RF images and distributors

[John Mitchell]

I'm still not a big fan of RF licensing. However, I think that it does have a place with certain types of images. What I'm wondering is if RF images tend to do better with distributors than RM ones. Is there a case to be made for offering an image as RF if you hope to increase the possibility of its licensing through Alamy's distributor network? Any thoughts on this this?

[giphotostock]

Getty pretty much stopped accepting (direct) and distributing RM collections about a year ago. However, I do not think Alamy distributes via Getty?

GI

[John Mitchell]

8 hours ago, giphotostock said:

Getty pretty much stopped accepting (direct) and distributing RM collections about a year ago. However, I do not think Alamy distributes via Getty?

GI

 

I wasn't thinking about G as I don't know anything about them. I imagine, though, that some --or perhaps many -- of Alamy's distributors prefer RF images.

[GeoffK]

17 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I wasn't thinking about G as I don't know anything about them. I imagine, though, that some --or perhaps many -- of Alamy's distributors prefer RF images.

 

Outside of this forum, this agency to some extent, some specialist agencies and News..... RM is pretty much dead.  RF has been the primary choice for many clients which is why so many agencies (inc G) don't want RM any more. 

 

Agencies don't prefer x or y, it's what their clients want or can use.  I shoot RM for agencies that operate RM on a legacy basis, other than that it's all RF including previous RM images that used to sell very well for advertising (felt like monthly).  Times have changed.

Edited June 29, 2020 by GeoffK
typo

[giphotostock]

4 hours ago, GeoffK said:

 

 

Geoff, good to see you back here.

[John Mitchell]

5 hours ago, GeoffK said:

 

Outside of this forum, this agency to some extent, some specialist agencies and News..... RM is pretty much dead.  RF has been the primary choice for many clients which is why so many agencies (inc G) don't want RM any more. 

 

Agencies don't prefer x or y, it's what their clients want or can use.  I shoot RM for agencies that operate RM on a legacy basis, other than that it's all RF including previous RM images that used to sell very well for advertising (felt like monthly).  Times have changed.

 

One of the reasons I'm asking this question is that I've noticed a steady decline in distributor sales over the past year or so despite the fact that my overall sales numbers have increased. There of course could be several factors involved, but over 90% of my images are currently RM. Alamy has never said much (if anything) about whether RF images do better with their distributors. It would be helpful to know.

[M.Chapman]

On 29/06/2020 at 11:55, GeoffK said:

Outside of this forum, this agency to some extent, some specialist agencies and News..... RM is pretty much dead.

 

But it seems most contributors here tend to prefer RM, and those that have experimented with RF report little benefit in sales. Are we missing something? 

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

I have c 20,000 RM images on Getty and with stock agencies and distributors throughout the globe.

 

I have RM images on Shutterstock owned Rex Features. I even have RM images on Shutterstock itself. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by geogphotos

[GeoffK]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

But it seems most contributors here tend to prefer RM, and those that have experimented with RF report little benefit in sales. Are we missing something? 

 

Mark

 

Historically the commercial agencies were the most distributed, they gradually dropped RM as the major players changed preference from RM.  They would only do so as it reflected a gradual change from clients.  I couldn't send in RM CGIs or concept work for past number of years. I was given the choise of seeing it wither on the branch on Getty or change the licence. 

 

Legacy work that is RM is still selling but it quite clear that we are in the age of hybrid licencing or RF.  Here at Alamy the hybrid is king almost - it almost doesn't matter what the licence is, a flat fee with long dates if the norm.  We see, as Ian pointed out, RM on what are primarily RF agencies and they wouldn't be there if the agencies didn't think they would sell. It's a much harder journey to get there but people still do - I think that's mostly a belief in what RM was, not maybe what it currently is but that's a valid point of view since stock decisions are no longer taken from a business POV for most contribs.

 

 

 

 

[M.Chapman]

11 minutes ago, GeoffK said:

 

Historically the commercial agencies were the most distributed, they gradually dropped RM as the major players changed preference from RM.  They would only do so as it reflected a gradual change from clients.  I couldn't send in RM CGIs or concept work for past number of years. I was given the choise of seeing it wither on the branch on Getty or change the licence. 

 

Legacy work that is RM is still selling but it quite clear that we are in the age of hybrid licencing or RF.  Here at Alamy the hybrid is king almost - it almost doesn't matter what the licence is, a flat fee with long dates if the norm.  We see, as Ian pointed out, RM on what are primarily RF agencies and they wouldn't be there if the agencies didn't think they would sell. It's a much harder journey to get there but people still do - I think that's mostly a belief in what RM was, not maybe what it currently is but that's a valid point of view since stock decisions are no longer taken from a business POV for most contribs.

 

I see, so you're saying it's not that RM is pretty much dead, it's that the original tightly restricted RM usage/terms are "morphing" towards the freedoms of RF. If comments from other contributors are anything to go by, it doesn't matter whether images are sold as RM or RF on Alamy, the revenue per image is similar. However, selling as RM provides the useful info for DACS claims and can be useful when identifying infringements. This, for me, still tips the balance in favour of RM. So for me RM isn't dead.... yet....

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

21 minutes ago, GeoffK said:

 

Historically the commercial agencies were the most distributed, they gradually dropped RM as the major players changed preference from RM.  They would only do so as it reflected a gradual change from clients.  I couldn't send in RM CGIs or concept work for past number of years. I was given the choise of seeing it wither on the branch on Getty or change the licence. 

 

Legacy work that is RM is still selling but it quite clear that we are in the age of hybrid licencing or RF.  Here at Alamy the hybrid is king almost - it almost doesn't matter what the licence is, a flat fee with long dates if the norm.  We see, as Ian pointed out, RM on what are primarily RF agencies and they wouldn't be there if the agencies didn't think they would sell. It's a much harder journey to get there but people still do - I think that's mostly a belief in what RM was, not maybe what it currently is but that's a valid point of view since stock decisions are no longer taken from a business POV for most contribs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Getty isn't just Getty Creative. My pics are on Getty Editorial - all RM and non exclusive. As far as I know Getty Editorial is RM only ie) they only accept RM images and always has been.

 

Big differences between Creative and Editorial stock.

 

The other big thing about RM on Alamy is that those images are not on micros. If you are RF on Alamy where else can you place your images except micros?

Edited June 30, 2020 by geogphotos

[John Mitchell]

13 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Getty isn't just Getty Creative. My pics are on Getty Editorial - all RM and non exclusive. As far as I know Getty Editorial is RM only ie) they only accept RM images and always has been.

 

Big differences between Creative and Editorial stock.

 

The other big thing about RM on Alamy is that those images are not on micros. If you are RF on Alamy where else can you place your images except micros?

 

In the image manager (AIM), Alamy recommends that we choose RF licensing for our images. It would be interesting to know why they make this suggestion, especially since their RM/RF "hybrid" licensing model appears to be working well. Could the RF suggestion have something to do with distribution? Perhaps RF images get sent to more distributors (not sure if any of them are micros, hopefully not)

[GeoffK]

6 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I see, so you're saying it's not that RM is pretty much dead, it's that the original tightly restricted RM usage/terms are "morphing" towards the freedoms of RF. If comments from other contributors are anything to go by, it doesn't matter whether images are sold as RM or RF on Alamy, the revenue per image is similar. However, selling as RM provides the useful info for DACS claims and can be useful when identifying infringements. This, for me, still tips the balance in favour of RM. So for me RM isn't dead.... yet....

 

Mark

 

It's always what the personal experience is.

 

My best selling collections over past few years on a per image basis are RF, they are commercial images very widely distributed - nowdays they are Getty fodder..... never thought I would be writing that years ago.

 

My overall best selling collections are with specialists and are RM because for most part the areas in which they work are legacy RM.  One 'RM' agency has a RF collection because it's of it's possible wide distribution - agencies have tended to distribute RF over RM due to not needing to rights manage. It's easier to have RF on every agency in the world that the same images as RM.  When my work was on Blend, it was apparently on over a hundred agencies. RM distribution was much, much lower.

 

I don't consider DACS in my thinking as the monies have diminshed so much since I started: in fact this whole business has become a hobby for me (I was full time for over 3 decades).

 

My own perspective is more about enjoying it now.

[geogphotos]

57 minutes ago, GeoffK said:

 

My own perspective is more about enjoying it now.

 

My perspective too. At least we have that left! 😁

 

And only two more years for me to get the state pension. I'm getting a lot of enjoyment out of old slides taken by other people and then as a contrast get quite a kick when I do some of my own. 

 

All the best. And also very nice to 'see you'.

[Bill Brooks]

On 26/06/2020 at 17:42, John Mitchell said:

I'm still not a big fan of RF licensing. However, I think that it does have a place with certain types of images. What I'm wondering is if RF images tend to do better with distributors than RM ones. Is there a case to be made for offering an image as RF if you hope to increase the possibility of its licensing through Alamy's distributor network? Any thoughts on this this?

 

I have heard that small distributors are in trouble. They can't make sales, and can't pass on royalties when they do make sales. I hear of one once healthy agency, heavily dependent of many distributors, has voluntarily closed down because of this.

 

I know nothing about the financial health of Alamy distributors, only the industry in general. I have tracked down only one Alamy distributor. Google street view shows that it is located in a private home. So I think that one is small.

 

My Alamy 50% home business has been rising while, like you John,  my Alamy 30% distributor business has been falling. I am 100% RF, so RF or RM probably has nothing to do the falling distributor business.

 

As a photographer I would prefer that Alamy do more promotion of their own website and eliminate the distributors altogether. Higher commissions all around. Alamy have done this somewhat by opening their own foreign offices and translating the website.

 

I know a package designer at a major manufacturer who was under a management decree of RF only. He appealed and got management to also agree to RM with RF terms, in addition to the original RF only decree. Hence the hybrid license when necessary.

 

For RF me, hybrid or pure RF license does not seem to affect the price. My individual RF images sell multiple times, and the RF license price is in the same ballpark as my hybrid licenses from RF.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

I have heard that small distributors are in trouble. They can't make sales, and can't pass on royalties when they do make sales. I hear of one once healthy agency, heavily dependent of many distributors, has voluntarily closed down because of this.

 

I know nothing about the financial health of Alamy distributors, only the industry in general. I have tracked down only one Alamy distributor. Google street view shows that it is located in a private home. So I think that one is small.

 

My Alamy 50% home business has been rising while, like you John,  my Alamy 30% distributor business has been falling. I am 100% RF, so RF or RM probably has nothing to do the falling distributor business.

 

As a photographer I would prefer that Alamy do more promotion of their own website and eliminate the distributors altogether. Higher commissions all around. Alamy have done this somewhat by opening their own foreign offices and translating the website.

 

I know a package designer at a major manufacturer who was under a management decree of RF only. He appealed and got management to also agree to RM with RF terms, in addition to the original RF only decree. Hence the hybrid license when necessary.

 

For RF me, hybrid or pure RF license does not seem to affect the price. My individual RF images sell multiple times, and the RF license price is in the same ballpark as my hybrid licenses from RF.

 

Thanks for the informative reply, Bill. Like you, I'm certainly not unhappy that my 30% distributor sales have declined while my 50% direct ones have picked up. Just curious about the reasons for the apparent decline in distro activity. I agree that Alamy is better off working to make its own website unique rather than expanding distributorship (if that's a word), which has helped create the current mess that the stock photography world finds itself in. I've had very few RF sales on Alamy, and they have been low. However, I don't have a lot of RF images on offer. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by John Mitchell