Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 11/02/2020 at 20:04, geogphotos said:

PA Media is part of PA Media Group Limited,  a private company with 26 shareholders, .... The biggest shareholders include the Daily Mail  ...

... ...

 

Daily Mail is Daily Mail 😞

The very company which regularly and repeatedly failed to report used photos, over many years.

No wonder Alamy was schmoozing them by letting them have the sales for much less than they'd had paid had they reported them at the time of use, rather than when we found and reported them.

Talk about sleeping with the enemy. 😞

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MizBrown said:

One cheap way to do this would be to cut out the bottom 10% or 20% of contributors in terms of ratio of sales to photos in their portfolios.  Wouldn't require hiring anyone with skills at all, but would eliminate people who can produce niche images that occasionally have people looking for very specific local items.  

 

This isn't my experience. Saleability is directly related to depicting subjects no other one have depicted before. Compared to this, artistic quality, technical skills, popular subjects don't mean anything. You sell a photo primarily because someone get interested, sooner or later, in a subject you depicted and nobody else did. Niche images are a great opportunity, not a problem in the stock photo market, these days.

Edited by riccarbi
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shergar said:

Clive Marshall, "Chief Executive of PA Media Group said: “This transformational acquisition will significantly increase our customer base and provide the PA Media Group with a strong presence in the international market for the first time"

 

So far so good!

Heard it all before.

Whenever an agency is 'excited' to tell us something, bad things almost inevitably follow: some sooner, some later.

(I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

The very company which regularly and repeatedly failed to report used photos, over many years.

No wonder Alamy was schmoozing them by letting them have the sales for much less than they'd had paid had they reported them at the time of use, rather than when we found and reported them.

Talk about sleeping with the enemy. 😞


That poses a question related to a potential conflict of interest. What the "new" Alamy commercial policy towards PA's shareholders will be?
Alamy can no longer be considered an independent agency, but part of a group owned by some among UK's major media companies.
Buying Alamy, PA didn't buy Alamy contributors' (our) photographs, but only the right to represent them (we, either on an exlusive basis or not). 
I'm pretty curious to see in which way Alamy's infamous "discounted bulk pricing" policy will apply to PA's shareholders (which formerly were just Alamy's clients) from now on.

Edited by riccarbi
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlexG said:

Umm, so many thoughts running through my head. I joined Alamy over a year ago because of the appeal that I read about sales of reasonable price (albeit at lower volume). I don't do product photography or commercial subjects, and seeing how people need to have basically tens of thousands of images selling for cents on some of the other major stock sites was very off-putting for me.

My portfolio is small, and admittedly I am not a professional, so many of the images are generic and basic. Also, I am based in the US and Alamy sales seem to be generally much lower on this side of the Atlantic. I've had a single sale so far for $, quite a disappointing return. I had been hoping things would pick up.

 

Now, I really don't know what to make of the acquisition news. I am still trying to avoid contributing elsewhere enormous amount of photos for mere cents.

Alex, totally off the subject but...while your port is small go back and put the scientific names in your captions also. It will make your images stronger in searches.

Sorry, folks.😑

Link to post
Share on other sites

May I respectfully suggest that this torrent of speculation and second-guessing about the sale of Alamy's business , although entirely understandable is in no way productive.
Businesses grow, decline and merge and will continue to do so.
We may all speculate about what it means for us as contributors in the future, but speculation is all it will be. It is human nature to vent and be pessimistic but it is also true that none of us (outside the inner conclave) know with any certainty what the future will bring. Economics tell us that the market cannot be wrong and equally despite our anguish PA Media as new owners of the business are entitled to do whatever they now wish . 
A great number of us have invested enormous time, effort and enthusiasm in submitting our work in the hope that both we and hitherto Alamy, will reap the rewards. Equally the majority of contributors to the forum have recently been very critical of the rewards (or lack of) to the photographers who have arguably been the mainstay of the stock image business.
In months to come our worst fears may be realised but equally we may look back on the acquisition as a positive step that is beneficial to us all - Who Knows?
Business is business and is by nature volatile. If the future is less rosy than previously - hard to imagine based on the plethora of complaints littering the forum, then so be it.
The hallmark of professionals is that they change and adjust their personal business models to serve the existing market demands.
Possibly the most worrying aspect of the future is that the 'Alamy family' that has developed on the forum/s will cease to be. To that extent I share your anxiety. As a regular reader but only part-time contributor I would very much miss the camaraderie and wisdom of those who regularly contribute and engage in meaningful and valuable dialogue. To me that is the most worrying prospect for the future.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Richard, speculations are the logical consequence of an information asymmetry. We, with our images,  have built the value of Alamy. Yet, we are not entitled to know anything about Alamy's destiny and future strategy. We all accepted that, and I don't complain about having done it. I liked the "old" Alamy, with all its pros and cons; and I am eager to like the "new" Alamy. Yet, something has changed, for sure. Therefore, don't be surprised if many people here, me included,  are doing a lot of speculations. It's all we can do, now.

 

PS. I'm pretty sure that the passionate phototographers' family you and me have found here is strong and resilient and won't cease to exist, whatever destiny Alamy will face tomorrow.

.

Edited by riccarbi
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree wholeheartedly with you Richard. Friendships have been made here. Plus it would be a tragedy to no longer answer questions, help solve problems, and nurse newbies along.

This forum is known for reaching out to people.

Betty

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, riccarbi said:

Dear Richard, speculations are the logical consequence of an information asymmetry. We, with our images,  have built the value of Alamy. Yet, we are not entitled to know anything about Alamy's destiny and future strategy. We all accepted that, and I don't complain about having done it. I liked the "old" Alamy, with all its pros and cons; and I am eager to like the "new" Alamy. Yet, something has changed, for sure. Therefore, don't be surprised if many people here, me included,  are doing a lot of speculatios. It's all we can do, now.

 

I entirely agree with you. My point was that random speculation can be very destructive and the world & Alamy will move ahead irrespective of whether we like it or not. My plea was simply not to 'waste a good worry'!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dustydingo said:

 

My emphasis added to above quote . . . so now, not only do they still have access to Alamy's (our) images, they own them!! So maybe it's not quite the lowest they can go if you think about it.

 

. .. ooh look, a butterfly . . . 

 

Dd 

They don't own them. It's an agency, they licence them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with Richard T.

 

The business will move forward and we cannot control that much.


I do not like being pessimistic, but I am a worried optimist, although I do not consider myself a regular forum contributor, but maybe we can see a new platform to continue the camaraderie, in case this forum is deactivated. I hope it doesn't happen in the future, just in case. I don't know if there is already one.

 

andre

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

Alex, totally off the subject but...while your port is small go back and put the scientific names in your captions also. It will make your images stronger in searches.

Sorry, folks.😑

Of plants? Some of them I am not able to easily identify. I'd love to do that. I will try to go through the photos again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was enjoying reading everyones opinions . I think most of us don't need telling that our opinions don't count for diddly squat. But its a bit of fun while we wait and see the next chapter in the life of Alamy unfold.

Edited by Shergar
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Shergar said:

I was enjoying reading everyones opinions . I think most of us don't need telling that our opinions don't count for diddly squat. But its a bit of fun while we wait and see the next chapter in the life of Alamy unfold.

Oh dear, I think you must have been talking to me.

I did disagree with your optimism, but I totally respect your opinion (and would like you to be right!).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlexG said:

Of plants? Some of them I am not able to easily identify.

Start a "Can anyone identify this plant?" thread and post a picture of the plant you want ID'd. This forum is home to much knowledge, freely given.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I for one signed up on the basis of no editing for content and have invested countless hours on that basis. It would be a considerable breach of trust for Alamy to go back on that deal.

 

Exactly. I know that some of my best-selling Alamy images would be rejected by edited agencies. In fact, some already have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Oh dear, I think you must have been talking to me.

I did disagree with your optimism, but I totally respect your opinion (and would like you to be right!).

Unless you have 2 different user names no I wasn't. lol

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlexG said:

Of plants? Some of them I am not able to easily identify. I'd love to do that. I will try to go through the photos again.

Yes. I only looked at your Scotch Broom tree. Is it Cytisus Scoparius? Check for sure. Most of the plants I’ve sold were searched by the scientific name only. Put it in your caption and tags.

 Sorry about the font size. I can’t seem to fix it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/02/2020 at 19:49, spacecadet said:

Alamy isn't a retail business apart from PU licences. Its customers are mostly publishers.

You misunderstand the analogy. In the Ford example, it would be like saying that someone who buys a newspaper with an Alamy image is its customer.

 

I didn't misunderstand but thought Alamy had many more private customers. Then we have all the other b2b customers. Only in Sweden there are about 4500 magazines and newspapers. Of course many have their own photographers but it is still a large number only here. Then we have all the other countries and other sorts of customers in other categories and businesses for commercial or non-commercial use. I'm not sure in how many countries Alamy is represented but perhaps it's not as large company as I imagined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Richard Tadman said:

 

I entirely agree with you. My point was that random speculation can be very destructive and the world & Alamy will move ahead irrespective of whether we like it or not. My plea was simply not to 'waste a good worry'!

My sentiments exactly! Worry doesn’t change anything.    Now....a magic wand....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colin Woods said:

Start a "Can anyone identify this plant?" thread and post a picture of the plant you want ID'd. This forum is home to much knowledge, freely given.

Thanks a lot, Colin!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Yes. I only looked at your Scotch Broom tree. Is it Cytisus Scoparius? Check for sure. Most of the plants I’ve sold were searched by the scientific name only. Put it in your caption and tags.

 Sorry about the font size. I can’t seem to fix it.

Hi Betty. Yes, it would appear so! I've added it to my tags and captions. Thanks very  much. 😃

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Inchiquin said:

 

All bets are off after a takeover.

 

Alan

My contract hasn't changed.

 

7 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Exactly. I know that some of my best-selling Alamy images would be rejected by edited agencies. In fact, some already have been.

Same here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we are all pitching in ideas.

 

I think that it is time to move on from 'crowd sourcing'.

 

How that happens and it what shape and form I don't know.

 

Contributors need incentives and reward. if the cake is cut too thinly everybody stays hungry.

 

Let the red arrows fly! 😃

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.