Twenty Five Cents - really?

[Chris Craggs]

I am used to the occasional 'affiliate sales' coming in at a few dollars, but I sold a shot yesterday for $0.25:

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial, Single use across website and/or digital publication such as E-book or PDF, any size, any placement, in perpetuity.
Media: Website, app and social media
55 MB
5374 x 3583 pixels
2 MB compressed
Start: 22 January 2021
Duration: In perpetuity

 

Worldwide, 55meg, any size, any placement, in perpetuity - twenty five cents - got to be an error surely?

 

Anyone had anything similar?

 

Chris Craggs

[VbFolly]

A few people have reported similar sales over the last week or so. Check out the "Images Sold in January 2021" thread for the discussion.

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, VbFolly said:

A few people have reported similar sales over the last week or so. Check out the "Images Sold in January 2021" thread for the discussion.

 

 

but still not addressed by @Alamy, so worth adding any new ones that come up.

[meanderingemu]

53 minutes ago, David Pimborough said:

 

 

There's a certain other agency out there that think 10 cents is a good return on images 😒

 

 

oh course they do, their goal is towards shareholders.  

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, David Pimborough said:

 

 

There's a certain other agency out there that think 10 cents is a good return on images 😒

 

They also have a new theme song. 😁

[Kamira]

1 hour ago, David Pimborough said:

 

 

There's a certain other agency out there that think 10 cents is a good return on images 😒

Yes...but that certain agency agency sells dozens of times more images than Alamy. At least in my case. And that certai angency also sells "On Demand" and " Single" images for prices similar to the "better" prices in Alamy 

 

I'm not saying that agency is great, it's not. But Alamy is getting so close to Microstock than they are practically indistinguishable. And Microstock sells way more. 

 

It's a race to the bottom

[geogphotos]

8 minutes ago, Kamira said:

Yes...but that certain agency agency sells dozens of times more images than Alamy. At least in my case. And that certai angency also sells "On Demand" and " Single" images for prices similar to the "better" prices in Alamy 

 

I'm not saying that agency is great, it's not. But Alamy is getting so close to Microstock than they are practically indistinguishable. And Microstock sells way more. 

 

It's a race to the bottom

 

 

Just because the very occasional Alamy sale is similar to a microstock sales does not make Alamy indistinguishable from microstock. That just doesn't make any sense to me. 

 

I have had quite a few recent $$$ sales. 

 

And where did the 'race to the bottom' start - at Alamy or the micro stock site you refer to?

 

I also had one of these, my pic was non-exclusive so I got 10 cents.

 

Ho hum...

Edited January 23, 2021 by geogphotos

[John Mitchell]

Interesting that there is no mention of a bulk discount in the licensing terms of these puny sales. This just adds to the mystery. 🤔

[Kamira]

26 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Just because the very occasional Alamy sale is similar to a microstock sales does not make Alamy indistinguishable from microstock. That just doesn't make any sense to me. 

 

I have had quite a few recent $$$ sales. 

 

And where did the 'race to the bottom' start - at Alamy or the micro stock site you refer to?

 

I also had one of these, my pic was non-exclusive so I got 10 cents.

 

Ho hum...

The race to the bottom started everywhere since a lot of sites started offering quality  images for free. It's the culture of "working for exposure" instead of working for money.

 

Besides now, with modern cameras, it's obviously easier to take an acceptable "good enough for stock" image. Image banks grow exponentially and demand can not grow at the same rate.

[geogphotos]

6 minutes ago, Kamira said:

The race to the bottom started everywhere since a lot of sites started offering quality  images for free. It's the culture of "working for exposure" instead of working for money.

 

Besides now, with modern cameras, it's obviously easier to take an acceptable "good enough for stock" image. Image banks grow exponentially and demand can not grow at the same rate.

 

Nobody is forced to supply microstock, those that accept those fees are not in the best position to complain about getting them at Alamy.

 

Alamy has to compete in the same market.

[Kamira]

12 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Nobody is forced to supply microstock, those that accept those fees are not in the best position to complain about getting them at Alamy.

 

Alamy has to compete in the same market.

That's the point. Alamy has to compete in the same market so it will eventually have to offer similar prices and similar commissions to microstock.

 

And there are a gazillion sites offering images for free (free as in zero cost). Those are our real problem.

[Kamira]

9 hours ago, David Pimborough said:

 

So you think it OK to sell 100 images and make $10? It's not right its taking advantage of image producers and it should not be condoned or supported in any way

Not at all. I don't approve the way they make business although saying you are selling 100 images for $10 is an oversimplification of their system. In that other agency I've sold images for $$$ and also images for 0.10.

 

But...despite the fact that that other agency is obviously taking advantage of their contributors it is also a fact that in that other agency I (and I suspect most people that sell here and there) sell several hundred times more images than I sell here. That leads to making in a day there what I make in several months here.

 

But that's not the point. The point is that this whole stock industry is falling apart. There are lots of sites offering quality photos for free and every day there are thousands of people joining these agencies. Now almost everyone with a camera and cheap lights can make a "good enough for stock" photo and that saturates the market. All agencies ,including Alamy , that's fighting for the same market, will eventually reduce their commissions to a level where it won't be worth it to work for that kind of money.It is happening already.

[geogphotos]

18 minutes ago, David Pimborough said:

 

The problem is that your comment is a non sequitur.  You state that the stock industry is falling apart yet complain that agencies like Alamy who on the whole do sell images for a fairer amount aren't selling enough.

 

Whilst simultaneously admitting you provide images to the very agencies that under cut the fair agencies and pay their contributors chump change.

 

People who want to support micro stock have been putting forward these same non-arguments for around 20 years now. Ultimately it is pointless to try and discuss it with them. The fact is they want to submit to micro stock and want to - between themselves - come up with justifications about how inevitable it is. It started off with excitement about the wonderful new world micro stock would create that would get rid of the stuffy old professionals who were stuck in the past, and now it is a sort of morphed into a twisted self-fulfilling argument about inevitable forces, 'evolution', and technology.  It makes it more easy for them somehow. 

 

But the simple fact has always been there. Contributing to the 'race to the bottom' by supplying exploitative micro stock businesses is a personal choice. 

 

The mystery is why they come to Alamy and moan about low fees. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by geogphotos

[John Mitchell]

My fear is that Alamy, by licensing images for $0.25, is trying to compete with microstock at their level. This seems like a huge mistake to me. It can only make things worse for everyone. Leaving  microstock to the microstock agencies is the best way to go IMO.

[geogphotos]

Just now, John Mitchell said:

My fear is that Alamy, by licensing images for $0.25, is trying to compete with microstock at their level. This seems like a huge mistake to me. It can only make things worse for everyone. Leaving  microstock to the microstock agencies is the best way to go IMO.

 

 

I suspect that Alamy is competing with Getty for market share rather than attempting to become a micro stock site. 

[Cal]

1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

People who want to support micro stock have been putting forward these same non-arguments for around 20 years now. Ultimately it is pointless to try and discuss it with them. The fact is they want to submit to micro stock and want to - between themselves - come up with justifications about how inevitable it is and how everybody else is about to be blown away by the revolution. It started off with excitement about the wonderful new world micro stock would create that would get rid of the stuffy old professionals who were stuck in the past, and now it is a sort of morphed into a twisted self-fulfilling argument about inevitable forces and technology.  It makes it more easy for them somehow. 

 

But the simple fact has always been there. Contributing to the 'race to the bottom' by supplying exploitative micro stock businesses is a personal choice. 

 

If the claims of selling hundreds of times more images there than here, and making in a day there what takes months to make here are true though I honestly can't blame people. Principles don't pay the bills, and I've often been tempted and intrigued by the claims that despite selling for 25C or less on MS the images sell constantly (where the hell is the market though?) which makes up for the tiny prices.

 

As of now I have resisted temptation mainly through stubbornness that I don't want to sell my work for a pittance and so far I'm doing not too badly here. However if this was my main job I would be less willing to be so stubborn about it and I think only someone from a position of privilege without the ability to empathise for others could really decry anyone for that. Not saying that's you, but just generally that I think it should be seen and debated from all angles.

[meanderingemu]

4 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

My fear is that Alamy, by licensing images for $0.25, is trying to compete with microstock at their level. This seems like a huge mistake to me. It can only make things worse for everyone. Leaving  microstock to the microstock agencies is the best way to go IMO.

 

but do we see any evidence of that.  I have looked around, and i don't see the huge package deal of images that creates these $0.25 fees being offered by Alamy.  Yes there are some 25 images package available but that doesn't get you into MS territory.  This is why i am still calling on the @Alamy team to give some clarity where these are coming from.  I remember a while ago when they had the deal with a company that was doing some AI testing and this is the only time i remember going sub-Culture prices.  

[geogphotos]

11 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

If the claims of selling hundreds of times more images there than here, and making in a day there what takes months to make here are true though I honestly can't blame people. Principles don't pay the bills, and I've often been tempted and intrigued by the claims that despite selling for 25C or less on MS the images sell constantly (where the hell is the market though?) which makes up for the tiny prices.

 

As of now I have resisted temptation mainly through stubbornness that I don't want to sell my work for a pittance and so far I'm doing not too badly here. However if this was my main job I would be less willing to be so stubborn about it and I think only someone from a position of privilege without the ability to empathise for others could really decry anyone for that. Not saying that's you, but just generally that I think it should be seen and debated from all angles.

 

* If it was that good in micro stock land they wouldn't turn to Alamy. 

 

* I am not in a position of any privilege and have good empathy. 

 

* This forum is for Alamy contributors not debate about other agencies. 

 

* Alamy is not a micro stock agency and is not turning into one because it has occasional very low fee sales.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by geogphotos

[meanderingemu]

9 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

If the claims of selling hundreds of times more images there than here, and making in a day there what takes months to make here are true though I honestly can't blame people. Principles don't pay the bills, and I've often been tempted and intrigued by the claims that despite selling for 25C or less on MS the images sell constantly (where the hell is the market though?) which makes up for the tiny prices.

 

 

 

so why do they come here then?  this is what i don't get.  Why waste time and energy cultivating your images for Alamy's market if it takes you months to make what you do in a day at MS site? 

[Martin L]

7 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

(where the hell is the market though?)

My theory is that the majority sit on hard drives never to see the light of day.

A lot of the 'cheaper' images are through subscription packages where an upfront fee entitles you to x number of downloads.

Therefore people download to fill their monthly quota and have 'just in case' images for well....just in case and because they can

 

[John Mitchell]

 

1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

but do we see any evidence of that.  I have looked around, and i don't see the huge package deal of images that creates these $0.25 fees being offered by Alamy.  Yes there are some 25 images package available but that doesn't get you into MS territory.  This is why i am still calling on the @Alamy team to give some clarity where these are coming from.  I remember a while ago when they had the deal with a company that was doing some AI testing and this is the only time i remember going sub-Culture prices.  

 

Yes, some clarity would be nice. Lack of transparency usually breeds conspiracy theories.

 

Also, depressing prices like these aren't exactly a good way to motivate contributors, most of whom are here because they don't want to embrace the microstock business model or are fed up with it.

[Tony ALS]

As a refugee from that other agency I understand the disappointment with $0.10 net sales here. I did stop contributing and closed my account with them when the announcement was made. I was getting regular sales with less than 500 images at the time but couldn't see the point of spending the time it took to submit for so little reward.

I have averaged $5 net per image here but with only 5 sales to date. I have no expectation to make my fortune doing this. It has been a good distraction for me during the pandemic and helped keep me sane.

Of course, the regulars on here should question why this is happening, but I too haven't got much sympathy for those who continue to offer their work to that and other similar agencies and then complain. 

However, for those few living off of income from this I too would contribute through every available outlet to maximise sales. But whingeing about the reward when they know what they'll get is pointless.

Hoping to see some explanation from Alamy and some more sales. The pandemic is a huge frustration and getting through this interminable period will be a huge relief for everyone. 

[geogphotos]

43 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

If the claims of selling hundreds of times more images there than here, and making in a day there what takes months to make here are true though I honestly can't blame people. Principles don't pay the bills, and I've often been tempted and intrigued by the claims that despite selling for 25C or less on MS the images sell constantly (where the hell is the market though?) which makes up for the tiny prices.

 

As of now I have resisted temptation mainly through stubbornness that I don't want to sell my work for a pittance and so far I'm doing not too badly here. However if this was my main job I would be less willing to be so stubborn about it and I think only someone from a position of privilege without the ability to empathise for others could really decry anyone for that. Not saying that's you, but just generally that I think it should be seen and debated from all angles.

 

 

I think that you have this the wrong way around. If it was your main job you would not be willing to consider supporting micro stock. Look back at the history on iStock which was all about the designers 'dirty little secret'. Photography was regarded as nothing but a basic, simple to produce raw material for clever designers to use. 

[Kamira]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

so why do they come here then?  this is what i don't get.  Why waste time and energy cultivating your images for Alamy's market if it takes you months to make what you do in a day at MS site? 

Because I thought it was worth trying. Without uploading some of my files to Alamy I have no way of knowing if it works (for me) or not. 

 

There's an independent forum at Microstockgroup.com that's not affiliated to any agency. There's an annual poll there where people vote for the agencies that make.them.more money. Go and have a look.

 

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

This forum is for Alamy contributors not debate about other agencies. 

 

I was not the one who referred first to that other agency. My point is that if we were.going to talk about them we should make a fair comparison. Not all sales there are for 0.10 and so far I (can't speak for.others) feel it's a lot more probable to sell an image for $$$ there than here.

 

I don't blame Alamy and I really would like their business model to prevail. I just don't see how that would be possible.

 

And yes...when that other agency lowered the commissions they pay to their contributors I froze my portfolio for a while and thought about stop contributing. And then I started submitting to Alamy to try my luck. But as someone said in this thread...principles don't pay my bills and we are in the middle of a pandemic where most of.my other projects are not viable.

 

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

I suspect that Alamy is competing with Getty for market share rather than attempting to become a micro stock site. 

How is the Alamy market different than the market of all those microstock agencies? What's their added value and how can they avoid competing with those agencies?

 

 

[Chuck Nacke]

4 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

People who want to support micro stock have been putting forward these same non-arguments for around 20 years now. Ultimately it is pointless to try and discuss it with them. The fact is they want to submit to micro stock and want to - between themselves - come up with justifications about how inevitable it is. It started off with excitement about the wonderful new world micro stock would create that would get rid of the stuffy old professionals who were stuck in the past, and now it is a sort of morphed into a twisted self-fulfilling argument about inevitable forces, 'evolution', and technology.  It makes it more easy for them somehow. 

 

But the simple fact has always been there. Contributing to the 'race to the bottom' by supplying exploitative micro stock businesses is a personal choice. 

 

The mystery is why they come to Alamy and moan about low fees. 

For once I agree 100% with Ian.

In my opinion, what he wrote is well said and completely true.

 

Chuck

[meanderingemu]

3 hours ago, Kamira said:

Because I thought it was worth trying. Without uploading some of my files to Alamy I have no way of knowing if it works (for me) or not. 

 

 

OK, i understand that, but you have images uploaded last month, eleven years after joining.    this wouldn't  be worth my effort to make in a couple of month what you make in a day elsewhere. I know the places that didn't deliver for me i stopped making any upload efforts.