Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just want to say, it's really great Alamy admins officially allow this discussion as event of this magnitude sends ripples across the industry.   It is also great Alamy Forum IS moderated -- just saw in SS forum people turning on each other, calling names etc etc.

 

John Mitchell is bang on when he says in stock nowdays "best news is no news".  Main question in my mind, considering general downward spiral industry is in,  what does this mean for Alamy.  Is there going to be influx of disgruntled SS contributors?  More exclusive Alamy images?  Slashing of prices, or similar pricing models. Etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Autumn Sky said:

Just want to say, it's really great Alamy admins officially allow this discussion as event of this magnitude sends ripples across the industry.   It is also great Alamy Forum IS moderated -- just saw in SS forum people turning on each other, calling names etc etc.

 

John Mitchell is bang on when he says in stock nowdays "best news is no news".  Main question in my mind, considering general downward spiral industry is in,  what does this mean for Alamy.  Is there going to be influx of disgruntled SS contributors?  More exclusive Alamy images?  Slashing of prices, or similar pricing models. Etc.

 

 

Really? Not doubting you but surprised.

Share this post


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

 

There is some confusion here. I have many images with Shutterstock. But they are in their Editorial collection not in the micro-collection. They have been placed there not by me but by a third party agency. I'm certain that I would not be able to submit to this collection myself.

 

Shutterstock bought Rex Features some years back. It has tried to move into other areas apart from micro-subscription. Mind you I don't think that I have ever had a sale - or at least not at the proper price. Each image is priced at £159 so that maybe the reason. It seems a bit like Getty with all the sweetheart deals. So, again, as I said previously I am getting micro priced sales without choosing that model. 

 

Thanks. I have a clearer picture now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, over at Dreamstime they just announced 10% increase in Contributor compensation!   They say it is temporary relief because of Covid-19,  but you can't help wondering if SS situation & hordes of disgruntled contributors over there had something to do with it.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Autumn Sky said:

Meanwhile, over at Dreamstime they just announced 10% increase in Contributor compensation!   They say it is temporary relief because of Covid-19,  but you can't help wondering if SS situation & hordes of disgruntled contributors over there had something to do with it.

 

 

 

That's small relief when you do the math. Last I checked, the dreamy place had a $100 minimum payout. I put some video clips there, and then took them down because of this, even though one of the clips had actually licensed. It's money that I'll never see because they keep any earnings under $100 that you have if you close your account. Fortunately, it is a piddly amount. Not a fan of them either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Mitchell said:

 

That's small relief when you do the math. Last I checked, the dreamy place had a $100 minimum payout. I put some video clips there, and then took them down because of this, even though one of the clips had actually licensed. It's money that I'll never see because they keep any earnings under $100 that you have if you close your account. Fortunately, it is a piddly amount. Not a fan of them either.

I am fairly sure they will give you $$ if you close account, even if <100

But that's different issue.   I found increase interesting in light of SS situation.   If it was really Covid related, it could have been announced much earlier.   Let the micro Hunger Games begin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Autumn Sky said:

I am fairly sure they will give you $$ if you close account, even if <100

 

 

Not according to discussions on their forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to read the thoughts, I had considered putting some content on Microstock but the rates were so low... we really do need to value our work as photographers.

I was starting to become disillusioned with stock agencies in general when seeing a move to subscription, a race to the bottom, as mentioned by a few people.

Strangely, May has been my best month on here and I've made 3 sales, possibly because people can't travel to take photos. Silver linings.

Stay strong and stay safe everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

just switched off all my videos on SS .  Hope many others do the same, It must be breech of the  contract terms which are implied when you start to upload content. You should not by law  be able  to vary those terms by giving 3 days notice . USA law ????

Edited by Travelshots
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

I am fairly sure they will give you $$ if you close account, even if <100

 

 

I just read a post on another forum by someone who said that he closed his account at the dreamy place a few months ago with $65 owing, and they won't pay him.

 

There's a word for that kind of thing. It's the main reason I high-tailed it out of there.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I just read a post on another forum by someone who said that he closed his account at the dreamy place a few months ago with $65 owing, and they won't pay him.

 

There's a word for that kind of thing. It's the main reason I high-tailed it out of there.

 

 


That is just so wrong. Tantamount to stealing. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I just read a post on another forum by someone who said that he closed his account at the dreamy place a few months ago with $65 owing, and they won't pay him.

 

There's a word for that kind of thing. It's the main reason I high-tailed it out of there.

 

 

If true indeed,  this is stealing.  No other word to describe it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:


That is just so wrong. Tantamount to stealing. 

 

That's the word I was thinking of. The policy is a real cash cow as many (perhaps most) never reach the $100 level.

 

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, this whole thing is just a picture of overall state in stock industry.   Companies at the end need to be profitable & it is harder and harder to do so.  So they look how to squeeze more revenue, and contributor cuts are one of the ways.  IS with fixed 15% compensation,  DT with strict 100$ payment threshold (even if you are closing account as it seems),  SS now with resetting everyone to ground zero on Jan 1, etc etc.   (Adobe might be fundamentally different because stock photography is not main revenue stream, so it can afford to be "unprofitable" as long as it promotes Photoshop, Lightroom etc as flagship products). 

 

Real problem in my view is that nobody is managing skyrocketing content increase.   Libraries should be lean and mean.  No 100s of photos that show the same thing.  No keyword spamming. Technically 100%.  No low sale potential content.  Clean up existing content -- anything older than 12 months with 0 sales -- out.  But instead they are now more and more reverting to AI QC.   DT QC is 100% AI now, even for editorial submissions.  They boost about "xxx millions of images in library" as it is a good thing.     One of reasons that Adobe is now best micro is that their QC is 100% human & it has standards.   I am really surprised someone intelligent enough does not recognize this.   Let everyone else climb the ladder with quantity;  I will climb it with quality.  

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

John, this whole thing is just a picture of overall state in stock industry.   Companies at the end need to be profitable & it is harder and harder to do so.  So they look how to squeeze more revenue, and contributor cuts are one of the ways.  IS with fixed 15% compensation,  DT with strict 100$ payment threshold (even if you are closing account as it seems),  SS now with resetting everyone to ground zero on Jan 1, etc etc.   (Adobe might be fundamentally different because stock photography is not main revenue stream, so it can afford to be "unprofitable" as long as it promotes Photoshop, Lightroom etc as flagship products). 

 

Real problem in my view is that nobody is managing skyrocketing content increase.   Libraries should be lean and mean.  No 100s of photos that show the same thing.  No keyword spamming. Technically 100%.  No low sale potential content.  Clean up existing content -- anything older than 12 months with 0 sales -- out.  But instead they are now more and more reverting to AI QC.   DT QC is 100% AI now, even for editorial submissions.  They boost about "xxx millions of images in library" as it is a good thing.     One of reasons that Adobe is now best micro is that their QC is 100% human & it has standards.   I am really surprised someone intelligent enough does not recognize this.   Let everyone else climb the ladder with quantity;  I will climb it with quality.  

 

 

 

Shutterstock is already very profitable.

In 2018 they had a turnover of $623 million and paid a special dividend to shareholders of $104 million.

The new structure is greed pure and simple.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

Real problem in my view is that nobody is managing skyrocketing content increase.   Libraries should be lean and mean.  No 100s of photos that show the same thing.  No keyword spamming. Technically 100%.  No low sale potential content.  Clean up existing content -- anything older than 12 months with 0 sales -- out.  But instead they are now more and more reverting to AI QC.   DT QC is 100% AI now, even for editorial submissions.  They boost about "xxx millions of images in library" as it is a good thing.     One of reasons that Adobe is now best micro is that their QC is 100% human & it has standards.   I am really surprised someone intelligent enough does not recognize this.   Let everyone else climb the ladder with quantity;  I will climb it with quality.  

+1 (Apart from deleting anything >12 months old without a sale as that's just too quick)

Automated cull of exact duplicates?

 

Mark

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Shutterstock is already very profitable.

In 2018 they had a turnover of $623 million and paid a special dividend to shareholders of $104 million.

The new structure is greed pure and simple.

 

I'll be interested to see what happens to sales revenues from next week onward. At the moment I see it more as a "refocussing" of reward for the longer term. There will be winners and losers. I do think the commission rate reset on 1st Jan each year is a huge mistake though, it would be better to do a reset based on the last 12 months sales.

 

Mark

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

Libraries should be lean and mean.  No 100s of photos that show the same thing.  No keyword spamming. Technically 100%.  No low sale potential content.  Clean up existing content -- anything older than 12 months with 0 sales -- out.  But instead they are now more and more reverting to AI QC.   DT QC is 100% AI now, even for editorial submissions.  They boost about "xxx millions of images in library" as it is a good thing.     One of reasons that Adobe is now best micro is that their QC is 100% human & it has standards.   I am really surprised someone intelligent enough does not recognize this.   Let everyone else climb the ladder with quantity;  I will climb it with quality. 

 

I agree that Alamy should maybe invoke the excessive similars reason for rejecting photos more often.

 

One thing that sets Alamy apart from its competitors is that they only check technical quality, not content. This inevitably results in a lot of dross being uploaded, but also more unusual images that wouldn't be uploaded elsewhere. Hopefully the algorithms take care of the dross. If you reject content based on what you think might sell, you're second guessing a lot of potential and varied clients.And there's lots of agencies - how do you distinguish yourself from other agencies aside from on price and the race to the bottom?? You can't do it on price alone.

 

I totally disagree on removing content older than 12 months. This would remove most photos from most contributors portfolios. I continue to make regular sales from content older than 1 year.

 

Maybe Alamy will have to change their practices at some point if the market dictates it or photographers ever get organised (hah!)

Steve

Edited by Steve F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BobD said:

 

Shutterstock is already very profitable.

In 2018 they had a turnover of $623 million and paid a special dividend to shareholders of $104 million.

The new structure is greed pure and simple.

 

This all goes back to how much amateurs and professional photographers are prepared to work for - very little if stock is a hobby for them. Photography has never been so accessible to people before, which is great. But this means stock is inevitably open to all and sundry and will never go back to how it used to be.

Edited by Steve F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve F said:

I totally disagree on removing content older than 12 months. This would remove most photos from most contributors portfolios. I continue to make regular sales from content older than 1 year.

 

Agreed. Many of my sales are of photos older than a year (sometimes 10-15 years old) and are first time sellers.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

Agreed. Many of my sales are of photos older than a year (sometimes 10-15 years old) and are first time sellers.

 

Another +1 from me.  Just because it hasn't sold to date, doesn't mean it won't be - especially here.

 

Promoting images which sell consistently? Well, firstly those images don't need promoting and secondly, it just leads to a site where the customer sees the same old stuff again and again. it would remove the beauty and uniqueness of Alamy. If they have a USP, this is it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

Agreed. Many of my sales are of photos older than a year (sometimes 10-15 years old) and are first time sellers.

 

but since these would be probably more rare/valuable, wouldn't they warrant to be on specialised banks, at a premium?  in an ideal world.   So mainstream libraries deleting them, may be a bonus.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

 Clean up existing content -- anything older than 12 months with 0 sales -- out. 

 

 

Silly idea.  A sale dropped in for me on Friday for a pic which was uploaded in March 2018 - the first sale of that image...

Edited by Colblimp
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, losdemas said:

 

Another +1 from me.  Just because it hasn't sold to date, doesn't mean it won't be - especially here.

 

Promoting images which sell consistently? Well, firstly those images don't need promoting and secondly, it just leads to a site where the customer sees the same old stuff again and again. it would remove the beauty and uniqueness of Alamy. If they have a USP, this is it!

 

Unfortunately, that was the unique USP at Alamy until, for reasons best known to themselves, they started to import complete collections from other agencies ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

Clean up existing content -- anything older than 12 months with 0 sales -- out.

I would consider that a breach of trust far worse than the commission cut. All the work already done for nothing. It would also cost me about 80% of my sales.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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.