm still hoping to convince publishers and buyers that I do great work. It's not so easy.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Brian Yarvin said:

John, this is a really interesting point. I sincerely and honestly never had any idea that objectivity played a role in the marketing of stock photography. What I thought (and still think) is this: good salespeople get buyers to believe that the images they have are great. In general, they do this by showing the buyers the work and then offering reasons - often using the same words you listed - why they should pay more. 

 

I'll take this all into consideration but I'm still hoping to convince publishers and buyers that I do great work. It's not so easy.

 

I too didn't realize that objectivity plays a role. If someone thinks your work is great, then they should definitely pay more. Best of luck.

 

 

 

 

[M.Chapman]

19 hours ago, BobD said:

I think to ask for a Alamy to produce a premium collection is to fundamentally misunderstand their business model. Alamy in my opinion uses software solutions wherever it can, however much it may be a good idea, I just cannot see Alamy becoming a labour intensive outfit.

 

Alamy at the moment is halfway between the two. It's nowhere near as efficient as some micro-stock libraries (where the customer pays up front and contributors are automatically credited on download - totally administered by the software). Versus Alamy, where many customers are on a download now, pay later model and the contributor finally gets paid after invoices have been raised and chased if they don't. There's also clearly the ability for some Alamy customer's to negotiate bulk deals and also Alamy can provide search assistance. There's a lot more "manual intervention" in Alamy's current business model. This costs money, which is fine if the prices secured remain higher than MS.

 

But, because Alamy try to charge prices based on the customer and application irrespective of the uniqueness or value of the image their overall pricing is being dragged down by the general trend in prices. (All images are put in the same bucket - apart from some restrictions set by contributors). To survive, Alamy either has to find ways to maintain or increase prices on some of its portfolio, or increase efficiency (e.g. further cuts in commission, swapping to subscription pricing with automatic billing on download). Or a combination of the two. Just adding more and more images is not going to work.

 

There appear to be some business principles that Alamy believes are valuable.

   1) Uniformity of image pricing for a customer (it doesn't matter which image(s) you choose - the prices are the same for given licence terms)

   2) Uniformity of treatment of contributors

   3) Curation of an edited collection is too expensive to implement.

 

So with these in mind, what can/should Alamy do? Here's a few ideas.

 

1) Alamy introduce a "Premium" (or some other name) category which contains images which are selected, and have minimum pricing, set by the contributor. Premium images appear in normal search results with a star in the corner (or some other designation). The customer can filter their search results to exclude or include such images. Contributors can designate no more that 5% of their images as "Premium", and those images must be Alamy exclusive and they can set their own minimum price for these images. Alamy would instruct contributors to only use this category for images that the contributor believes are particularly unique or valuable and therefore deserve price protection. Obviously it might be abused with some contributors putting "standard" images into the "premium" category, but if the ranking system is actually re-introduced (see 3 below) their images will sink in the search results. 

 

2) Alamy introduce pricing that varies according to the image size across all licence types. High resolution images merit higher prices.

 

3) Re-introduce regular (6 monthly) contributor ranking and disclose what a contributor's rank is (e.g. 1-5 stars) and on what parameters this is based. This will encourage contributors to behave in the ways Alamy wants/needs. For example the Zooms/View and Sales/View and Sales/Image are three powerful metrics that encourage efficient keywording and uploading and reduce keyword and image spamming. At the moment Alamy seems to take great pride in concealing such details and contributors end up relying on "forum folklore". When was the last re-rank???

 

4) If Item (1) above works well, then it could be extended, allowing contributors with high ranking to increase the number of premium images to 10% (or more?) of their collection.

 

Just thoughts...

 

Mark

Edited January 19, 2020 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

Just a reminder that before Creative was first introduced there was a category claiming to be 'The Best'. You scrolled through the Best and then there was a demarkation line with a heading something like 'The Rest' or something even less flattering ( I can't remember). It certainly wasn't popular with most contributors. Then the collection was divided into two into Creative and Relevant.  The plan was for human editors to work through the entire collection and manually choose images for Creative. I never had many chosen and was told that since mine were mainly editorial they wouldn't be looked at until way down the list. I don't think that they ever got that far, probably overwhelmed by the flow of incoming images.

 

I did end up with a few odd ( I mean odd in terms random/unexpected) images in Creative but only a very small number. Then the whole initiative seemed to fade away and I think now all images appear in both Creative and Relevant though the search order may vary. 

 

I agree with comments above that the perceived value of anything depends on the context it is in. Just piling everything high and treating it all as jumble sale to trawl through does not provide the right context to attract high fees. It is all a bit hit and miss, the captions might be accurate but buyer beware, the image could be exclusive but who knows etc

 

But then in contrast Alamy does spend time on money on interviews and showcases of featured photographers but even this seems to have run its course and all be a bit secondary. Often these seem to be new photographers with barely any images with Alamy!

 

I feel that now we are at a stage where Alamy just does what Alamy does and simply carries on regardless. It really is like a supertanker set on a course that just seems impossible to change. 

Edited January 19, 2020 by geogphotos

[mickfly]

43 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

But then in contrast Alamy does spend time on money on interviews and showcases of featured photographers but even this seems to have run its course and all be a bit secondary. Often these seem to be new photographers with barely any images with Alamy!

 

I feel that now we are at a stage where Alamy just does what Alamy does and simply carries on regardless. It really is like a supertanker set on a course that just seems impossible to change. 

When I first started contributing I looked at these 'featured' photographers for inspiration and some of them hadn't contributed for years or had minuscule ports, not sure if it's the same now.

 

I also wonder about the viability of advertising video footage with this line "We have 511,352 amazing footage clips and we're adding to our collection every day." whilst a quick look at their featured contributors show dates around 2010/2011.

 

Does anybody have sales for video from Alamy?

 

The use of social media like Twitter and now their dedicated Instagram feed also takes time and costs money, but it's clear to see on their twitter feeds that for a business with so many contributors the interactions are practically zero and it takes staff away from the business of selling licences and providing us with motivation and income.
It's also telling that (mainly young) users of Twitter and Instagram are the biggest infringers of photographers copyright and I'd guess the least interested in paying for content.

I'm involved in a small business (not photography related) and we use Social media for promotion and to drive sales enquiries very successfully, but it's converting the enquiry into a high value sale which is important and we no longer waste time on Instagram and very little time on Twitter as they both showed measurably low value to us, whereas Facebook and our normal website/blog definitely works.

 

I'm not sure why I'm ranting about someone else's business, but it is a forum and is probably populated by grumpy old men like me who should be busy editing and uploading images to try and guide our own fortunes instead of wasting time typing on forums.

[Starsphinx]

20 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

Estelle, a rarity premium could work for journalistic photos - these images often have value because a skilled photographer made an image where nobody else did - or perhaps everybody else's is of relatively poor quality. Obviously, in the case of popular genres like travel, there can be no rarity because there will always be somebody else there to take the photo. 

 

Ian, in theory, I agree with you, but those buyers would have to be convinced that the service is there and worth contacting. That would take costly advertising. It's also worth repeating that these customers are paying for research services, not image quality. 

 

In any case, our potential seller would have to see if there's any market out there at all. And worst of all, they would have to overcome the dreadful reputation that stock photography has brought upon itself during the past two decades. I think that this is the toughest challenge of them all.

I disagree on travel - I live close to a world heritage city.  On a visit one day snapping this and that and not particulary trying I pick up an architecture thing right out in the open that (at that point anyway have not checked recently) nobody else in any of the stock libraries I visited had a photo of.  There were photos of the street where it was - but the not the, to me, glaringly obvious bit of interest.
Flowers,  nature - the same. 
Everyday objects people see around them but do not look at.
Now I know I have a slightly weird way of viewing the world - I was the child that asked the awkward questions the teacher not only did not know the answer to but had never imagined being asked.  As an adult I have not changed.  A significant amount of my keywording time is spent trying to find out what exactly it is I have taken a photo of - because I seem to manage a lot of things there is not a lot of info on.

Have a go with your own port - seach some thing you took because they were right under your nose and see if there are less than a thousand images of them - you might be surprised.

20 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

i do think there is some rarity in the Travel spectrum... If we look at the "what should i shout"  39% of the requests are listed under Travel.  So there does seem to be some "rarities".  Am i'm going to go out of my way for a potential $10 to capture them, no. 

 

i have events and circumstances specific travel images, that can only be reproduced once a year (and yet i'm the only one who has taken them, yes i'm maybe weird).  So yes if someone wants that image they can wait for someone to copy what i did next time- but will anyone go out there for a potential $, i am not sure, but at this point i have rarity....  

Not $10 but a percentage on top of the price you would get normally.  I have multiple rare images and several very rare ones - and I have never gone out of my way to get any of them.  They are things I noticed that it turned out others had not taken photos of.

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

 

Not $10 but a percentage on top of the price you would get normally.  I have multiple rare images and several very rare ones - and I have never gone out of my way to get any of them.  They are things I noticed that it turned out others had not taken photos of.

 

How are you getting that.  All I've seen is an average of $20-30 per download, so not sure how you are expecting more and justify expense to get to these "rarities".  this is made worse by fact that "what should you shoot" is not even only based on customers actual requests

 

 

[Chuck Nacke]

6 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Alamy at the moment is halfway between the two. It's nowhere near as efficient as some micro-stock libraries (where the customer pays up front and contributors are automatically credited on download - totally administered by the software). Versus Alamy, where many customers are on a download now, pay later model and the contributor finally gets paid after invoices have been raised and chased if they don't. There's also clearly the ability for some Alamy customer's to negotiate bulk deals and also Alamy can provide search assistance. There's a lot more "manual intervention" in Alamy's current business model. This costs money, which is fine if the prices secured remain higher than MS.

 

But, because Alamy try to charge prices based on the customer and application irrespective of the uniqueness or value of the image their overall pricing is being dragged down by the general trend in prices. (All images are put in the same bucket - apart from some restrictions set by contributors). To survive, Alamy either has to find ways to maintain or increase prices on some of its portfolio, or increase efficiency (e.g. further cuts in commission, swapping to subscription pricing with automatic billing on download). Or a combination of the two. Just adding more and more images is not going to work.

 

There appear to be some business principles that Alamy believes are valuable.

   1) Uniformity of image pricing for a customer (it doesn't matter which image(s) you choose - the prices are the same for given licence terms)

   2) Uniformity of treatment of contributors

   3) Curation of an edited collection is too expensive to implement.

 

So with these in mind, what can/should Alamy do? Here's a few ideas.

 

1) Alamy introduce a "Premium" (or some other name) category which contains images which are selected, and have minimum pricing, set by the contributor. Premium images appear in normal search results with a star in the corner (or some other designation). The customer can filter their search results to exclude or include such images. Contributors can designate no more that 5% of their images as "Premium", and those images must be Alamy exclusive and they can set their own minimum price for these images. Alamy would instruct contributors to only use this category for images that the contributor believes are particularly unique or valuable and therefore deserve price protection. Obviously it might be abused with some contributors putting "standard" images into the "premium" category, but if the ranking system is actually re-introduced (see 3 below) their images will sink in the search results. 

 

2) Alamy introduce pricing that varies according to the image size across all licence types. High resolution images merit higher prices.

 

3) Re-introduce regular (6 monthly) contributor ranking and disclose what a contributor's rank is (e.g. 1-5 stars) and on what parameters this is based. This will encourage contributors to behave in the ways Alamy wants/needs. For example the Zooms/View and Sales/View and Sales/Image are three powerful metrics that encourage efficient keywording and uploading and reduce keyword and image spamming. At the moment Alamy seems to take great pride in concealing such details and contributors end up relying on "forum folklore". When was the last re-rank???

 

4) If Item (1) above works well, then it could be extended, allowing contributors with high ranking to increase the number of premium images to 10% (or more?) of their collection.

 

Just thoughts...

 

Mark

+11...

 

Mark, in my opinion has written the best response and has the BEST idea of what is happening and how to address it.  At least he has put forth some good ideas.

 

Had a good conversation with someone who has been contributing responses to this thread and he made me realize that

I was only thinking about "Journalistic" photos and not "Stock."  In other words my approach has now changed a bit, but one

thing that will never change is that Alamy needs to protect their product and the people who produce that product.

 

I also think it is time for contributors to become more skilled I.E. learning to select the images they upload and to caption and keyword them

more professionally.  It is not about egos.  It is about images and it is about licenses.

 

Chuck

[M.Chapman]

37 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

+11...

 

Mark, in my opinion has written the best response and has the BEST idea of what is happening and how to address it.  At least he has put forth some good ideas.

 

Had a good conversation with someone who has been contributing responses to this thread and he made me realize that

I was only thinking about "Journalistic" photos and not "Stock."  In other words my approach has now changed a bit, but one

thing that will never change is that Alamy needs to protect their product and the people who produce that product.

 

I also think it is time for contributors to become more skilled I.E. learning to select the images they upload and to caption and keyword them

more professionally.  It is not about egos.  It is about images and it is about licenses.

 

Chuck

 

 Thanks Chuck.

 

Another idea a colleague suggested to help improve Alamy’s portfolio might be a mechanism for Alamy contributors (and maybe customers?) to report problems with captions and keywords directly to the contributor concerned. A sort of automated email when a button is clicked? I know on the forum we often spot issues, but other than posting in the forum, there’s nothing we can do. A sort of crowd sourced keywording QC. It’s in all our interests to ensure Alamy images are accurately captioned and keyworded. Alamy could automatically  track the number of errors reported, and if a contributor exceeded a certain threshold, take a closer look. I suppose it might be open to trolling, but you never know...

 

Mark

Edited January 19, 2020 by M.Chapman

[Starsphinx]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

How are you getting that.  All I've seen is an average of $20-30 per download, so not sure how you are expecting more and justify expense to get to these "rarities".  this is made worse by fact that "what should you shoot" is not even only based on customers actual requests

 

 

I am making a suggestion not getting something that is already happening.

People are saying about having Alamy having a premium collection with the difficulty of finding editors able to curate such a collection and the associated costs to the business.  I am suggesting looking at a sort of automatic curation according to rarity of the subject.  Some subjects there are 10s of thousands of images (lemon) other images there is only a single one - possibly because the subject is challenging and difficult to photograph well but not always (I have an image that is the only one of its subject - yet there are photographs of the street it is on and I have no idea why nobody else has taken a photo of it for stock - it is not a difficult or challenging subject) so why not start offering a premium on subjects that are more rare?

This would act to reward photographers getting off the beaten path - and would go a small way to recognizing the extra costs of some photos.  It could act as a selling point both for Alamy to editors and for editors to customers.

I am suggesting a percentage not a dollar figure because pricing can vary so widely - while $20 - $30 may be average some licences still make 4 figures.  So basically your less common shots will make more than your common ones.

It is a suggestion - an idea for people to kick around that is all.  (and I have already thought of one massive problem - search "rose" and you get over a million results seach "kazanlik" and there are only 13 results only 3 of which are in colour of roses.  So if somone has a Kazanlik rose do you judge its rarity on "rose" or " Kazanlik "

[Starsphinx]

4 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

 Thanks Chuck.

 

Another idea a colleague suggested to help improve Alamy’s portfolio might be a mechanism for Alamy contributors (and maybe customers?) to report problems with captions and keywords directly to the contributor concerned. A sort of automated email when a button is clicked? I know on the forum we often spot issues, but other than posting in the forum, there’s nothing we can do. A sort of crowd sourced keywording QC. It’s in all our interests to ensure Alamy images are accurately captioned and keyworded. Alamy could automatically  track the number of errors reported, and if it exceeded contributor exceeded a certain threshold, take a closer look. I suppose it might be open to trolling, but you never know...

 

Mark

Love the idea of caption/keyword reporting.  Trouble is you can bet your ass such a thing would be abused.

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, Starsphinx said:

It is a suggestion - an idea for people to kick around that is all.  (and I have already thought of one massive problem - search "rose" and you get over a million results seach "kazanlik" and there are only 13 results only 3 of which are in colour of roses.  So if somone has a Kazanlik rose do you judge its rarity on "rose" or " Kazanlik "

 

Yes, I thought of the same idea too, but then couldn't think of an easy way to automate the process of determining "uniqueness". If it was based on individual keywords, a contributor could simply add an irrelevant, but unique, keyword to falsely gain the "uniqueness" premium.

 

Mark

Edited January 19, 2020 by M.Chapman

[Starsphinx]

42 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Yes, I thought of the same idea too, but then couldn't think of an easy way to automate the process of determining "uniqueness". If it was based on individual keywords, a contributor could simply add an irrelevant, but unique, keyword to falsely gain the "uniqueness" premium.

 

Mark

Indeed.
It would tie in well with your caption/keywording thing.

Or maybe add an extra field "main subject" and link it to the star rating or have it they way they manage "live news" or "exclusive to Alamy"  The field could be optional - and a facility that would be instantly removed from anyone deliberately abusing it it.  So you fill in subject "rose Kazanlik" - and when the reviewer sees a photo of a yellow buttercup then know you are pulling a fast one.  There would obviously have to be some flexibility, lots of subjects require specialist knowledge.  So a reviewer would pass a rose that was pink - but there would have to be a facility to report incorrect subjects.  Have it so there is a fairly tight limit on the number of challenges to put contributors off sticking rare labels on things they are not sure of.

It was partly why I set the 2% premium on 1000 examples - even quite common things like Mahonia Japonica only have a couple of hundred examples.

I guess like everything the devil is in the details - when you start thinking about how it could actually be applied and abused it gets a lot more complicated lol

[John Mitchell]

10 hours ago, mickfly said:

I'm not sure why I'm ranting about someone else's business, but it is a forum and is probably populated by grumpy old men like me who should be busy editing and uploading images to try and guide our own fortunes instead of wasting time typing on forums.

 

I plead guilty as charged. However, what we grumpy old men know best is that what goes up must come down, but what goes down can be very difficult to get back up. I'm talking about falling stock prices of course. 😃

 

Edited January 19, 2020 by John Mitchell