Jump to content

Recommended Posts

When I look at my monthly sales reports, I see that typically at least 50% of the images that have licensed are repeat-sellers?

 

How about you?

 

P.S. I average about 14 sales per month -- 9 sales so far this month, and 6 of them are repeat-sellers.

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the opposite John a quick look over the last few years and I would say 80 % of mine are one off sales. In the early years I had many more repeat sellers but with so many more images to choose from on Alamy I am not very surprised these days

Link to post
Share on other sites

That comes as no surprise. Great minds think alike as always. I won't bother with the rest of the truism. My wife used to be a picture researcher for Readers Digest Books. One of her frustrations would be to be sent off searching images only to be told at the end "remember that shot we used back in abtzc, let's find that and use that" Happens all the time. In America, the holy grail is to get an image selected for a standard text in scholastic publishing. Chances are it will be re-ordered  for updated editions for a couple of decades. I would say my collection is less than 50% repeats but it is pretty substantial. Bill Brooks and I have coverage of a site not a million miles from his location in Southern Ontario. First Nations niceties mean you can't photograph it any more. That's the kind of thing can shorten the odds of a repeat sale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About 70% of my sales this month have sold before, but I call proper repeat sellers those that sell again and again and again. Those tend to be images of things that remain newsworthy over a long period of time.

There are some newspapers for example the Guardian and the Mail which often re-use the same images to illustrate their articles - sometimes they refer to the images as "stock images" -- obvs. they are, but in those cases I think they are referring to them as images which they now have in their stockpile. Of course they don't sell for very much each time but assuming they are RM, it all adds up!


Kumar

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had only 38 sales so far. One image has been used four times and one image twice. I've been active just about 16 months, that might explain the low level of repeat-sellers.

Edited by JaniMarkus Hasa
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have some multiple (repeat) sellers but not many.

 

I wonder if it is possible for Alamy to produce a list of images in your port with the number of licences taken on each image.

 

Just a thought.

 

Allan

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

I do have some multiple (repeat) sellers but not many.

 

I wonder if it is possible for Alamy to produce a list of images in your port with the number of licences taken on each image.

 

Just a thought.

 

Allan

 

Hi Alan,

Just a 'heads up', maybe check your spelling for Lincolnshire, image 2D68JRE. Gave me a chuckle on a gloomy day.:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dave Richards said:

Hi Alan,

Just a 'heads up', maybe check your spelling for Lincolnshire, image 2D68JRE. Gave me a chuckle on a gloomy day.:lol:

I tend to agree about parts of the county......

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

Hi Alan,

Just a 'heads up', maybe check your spelling for Lincolnshire, image 2D68JRE. Gave me a chuckle on a gloomy day.:lol:

 

Thank you. I was all fingers and thumbs on the keyboard when I keyworded that image.🖐️

 

Will check the rest JIC.

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I tend to agree about parts of the county......

 

THAT is why you left is it?😉

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that people's experience with repeat-sellers varies a lot. I've noticed an uptick in the number of older images re-selling during the pandemic, which seems to coincide with my big drop in zooms. This  is a bit of a double-edged sword. Having a stable of dependable repeat-sales has been really important for me when it comes to generating consistent income. However, a higher proportion of them licensing relative to newer images doesn't seem like a positive trend. It's not a good a idea to become too dependent on old work. Hmmm...

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot of repeat sellers and I usually mention the number of times when I post an image in the "Images sold" section. Having a quick look a couple of images have sold upwards of 20 times over the years. Some via other agents, before I became exclusive to Alamy for my RM images. I also have a small number of images on "those" sites, some images sell weekly and have had well over 1,000 downloads.

Edited by cbimages
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 184 images which sold more than once. But not this month.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/10/2020 at 15:33, Allan Bell said:

I do have some multiple (repeat) sellers but not many.

 

I wonder if it is possible for Alamy to produce a list of images in your port with the number of licences taken on each image.

 

Just a thought.

 

Allan

 

I agree, this would be really useful in helping to prune those photos that never sell. Also, a 'zoomed' number per image in the portfolio would suggest which pics are of interest.

Edited by Jansos
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jansos said:

I agree, this would be really useful in helping to prune those photos that never sell. Also, a 'zoomed' number per image in the portfolio would suggest which pics are of interest.

 

Good addition to include zoomed numbers too.

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Good addition to include zoomed numbers too.

 

Allan

 

 

Yes, statistics like these -- number of times zoomed, licensed, even viewed -- for each image would be really helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We had one image that sold over and over again. Then Alamy were forced by the Olympic Council to remove it so that was the end of that! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/10/2020 at 05:41, Robert M Estall said:

. Bill Brooks and I have coverage of a site not a million miles from his location in Southern Ontario. First Nations niceties mean you can't photograph it any more. That's the kind of thing can shorten the odds of a repeat sale.

 

The first time I went into that site was 1964 on assignment for a postcard company. I was paid up front, so gained no stock images, but that was OK by me.

 

On that 1964 trip I carried in a 4X5 speed graphic, heavy tripod and a case containing film in holders. The trail was long, wet, hot, overgrown, and mosquito infested. The experience was more bushwhacking with the weight of the earth on your back, than hiking. The site was known to First Nation people and a few locals so was absolutely pristine when I arrived in 1964. There was a house sized sacred rock covered in petroglyphs in a lonely silent forest. In my advanced state of exhaustion, it had other world connotations. 

An appropriate reaction, because first Nations People believe the rock is the entrance to the spirit world, and the rock talks to them. It talked to me.

 

In about 1972 I made a second trip in to shoot some stock for myself. The site was better known, the trail was better, the camera was 35mm, but there was some damage by vandals.

 

In order to preserve the site, the government built a road in and a parking lot. They covered the huge rock with a bigger building that forms a museum, with the rock inside as the main exibit. Turning a sacred site into a First Nations Disneyland destroys the sacred mood and makes it difficult to experience properly. It is the same difference in experience between climbing a mountain alone, or taking a cog railway with a crowd. The no photography rule is to recognize the sacred nature of the site.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroglyphs_Provincial_Park

 

Notice no actual photos of the rock on Wikipedia.

 

The shots I took in 1972 continue to have repeat sales over the years, so the no photography rule does work to the early bird's advantage.

Here is a small part of the rock taken in 1972.
 

aboriginal-carved-petroglyphs-at-petrogl

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the one. That could easily be one of mine. There was an obvious vantage point  so we would tend to take similar shots. Hauling a Speed Graphic kit into the woods sounds unnecessary but clients rule. My visit would have been about the same time as Bill's. Early 70s. I think I had about a fifteen minute hike in from an access road. I was alone with the site and it was a really good experience. There were a few other sites I managed to paddle a canoe to in Ontario. I had my Dad with me on most of them. We liked paddling canoes together.

 

 I can recall several other sites like the Pooh Sticks bridge in the UK where, thankfully, the visitor centre  approach has not yet taken hold. I do remember a visiting American with a couple of children who did ask "Where's the Theme Park?" Good grief! You park in the car park which was free last time I visited, you walk for fifteen minutes down a good path in the forest collecting a couple of suitable sticks, you get to a bridge over a small stream, you chuck the sticks over the side and see which one comes out the other side of the bridge first. Pooh Sticks! Disney does now own the rights to the characters, I don't want to think about it.

Edited by Robert M Estall
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/10/2020 at 03:41, Doc said:

About 70% of my sales this month have sold before, but I call proper repeat sellers those that sell again and again and again. Those tend to be images of things that remain newsworthy over a long period of time.

There are some newspapers for example the Guardian and the Mail which often re-use the same images to illustrate their articles - sometimes they refer to the images as "stock images" -- obvs. they are, but in those cases I think they are referring to them as images which they now have in their stockpile. Of course they don't sell for very much each time but assuming they are RM, it all adds up!


Kumar

 

My images aren't particularly newsworthy, at least not when it comes to UK newspapers. I find that most of my multiple repeat sales are based on scarcity more than anything else -- i.e. they are subjects for which Alamy has very little or even no coverage. I wish I could say it was my outstanding photographic talent behind repeat sales, but that would be a bit of a stretch. 🤩

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.