Meet-up at the Photo Show

[M.Chapman]

Did anyone visit the Alamy stand? Any useful information gained?

 

Mark

[Colblimp]

2 hours ago, Jools Elliott said:

Damn! Wish I had checked here before as I was at the PS over Saturday and Sunday. On Sunday I was also giving a talk about Mongolia so if you saw it then that was me!

 

Was well worth going from my own perspective. Can't say why just yet

Didn't see any talks, not really my thing.  Glad you had a worthwhile trip.

[Jools Elliott]

5 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Did anyone visit the Alamy stand? Any useful information gained?

 

Mark

 

Yes. Apparently the percentage cut was a good thing as it brings them into line with other agencies.

 

Response from me was that they has annoyed a lot of contributors which fell on deaf ears.

[spacecadet]

On 19/09/2021 at 20:09, imageplotter said:

So they do, and so do I, despite not being a surgeon. I have worn ffp2 masks for many hours on end most days this year and last. 

 

More of an effort from the organisers! The event was not one where masks for invited guests would have worked (there was as sit down dinner, drinks etc), but there are many other measures that can be taken to make an event more covid safe. I have shot other events where this was the case and have been to events where that was the case also.

Why do you always have to get so aggressive?

I don't know what you mean by "always" and I'm sorry if you think a direct question is "aggressive" but you still didn't say what you meant by "more effort" or what those "other measures" were that we could be looking out for.

 

On 19/09/2021 at 20:23, Colblimp said:

In terms of COVID, it was very safe - lots of space between stalls, no crowding around stalls, nice and airy.

These "efforts" and "measures" perhaps?

 

Life will have to approach normality at some point. I don't consider myself careless but sometimes questions need to be asked if restrictions are to be imposed.

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by spacecadet

[Phil Crean]

Overall it was a good experience... Had to show vaccine cert or clear covid test on entry. Good wide walkways, lots of hand sanitiser stations and I did feel people were mostly respecting personal space.

Got a good deal on a spare battery and an L bracket.

Saw various talks including Rankin who was entertaining and informative about his experiences in the industry.

Had a long chat with James Allsworth and it would appear there are some changes in search and website which will be implemented over the next year. 

The 40% commission rate is purely a PA thing, doing it because they see it as an industry level and that's the corporate way!

The infringement team is growing slowly so hopefully there should be some progress and initial fees on infringements will be higher than usual fees, and James did say

he was pushing for any fees recovered through this channel to be marked as such.

Glad I went and will probably visit again in the future.

Phil

 

[Harry Harrison]

Good to see the video, I remember it being much busier than that so I guess the apparent drop in numbers made for a much more pleasant experience all round, well maybe not for the stands and the organisers but at least they pulled it off. Strange mix of masked and unmasked amongst the stallholders, but that's reflected everywhere I suppose.

[geogphotos]

11 minutes ago, PAL Media said:

Here's a video I cobbled together of the show, No problems with Covid safety at all

https://www.facebook.com/543535158/videos/729420528458673/

 

 

Thanks for that. I enjoyed it. Loved the mix of cheers and boos at the Alamy stall - very well done to have kept that section very brief and to the point.

 

It gave me a good feel of what the event was all about. 

[Iain Masterton]

30 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

Overall it was a good experience... Had to show vaccine cert or clear covid test on entry. Good wide walkways, lots of hand sanitiser stations and I did feel people were mostly respecting personal space.

Got a good deal on a spare battery and an L bracket.

Saw various talks including Rankin who was entertaining and informative about his experiences in the industry.

Had a long chat with James Allsworth and it would appear there are some changes in search and website which will be implemented over the next year. 

The 40% commission rate is purely a PA thing, doing it because they see it as an industry level and that's the corporate way!

The infringement team is growing slowly so hopefully there should be some progress and initial fees on infringements will be higher than usual fees, and James did say

he was pushing for any fees recovered through this channel to be marked as such.

Glad I went and will probably visit again in the future.

Phil

 

Thanks for feedback

[CAROL SAUNDERS]

1 hour ago, PAL Media said:

Here's a video I cobbled together of the show, No problems with Covid safety at all

https://www.facebook.com/543535158/videos/729420528458673/

Thanks for sharing the video, it looked absolutely fine there.  I didn't go as there wasn't anything in particular I needed, but as we know want and need are two different things and I have been known to be impulsive😄

 

Carol

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, Phil Crean said:

Had a long chat with James Allsworth and it would appear there are some changes in search and website which will be implemented over the next year. 

The 40% commission rate is purely a PA thing, doing it because they see it as an industry level and that's the corporate way!

 

And yet, when Emily (from PA) produced her video update, she assured us that there were no plans to change commission rates. Some inconsistency here?

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

49 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

And yet, when Emily (from PA) produced her video update, she assured us that there were no plans to change commission rates. Some inconsistency here?

 

Mark

 

 

True but she is MD not CEO and is not on the Board. Maybe it wasn't her decision.

[Alamy]

5 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

And yet, when Emily (from PA) produced her video update, she assured us that there were no plans to change commission rates. Some inconsistency here?

 

Mark

 

Please do not to take my conversation with Phil out of context - my point was that ultimately the change in commission structure was a business decision to balance the needs of shareholders, customers, staff, contributors etc that allows us to get us where we need to be for future success. The commission structure change affected roughly 7% of the contributor base (EDIT: I should clarify it was 7% of IMAGES) so for the vast majority, the 60/40 deal was already in place for those who don't qualify for platinum.

 

I enjoyed catching up with lots of Alamy contributors - some who post here and some who don't. It was nice to be able to interact with people on a 1-2-1 basis after not being able to do so for so long. 

 

We'll be at the show again next year for anyone who is thinking about attending.

 

Best,

 

James A

[BobD]

Was there on Monday with the missus. Had my moan at the Alamy stand on the $1 or less sales.😒

[Nodvandigtid]

1 hour ago, Alamy said:

 

Please do not to take my conversation with Phil out of context - my point was that ultimately the change in commission structure was a business decision to balance the needs of shareholders, customers, staff, contributors etc that allows us to get us where we need to be for future success.

 

The commission structure change affected roughly 7% of the contributor base so for the vast majority, the 60/40 deal was already in place for those who don't qualify for platinum.

 

 

James,

 

I have split part of your response into two paras;

 

First para above  – noted but that doesn't take away in any shape or form from the fact that Mark stated; “ And yet, when Emily (from PA) produced her video update, she assured us that there were no plans to change commission rates.”

 

So from your comment above, that decision, to cut commission (which is a harsh reality for most here on the forum), “appears” to have been made sometime between Jan and the May announcement. I am not privy to your decision-making time-line (nor should I be) but it seems to me Ms Shelley was, perhaps debatably, out of the decision-making planning loop or unaware of what was coming, when she made her announcement which then proved untrue just five months later.

 

Your second para above – is the reality not that it was 50/50 for everybody before the commission structure change? Let me ask you another one - what proportion of the contributor base remain on the more acceptable 50/50 basis after the commission structure changed.?

 

Thanks

[spacecadet]

28 minutes ago, Nodvandigtid said:

is the reality not that it was 50/50 for everybody before the commission structure change?

Only for exclusive. Non-ex went down to 40%.

So only 7% of contributors were screwed- if you discount the work many did to go exclusive, only to have it thrown back in their faces a few months later.

Edited September 22, 2021 by spacecadet

[Nodvandigtid]

5 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Only for exclusive. Non-ex went down to 40%.

Quite right - I clean forgot that - thanks for pointing out.

One less for James to answer then.

[geogphotos]

3 hours ago, Nodvandigtid said:

Quite right - I clean forgot that - thanks for pointing out.

One less for James to answer then.

 

I was part Ex and part non-Ex. So I was used to getting 40% on many sales. Even so everything moving to 40% has hit me hard. And more than that the distributor sales are now around 25%.  So which category am I in on this 7% calculation ?

 

It seems disingenuous to me to say that this only affects 7% of contributors. I would like to know how that 7% was arrived at.

 

Certainly guaging from this forum a large percentage of active contributors have been hit hard with many leaving, and many feeling totally disillusioned and let down. That is reality and no manipulation of statistics will alter that fact.

 

My guess would be that after you strip out agencies a high proportion of Alamy revenue comes from a relatively small percentage of the 'contibitor base'. The 'base' incudes everybody who has ever uploaded anything no matter how long ago and how few images they have.

 

With 90,000 contributors 7% means that 6,300 went straight fom 50% - 40%. Have I got that right?

Edited September 22, 2021 by geogphotos

[Phil Crean]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Only for exclusive. Non-ex went down to 40%.

So only 7% of contributors were screwed- if you discount the work many did to go exclusive, only to have it thrown back in their faces a few months later.

A figure quoted by James was approx 17million images were exclusive and benefiting from the 50% before the cut...

I don't know how many contributors that equates too.

Phil

[Alamy]

14 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

A figure quoted by James was approx 17million images were exclusive and benefiting from the 50% before the cut...

I don't know how many contributors that equates too.

Phil

 

That's true - and I should clarify, it would be more accurate for me to have said 7% of images rather than photographers because as has been pointed out, many contributors had a mix. 

[Alamy]

2 hours ago, Nodvandigtid said:

Let me ask you another one - what proportion of the contributor base remain on the more acceptable 50/50 basis after the commission structure changed.?

 

 

Not a figure we can make public I'm afraid as it would give too much insight into commercially sensitive sales information. 

 

I understand this response will be disappointing / not the answer you were looking for but it's the reality. 

 

James A

[meanderingemu]

32 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

A figure quoted by James was approx 17million images were exclusive and benefiting from the 50% before the cut...

I don't know how many contributors that equates too.

Phil

 

actually not all of them benefited before the cut, as we are now seeing Alamy just redating these sales to now go under the new commission rates even if they were exclusive at time of download prior to July 23, 2021. 

[geogphotos]

44 minutes ago, Alamy said:

 

Not a figure we can make public I'm afraid as it would give too much insight into commercially sensitive sales information. 

 

I understand this response will be disappointing / not the answer you were looking for but it's the reality. 

 

James A

 

James, hard to regard it as any sort of incentive to work harder when no details are forthcoming. 

 

I suspect that it is a very small number of individual contributors. 

 

An impossible target as far as I am concerned and 40%/25% of ever falling fees does not provide incentive either.

 

Can't you feed this back up the command chain? Thanks

 

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by geogphotos

[Alamy]

20 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

James, hard to regard it as any sort of incentive to work harder when no details are forthcoming. 

 

I suspect that it is a very small number of individual contributors. 

 

An impossible target as far as I am concerned and 40%/25% of ever falling fees does not provide incentive either.

 

Can't you feed this back up the command chain? Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Ian,

 

I agree there is less incentive now to remain exclusive to Alamy compared to previously, and everyone within the business is aware of this, however the benefits as I see them are:

 

• You won’t be “competing” with yourself across other agents. In many cases, the main competition for Alamy are with sites that have a far lower average sale price than us. Placing portfolios there which will average out at a significantly lower average price means it can impact the rate of sales here where our average price is much closer to $30 and can often go much higher. Many buyers check multiple sites and it removes our bargaining power to gain higher fees if they find the same images elsewhere, cheaper.

 

• We have a new dedicated, proactive infringements chasing team installed here now that has been operational for a couple of months. We are partnering with multiple organisations who will be proactively finding and securing payments from infringers of your imagery. We will be prioritising the images marked as exclusive to us within this team to secure funds for. Typically the infringement amounts are set at 5x the normal rate, and the contributor will receive 50% / 40% / 20% of the share Alamy receive according to the commission structure they are on. I'm hopeful we can signpost this infringement revenue for contributors so they can see the benefit in revenue this brings in as we grow the operation over the coming months. 

 

• We have lots of plans for the search engine and developing our product over the coming months and years. Having some kind of “exclusive” to Alamy offering will always be part of the consideration, and it does give us more bargaining power when in negotiations for licences with customers who are after unique products

 

I know that the above will not "make up" for the fact that the commission split has changed to 60/40 to those contributors who fall into the Gold model, but I do believe they are genuine reasons to not consider exclusivity at Alamy to be "pointless".

 

Best,

 

James A

[DJ Myford]

The commission structure is meaningless, as you are changing the commission on sales retrospectively. There is no value in being on platinum if a year later the licence gets refunded and rebilled at a lower rate.

[Steve F]

16 minutes ago, Alamy said:

I know that the above will not "make up" for the fact that the commission split has changed to 60/40 to those contributors who fall into the Gold model, but I do believe they are genuine reasons to not consider exclusivity at Alamy to be "pointless".

 

Best,

 

James A

 

James, still not happy about the commission drop, but thanks a lot for the comprehensive reply on remaining exclusive (or not!).

Steve