Meanwhile, over at Shutterstock...

[Autumn Sky]

5 hours ago, BobD said:

 

If you do this it would be interesting to compare shutterstocks May and June figures.

Will do.  But I can probably tell you already it will be 3x less  (same port size, similar # of downloads).   Basically what was 33 cents in May is now 10 cents & this drives the whole thing 

The other day I got 10 cent on-demand (which were 2.46 before).   I didn't think this was even possible.   It's a lost cause, end of story

[geogphotos]

12 minutes ago, Bear said:

 

The Backyard Silver guy did a study  a while back, you can see from the link he researched whether Alamy buyers searched elsewhere (at microstock sites) for the same image.  Says in his "detailed analysis" that they don't do that (on his stuff, anyway).  I don't know how true this is.  I have not researched it.     

 

An anecdotal description of two images is not exactly a study. 

 

People want to believe and so they will. Even when an actual picture buyer on this thread tells you that they do routinely compare prices it is just ignored because the fact doesn't fit in with the belief. 

 

When I am buying something I compare prices. Don't you?

 

Why there is this fixed belief that picture buyers don't do the same is hard to understand.

Edited June 16, 2020 by geogphotos

[Jill Morgan]

5 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

Jill, do you have subscriptions to any of these agencies? 

 

During the past few years, I've been asked many times if I have images at agency X because they subscribe there. 

 

 

 

For a business my size, it isn't worth subscribing to one particular agency as my subject matter is very specific.  And I haven't seen any great deals for commercial use in subscriptions.

 

Jill

[Phil]

7 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

When I am buying something I compare prices. Don't you?

 

 

I don't purchase images but like most purchase lots of other "stuff". 

I compare prices when convenient but price comparison is only one factor in a purchasing decision - be it images or an automobile.

 

But price alone is not the final and only factor in purchasing.

 

And the old saying still applies..  "the cheapest price is not always the best value".

 

 

 

[geogphotos]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I don't purchase images but like most purchase lots of other "stuff". 

I compare prices when convenient but price comparison is only one factor in a purchasing decision - be it images or an automobile.

 

But price alone is not the final and only factor in purchasing.

 

And the old saying still applies..  "the cheapest price is not always the best value".

 

 

 

 

 

I am not suggesting that price is the only or even the most important factor. 

 

But look at the price difference that Brasilnut quotes above between SS and Alamy. How can price not be a factor when it is just so easy to make the price comparison in seconds? Even if only a small percentage of sales are effected that is going to have a  potentially significant downward effect on his Alamy's sales totals. In other words his direct comparison between SS and Alamy sales as an argument for having to continue with SS is flawed. It is not a direct comparison because he has the same images at both places.  

[Brasilnut]

On 15/06/2020 at 22:09, geogphotos said:

To be brutally honest all this shows is that you have made some decisions. Arguably some very poor decisions. 

 

Going non-exclusive RF is a no-brainer imo and a good business decision but need to keep an eye on agencies as some make harmful decisions, such as the latest with SS which is causing a stir and iStock's 15% non-exclusive 2cent debacle about two years ago.

 

For argument's sake, are you implying that if I were to be exclusive on Alamy with 10,800 images I would have earned in 2019 over $5,000 net (instead of my current $1,140)? I think that is far fetched, although almost impossible to know...we can only speculate. 

 

However, I do have some stats on the small but high-quality RM exclusive on RM (about 800) and those have vastly under-performed vs the non-exclusive RF batch. 

 

[geogphotos]

19 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

 

Going non-exclusive RF is a no-brainer imo and a good business decision but need to keep an eye on agencies as some make harmful decisions, such as the latest with SS which is causing a stir and iStock's 15% non-exclusive 2cent debacle about two years ago.

 

For argument's sake, are you implying that if I were to be exclusive on Alamy with 10,800 images I would have earned in 2019 over $5,000 net (instead of my current $1,140)? I think that is far fetched, although almost impossible to know...we can only speculate. 

 

However, I do have some stats on the small but high-quality RM exclusive on RM (about 800) and those have vastly under-performed vs the non-exclusive RF batch. 

 

 

 

If 1% of your Shutterstock sales were Alamy sales that would make quite a difference?

 

What about 2%, 3%, 4%?

 

There has to be a certain percentage of Alamy sales that you lost to SS and got 60 cents instead of $16 each time ( or whatever the figures are).

 

I accept that this would unlikely to compensate for all of your SS sales but I don't think that you are talking about removing all those images so the situation wouldn't arise.

 

I thought that you were wondering what to do in the future and considering not contributing as much to SS.  My only point is that your figures comparing SS and Alamy returns are inherently flawed because they are for the same images,therefore, not a basis for decision-making on their own - too many unknowns.

 

In the end all this supposition leads nowhere you will end up doing what feels right and what you can live with. I am also non-exclusive for around 20k of my images and understand that it is a trade-off.  Unfortunately, Alamy has never really been able to properly 'take-off' and remains firmly a Tier 2 agency way behind Getty, Shutterstock and now, I imagine, Adobe.

Edited June 16, 2020 by geogphotos

[Marianne]

I've always felt conflicted about microstock, though I suppose by the forum's standards I'm seen as a supporter, since I started at both Alamy & ss in 2008.

 

I like to think that my 100 or so image experiment there and on two other micros (now up to about 500 after many years) have not contributed to photography prices' downfall, but I guess they all add up so I'm guilty, in part. However, I think that the ease of digital photography, and the wider public's seeming inability to tell a bad photograph from a good one, or their lack of caring, and the concept that intellectual property, especially if it's on the internet, should be free, has done more to destroy value. The decline of print journalism and the even more marked decline of print advertising, which pays for most of that journalism, has had a much more marked impact. There are more images than ever uploaded, shared, and purchased by buyers today than ever, so it is no surprise that most, but not all, buyers look at price first.  

 

Until the past year, I kept my two portfolios separate, with maybe an overlap of about 25-30 images, and put my best work on Alamy from the time I started in 2008 for fear that I'd lose out on higher value sales if my portfolios were the same as well as my reluctance to license via the micros. The real value that microstock had for me, however, coming to the profession late in life without a degree in photography, was that multiple sales a day from an initial portfolio of 80 images taught me what buyers were looking for, something my meager sales on Alamy when I started did not. But I always championed Alamy over the micros, despite my lopsided sales experience, and my willingness to supply images to the micros.

 

My micro portfolios were mostly backgrounds and concepts, with a handful of travel and editorial. They all sold well and more than 70% of my micro images that are over a year old have sold at least once, many 100s (some >1000 times). A set of simple backgrounds I shot the first day I got my lensbaby in 2012 paid for the price of the lens within a month or so. In fairness, so did a photo I took on Cape Cod that sold here - it paid for a 4-day trip (meals and gas - I stayed with a friend) within a month or so after retuning from the trip. (I can argue both sides, it's the recovering lawyer in me). Eight years later, those 10 lensbaby images still earn me over $100 a year on one or two of those sites. None of my Alamy images have earned me over $1,000 each, but several of my microstock images have. 

 

With a portfolio 1/8th to 1/4 the size on each of the top 3 micros, most years I made more on each microsite than I made here and ss always beat every one by a mile, so I get the lure, seeing that map with worldwide sales and watching it trounce the higher priced competitors had its appeal. But I appreciate the downside.
 

But it is not just photography that has suffered, which is why I think that while microstock may be a factor, it may also be a symptom of the greater market softening, and not actually the cause, though probably a little of both. Here's why I say that. Photo assignment work has been my bread and butter, along with some direct stock photo sales and writing. And fees for all three stayed at the same level for many years, while costs to run my business, not to mention the general cost of living, went up. Then, sales here dropped precipitously despite my adding more images. Editorial clients also dropped their rates, claiming drops in advertising, subscriptions, etc. (The ones who hadn't gone out of business - over two dozen of my former clients no longer exist). 

 

Anyway, as far as ss is concerned,  I've disabled my portfolio, forever if they don't reverse course and I intend to delete it if they stick with the 15% commission. I'm not holding my breathe. If I can get 99 cents on Adobe, or $15 here, I'm not going to take 10 cents from ss, but frankly the real issue is that editorial assignment work is barely worth the rates offered anymore. Five years ago if you told me I'd even consider 99 cents or $15 worth uploading for I'd have laughed. When I started making significantly more on FAA than on stock sites, I felt like things had gone haywire. (April was an awesome month when people got their stimulus checks, now that's dried up too - ah, the consumer society). That seems to be the only place where I net around $250 per sale anymore. National magazines are still paying about $200-300 for a quarter page image (stock not assignment), the same prices they were paying back in 2010 when I made my first direct license sales. It's barely sustainable. But at nearly 62, what to do? A lot of soul searching and exploring other markets. 

 

Maybe, like Alexandre, I'll go back to practicing law...😎

Edited June 16, 2020 by Marianne

[Marianne]

24 minutes ago, Bear said:

I believe he was talking about two zooms at the time of that post which was in January 2018, and the study was done in 2017 (of which I believe his link to it is not correct).

 

Yeah buddy!

 

 

 

Looks like Mr. Heap (Backyard Silver) has done some digging into SS revenues and even some white paper corporate revenue stream and stock holder info.  (Too boring for me).....My interest lies in I had signed on at SS before I found Alamy and I just left what little stuff I had there.

 

I see I misspelled your name in an earlier post, my apologies.......

 

 

This addition of animated gifs is cool Alamy has added to the forum....

 

😃

 

I thought you didn't want politics in the forum. What has this guy to do with ss? 

 

I think politics permeates most aspects of our lives, but I fail to see the connection here, just random liberal baiting? 😎

 

PS if you get a red arrow, it's not from me. I'd rather speak my mind than hide behind a button. (Just sayin' cause I know you're gonna get them).  No, I'm not gonna take the bait, but you know how to fish don't you?

[meanderingemu]

29 minutes ago, Marianne said:

 

I thought you didn't want politics in the forum. What has this guy to do with ss? 

 

I think politics permeates most aspects of our lives, but I fail to see the connection here, just random liberal baiting? 😎

 

PS if you get a red arrow, it's not from me. I'd rather speak my mind than hide behind a button. (Just sayin' cause I know you're gonna get them).  No, I'm not gonna take the bait, but you know how to fish don't you?

 

my green arrow to this post should be considered a red arrow to the other one

[sooth]

14 hours ago, Colblimp said:

It gets worse.  I hope when the writer contacts you, you'll reply with two words, the second word being 'off'?

 

Alamy does not give people our contact info, so Alamy gave me their email for me to contact...

 

I told the person they are free to use the Alamy comp image without cropping (the Alamy logo and other buyer info) and to include full attribution.  also said that's all I can do as I'm dealing with infringers on other websites, that artists should support other artists.

[geogphotos]

Stock is an absolute mess now. I used to think about how much psychological benefit people got from stock photography, now I think about how much negativity it creates with commission cuts, greedy owners, falling prices, insane levels of competition etc. Everyone is looking for some sort of solution when there may not be any solution.

 

I am hardly doing any new photography now. I have found an interest in other people's old slides/chromes from the past. See my blue link. A couple more years and I get my state pension, on top of my teacher's pension and a residual trickle of income from stock that should be fine.

 

But if I were Brasilnut, a young man with the means to gain well-paid employment in some other work I'd say go for it. Grubbing around on $10k a year in Europe isn't going to lead you anywhere. You can still find interest in photography just get out of torturing yourself trying to find a way through the labyrinth of trying to make sense of stock. There is no sense, there is no way out of the maze.

 

Stock is seductive. Don't get stuck in the trap. It is going to get worse not better.

 

Best of luck to all of us.

Edited June 17, 2020 by geogphotos

[Colblimp]

4 hours ago, sooth said:

 

Alamy does not give people our contact info, so Alamy gave me their email for me to contact...

 

I told the person they are free to use the Alamy comp image without cropping (the Alamy logo and other buyer info) and to include full attribution.  also said that's all I can do as I'm dealing with infringers on other websites, that artists should support other artists.

I give up. 😡🙄 #nofreework 

[riccarbi]

18 hours ago, geogphotos said:

People want to believe and so they will. Even when an actual picture buyer on this thread tells you that they do routinely compare prices it is just ignored because the fact doesn't fit in with the belief. 

When I am buying something I compare prices. Don't you?

Why there is this fixed belief that picture buyers don't do the same is hard to understand.

 

I give my 2 cents. As a (very small) web magazine publisher, I can say that for most publishers - apart form the big names that usual have special agreements with one or more photographic agencies - the procedure to find suitable editorial photos for an article is as follows:
1) Go to Flickr (usually, in the portfolio of some photographers you already know) and see if you can get the pictures for free.
if you don't find anything useful, then:
2) Go to SS or AS and see if you can buy your photos for pennies.
if you don't find anything useful, then:
3) Go to Alamy (or G.).

if you don't find anything useful, then:
4) contact a specialized agency or photographer for a quotation.

With constantly falling advertising revenues, you always try to spend as little as possible in photographic fees.
Long time ago, a reputed magazine didn't give a damn about saving some tens of dollars for a picture,  it was too time-consuming. Now things are very different and also large publishers look for very cheap photos on microstock.

Edited June 17, 2020 by riccarbi

[Alex Ramsay]

On 16/06/2020 at 22:04, Brasilnut said:

 

 

 

For argument's sake, are you implying that if I were to be exclusive on Alamy with 10,800 images I would have earned in 2019 over $5,000 net (instead of my current $1,140)? I think that is far fetched, although almost impossible to know...we can only speculate. 

 

 

Well, with the same number of images (all exclusive to Alamy),  I did . . . and I imagine there are plenty of others quietly doing the same

 

Alex

Edited June 19, 2020 by Alex Ramsay
grammar

[AlbertSnapper]

11 hours ago, Brasilnut said:

 

For argument's sake, are you implying that if I were to be exclusive on Alamy with 10,800 images I would have earned in 2019 over $5,000 net (instead of my current $1,140)? I think that is far fetched, although almost impossible to know...we can only speculate. 

 

 

I don't think that it's too far fetched.

 

Past experience chatting to a couple of picture buyers tells me that some of them do shop around (to see if the same image is elsewhere) for the cheapest price when working on their projects.

It's not all rush rush like in a fast paced newspaper environment.

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by AlbertSnapper

[BobD]

First I would like to commend everyone contributing to this thread for keeping it civil, I know the subject raises some passion in many photographers.

 

From my own experience I cannot see my experiment with ms has had any effect on my Alamy sales. In the year I had images at SS the number of Alamy sales remained pretty much the same with just 5 less images sold, being that I am not creating much new content, I would regard this as much the same. What has changed is average sale price, from $25 the previous year to $20 the last year. I suppose that could be interpreted as the influence of MS, but not my images only.

My experience is that completely different images sell on Alamy and MS, if only I knew in advance which was which. I did double my income overall during that year.

 

The truth is there are good and bad points to both models.

 

Alamy

Good points. Fair pricing in the current climate ( although reducing all the time). Reasonable upload procedure and acceptance.

Bad points. Low sales per image, time waiting for payment clearance, refund policy for non account customers r.e. PU sales, poor tracking of image use.

 

MS

Good points. Immediate payment with no refunds, High sales per image

Bad points. Low commission rates, sometimes overly fussy acceptance criteria.

 

 

 

[NYCat]

12 hours ago, Bear said:

I believe he was talking about two zooms at the time of that post which was in January 2018, and the study was done in 2017 (of which I believe his link to it is not correct).

 

Yeah buddy!

 

 

 

Looks like Mr. Heap (Backyard Silver) has done some digging into SS revenues and even some white paper corporate revenue stream and stock holder info.  (Too boring for me).....My interest lies in I had signed on at SS before I found Alamy and I just left what little stuff I had there.

 

I see I misspelled your name in an earlier post, my apologies.......

 

 

This addition of animated gifs is cool Alamy has added to the forum....

 

😃

 

Please don't make me sorry I encouraged you to stay on the Forum. No politics, please. It can ruin it for all of us.

 

Paulette

[Brasilnut]

14 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I thought that you were wondering what to do in the future and considering not contributing as much to SS. 

 

Not sure yet. Covid messed up a lot of business plans, including mine. 

 

While I admire the audacity of some contributors for permanently deactivating huge ports from SS (some I've read are 50,000+ assets),  I think it's a foolish/rash/emotional decision considering the "sunken costs" associated and loss of passive future income, however diminished. In addition, SS contributors simply don't have enough stats yet to determine just how bad the drop will be in earnings (I still managed to pick up a $90 net sale this month on SS for an extended license). Permanently shutting down is not something I will even contemplate...farthest I'll go is reluctantly supporting these temporarily shut-downs since we're stronger in numbers. 

 

My focus these days is on producing high-quality 4K video (likely to be uploaded to Pond5 exclusivity soon for 60% earnings and ability to set my own price) and submitting book cover stock (Rights-Managed exclusive) to Arcangel Images, which sell for me at around $150 net average a license. Those two avenues seem to be more resilient to market forces, at least for the time being. 

 

Perhaps I'll start submitting more to Alamy RM exclusive as well for that added 20% revenue, however, I'm quite annoyed at their Customer Service for not dealing seriously with ongoing suspicious Personal Usage license usages despite numerous follow-ups.  

 

Appreciate all for keeping the exchange civilized...I know this topic can hit some nerves as we're talking about sustainability of livelihoods. 

[spacecadet]

4 hours ago, NYCat said:

 

Please don't make me sorry I encouraged you to stay on the Forum. No politics, please. It can ruin it for all of us.

 

Paulette

Just report him. That will make at least 2 reports and we can keep the rest of the thread, unlike the one he got locked.

And I still didn't mean him...........

[John Mitchell]

12 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Stock is an absolute mess now. I used to think about how much psychological benefit people got from stock photography, now I think about how much negativity it creates with commission cuts, greedy owners, falling prices, insane levels of competition etc. Everyone is looking for some sort of solution when there may not be any solution.

 

I am hardly doing any new photography now. I have found an interest in other people's old slides/chromes from the past. See my blue link. A couple more years and I get my state pension, on top of my teacher's pension and a residual trickle of income from stock that should be fine.

 

But if I were Brasilnut, a young man with the means to gain well-paid employment in some other work I'd say go for it. Grubbing around on $10k a year in Europe isn't going to lead you anywhere. You can still find interest in photography just get out of torturing yourself trying to find a way through the labyrinth of trying to make sense of stock. There is no sense, there is no way out of the maze.

 

Stock is seductive. Don't get stuck in the trap. It is going to get worse not better.

 

Best of luck to all of us.

 

That's well put. For most of us, stock photography has become a way of making a little extra pocket money or augmenting other income such as a pension (which is what I'm doing). There will always be demand for new images. However, it is difficult to envision things getting better for the reasons that you mention. I still enjoy taking/making photos for "stock", so I'll probably continue playing the game as long as the monthly payouts remain worthwhile and dependable. I certainly won't be putting a supreme effort into it or spending much on new equipment. Mind you, one those nifty little Sony RX100's does sound tempting. 😬

[geogphotos]

What I have picked up from this thread that it is just about pointless to take pictures for Alamy which are already well represented on SS. I say SS because that seems to be the one with the most extensive secondary editorial coverage. I hadn't realised how deep their coverage goes in some content areas. That is really depressing.

 

To see, in the book that my daughter got me for Xmas, that approx 75% of the credits are for Shutterstock ( quite a few others for free sites like 'geograph') . This is a book about fairly specific UK locations of historical and geographic importance. Also, the quality is generally high.

 

Sorry to say it but I think these photographers need their heads examined or must be suffering from some form of brain-washing.  A remote standing stone miles away in the middle of Dartmoor is not what micro stock is supposed to be about! 🙃

Edited June 17, 2020 by geogphotos

[John Mitchell]

9 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

What I have picked up from this thread that it is just about pointless to take pictures for Alamy which are already well represented on SS. I say SS because that seems to be the one with the most extensive secondary editorial coverage. I hadn't realised how deep their coverage goes in some content areas. That is really depressing.

 

To see, in the book that my daughter got me for Xmas, that approx 75% of the credits are for Shutterstock ( quite a few others for free sites like 'geograph') . This is a book about fairly specific UK locations of historical and geographic importance. Also, the quality is generally high.

 

Sorry to say it but I think these photographers need their heads examined or must be suffering from some form of brain-washing.  A remote standing stone miles away in the middle of Dartmoor is not what micro stock is supposed to be about! 🙃

 

Unless everyone at SS jumps ship and swims over here... 🤔

 

[geogphotos]

21 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Unless everyone at SS jumps ship and swims over here... 🤔

 

 

 

Not likely is it!  Alamy is a $25m business and SS more like $500m. 

 

Alamy has missed the boat and that is unfortunate for all of us who sail in her. It has been floating around doing the same thing for a decade and more, meanwhile the industry has moved on. Not establishing a clear distinction between itself and microstock is just one of its major errors. For years you could even have images as RM on Alamy which were on microstock! 

 

Too much fiddling with software and not enough hard edge.

 

I think the mistake we keep making is to think of Alamy as an agency. It isn't. It is an image 'portal'. It is no more an agency than Ebay is. It's just a platform for matching buyers and sellers.  

Edited June 17, 2020 by geogphotos

[Colblimp]

48 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

 Mind you, one those nifty little Sony RX100's does sound tempting. 😬

Do it, they're fantastic!