Download packs

[M.Chapman]

4 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

NO I am not hinting at anything and would never engage in that sort of thing.  I am insulted by what you are inferring.

I will add that there are many things you can not see.

 

Chuck

 

I thought Jeff's posts were hard to understand. 

 

Mark

Edited January 14, 2020 by M.Chapman

[meanderingemu]

4 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I thought Jeff's posts were hard to understand. 

 

Mark

  🤣....confused emoticon is my friend.... 

Edited January 14, 2020 by meanderingemu

[Cryptoprocta]

To be honest, the prices of these packs (other than PU/presentation/newsletters) are better than many of my 'regular' sales.

[M.Chapman]

2 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

To be honest, the prices of these packs (other than PU/presentation/newsletters) are better than many of my 'regular' sales.

Agreed

These packs have been around for a while too, so it possibly explains some of the variation in PU/Presentation/Newsletter fees being reported? 

 

Mark

 

 

[Chuck Nacke]

10 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I thought Jeff's posts were hard to understand. 

 

Mark

Do not see why what I have written is so hard to understand?  Seems to be very clear what I am saying?

 

Chuck

[John Mitchell]

Download packs have been around for a long time. I've had quite a few sales that seem (?) to fit the pricing.

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Do not see why what I have written is so hard to understand?  Seems to be very clear what I am saying?

 

Chuck

 

It's because you seem to have contradicted yourself and then got upset when asked to clarify what you meant.

 

Mark

[Chuck Nacke]

4 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

It's because you seem to have contradicted yourself and then got upset when asked to clarify what you meant.

 

Mark

Mark,

 

I was not upset at all, but I was irritated by what Beth had written.

As I have made obvious, I am not happy with how these "Packs"

are being used by Alamy and yes I know this has been going on

for awhile.  Keep in mind that I can only speak for myself, not anyone

else on Alamy.

 

Chuck

[John Mitchell]

The discounts aren't that great really, especially on the small packs, so it doesn't seem like a bad idea to me if it means more sales. I can see why Alamy wants to move more inventory (as they say) at this point.

[Marianne]

If the intentions of these packs is to help Alamy compete on price, I'm doubtful it has been/will be successful. While beneficial in getting payment upfront, thereby helping with Alamy's sad collections track record, the packs seem unlikely to spur much additional licensing since (a) the discounts aren't that great,  (b) it is only for 2-10 packs, a very limited amount and (c) while it might help attract some small novice buyers, the RM license is just as likely to confuse and scare them away. The result: lower prices without the substantialI volume that lower-priced sites achieve for their photographers to make up the shortfall. The recent commission change is evidence that this experiment has failed.

 

I understand that Alamy is in a tough position as the bottom keeps falling out of the stock imaging market, but as micros try to counter this by creating premium brands to be licensed alongside their bargain basement priced images, Alamy, rather than taking advantage of their unique content, is betraying those who have eschewed the micros for Alamy's promise of higher prices by dumping our work at these much lower price points. In fact, the print use (magazines/books) in the small pack seems to be about half of the amount certain micros charge for a similar use. (I say similar because micros are RF, but their print use is really a hybrid since it is generally limited to one imprint, so their "RF" is not truly RF).

 

Alamy needs to compete on the basis that it has something unique to offer buyers - those hard to find images. I've gotten decent prices on my own from my Photoshelter website from clients looking for out of the way places. Alamy has that kind of unique travel content and, as Chuck mentioned with his unique stuff, they have other unique images as well. They need to differentiate between general stock and hard to find images. I would assume that an algorithm can tease out unique searches (i.e. terms that are rarely used). They should consider how to capitalize on them.

 

They used to offer help in searching (maybe they still do?) and this is another place where they can perhaps entice higher end clients.

 

Again, from my limited experience, I know that when my images were put in the "Creative" collection here, my sales increased. I don't think this was a coincidence. When Getty/iStock used to let you chose a certain number of images to be offered at a higher price in a pseudo premium type collection, those images of mine sold much more often. In those days 100 images on iStock made me a good return. They then dropped the program and lowered prices, resulting in an increasingly dire financial situation for photographers and the agency. Similarly, lowering prices does not seem to have helped Alamy's bottom line despite an exponential growth in its portfolio. 

 

I remember years ago I had a friend who worked in marketing at a Fortune 500 company. When one of their products wasn't selling as well as expected, they raised the price. He explained that if something sells less often, you have to charge more for it, not less.  

 

Perhaps Alamy should hire some old-fashioned marketing gurus. Not social media types, money-crunching marketing types. 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2020 by Marianne

[M.Chapman]

+1  Excellent post.

[John Mitchell]

Charging more for hard-to-find imagery makes sense. However, I think the problem now is that we are living in the age of the discount. With the supply of so many commodities, not just stock photos, far outstripping demand, we've all become used to sellers offering big price reductions and package deals (e.g. "buy one shirt and get the second one for half-price," "no payments for six months", etc.) in order to reduce their massive inventories and keep their financial heads above the quicksand. It would be very difficult, maybe even impossible, for Alamy to buck this trend. No?

[Chuck Nacke]

3 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

Charging more for hard-to-find imagery makes sense. However, I think the problem now is that we are living in the age of the discount. With the supply of so many commodities, not just stock photos, far outstripping demand, we've all become used to sellers offering big price reductions and package deals (e.g. "buy one shirt and get the second one for half-price," "no payments for six months", etc.) in order to reduce their massive inventories and keep their financial heads above the quicksand. It would be very difficult, maybe even impossible, for Alamy to buck this trend. No?

John,

 

First I am not making "shirts."  I am allowing Alamy to license images that I have made. 

 

I do not think most reading this thread understand what I have been talking about and

there in lies the problem.

 

Chuck

[John Mitchell]

53 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

John,

 

First I am not making "shirts."  I am allowing Alamy to license images that I have made. 

 

I do not think most reading this thread understand what I have been talking about and

there in lies the problem.

 

Chuck

 

Chuck, I think the confusion lies in understanding what you can do that the rest of us can't. We give Alamy the permission (via their contract) to license our images any way they like. We do have the option to opt out of some "schemes" and uses, but not out of download packs as far as I know. If we don't want our images marketed that way, the only thing we can do is quit Alamy, which I don't think (?) you are contemplating at the moment.

[Chuck Nacke]

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Chuck, I think the confusion lies in understanding what you can do that the rest of us can't. We give Alamy the permission (via their contract) to license our images any way they like. We do have the option to opt out of some "schemes" and uses, but not out of download packs as far as I know. If we don't want our images marketed that way, the only thing we can do is quit Alamy, which I don't think (?) you are contemplating at the moment.

John,

 

My response if going to be "very kind"  I.E.  The internet is full of "Cat Photos, store signs, beaches, etc"  but that is not what I do or photograph and more importantly it is not what I have been talking about.  Yes, anyone can upload images to Alamy, if they meet basic technical requirements, why I have even uploaded images of a shirt made in Bangladesh and Alamy has licensed it.  If you understand why it was licensed you are halfway to understanding what I am talking about.

 

Just my own opinion:  You actually have some nice images on your web site.

 

I think it is time for me to quit responding to this thread.

 

P.S. I did not say "We"  As I have written I speak for myself or "I"

 

Chuck

 

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Chuck Nacke
claity

[Matt Ashmore]

4 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

John,

 

My response if going to be "very kind"  I.E.  The internet is full of "Cat Photos, store signs, beaches, etc"  but that is not what I do or photograph and more importantly it is not what I have been talking about.  Yes, anyone can upload images to Alamy, if they meet basic technical requirements, why I have even uploaded images of a shirt made in Bangladesh and Alamy has licensed it.  If you understand why it was licensed you are halfway to understanding what I am talking about.

 

Just my own opinion:  You actually have some nice images on your web site.

 

I think it is time for me to quit responding to this thread.

 

P.S. I did not say "We"  As I have written I speak for myself or "I"

 

Chuck

 

 

 

You'd make a good politician Chuck.. you seem to have repeatedly ignored answering the direct question and instead waffled on about how good/unique your images are and that they deserve to be sold at a fair value (which I agree with). But the question that you are not answering is not about how good/unique/valuable images are but purely a question of how you use the mechanics of the Alamy site to avoid your images being sold at a discount as part of 'Download Packs' as one of your earlier posts suggested that you had a way of avoiding them.

[Chuck Nacke]

10 hours ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

You'd make a good politician Chuck.. you seem to have repeatedly ignored answering the direct question and instead waffled on about how good/unique your images are and that they deserve to be sold at a fair value (which I agree with). But the question that you are not answering is not about how good/unique/valuable images are but purely a question of how you use the mechanics of the Alamy site to avoid your images being sold at a discount as part of 'Download Packs' as one of your earlier posts suggested that you had a way of avoiding them.

Matt,

 

I am no politician, but on the other hand, anyone breathing is better than "the Donald" or "the Boris."

 

In any event, the reason that I have not directly answered the question about how to avoid images being licensed by Alamy at hugely discounted fees is because I am

trying to find a solution.  This thread has brought up a question that has disturbed me for a long time.  The current mechanics of Alamy are in my opinion part of the

problem.  I also believe that it has become too easy to create and upload images that are not well thought out, not well captioned, and not of much use to anyone and

this has polluted the market and driven down the quality and relevance of still images and the stock industry as a whole, Just my own opinion. 

 

Chuck

[John Mitchell]

50 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Matt,

 

I am no politician, but on the other hand, anyone breathing is better than "the Donald" or "the Boris."

 

In any event, the reason that I have not directly answered the question about how to avoid images being licensed by Alamy at hugely discounted fees is because I am

trying to find a solution.  This thread has brought up a question that has disturbed me for a long time.  The current mechanics of Alamy are in my opinion part of the

problem.  I also believe that it has become too easy to create and upload images that are not well thought out, not well captioned, and not of much use to anyone and

this has polluted the market and driven down the quality and relevance of still images and the stock industry as a whole, Just my own opinion. 

 

Chuck

 

Chuck, I'd vote for you any day over either of those two characters. As mentioned, I've had sales  licenses which would seem to match the pricing, but I wonder how popular download packs really are. For one thing, they seem to be well hidden on the Alamy website.

Edited January 16, 2020 by John Mitchell