RIDICULOUS PAYMENT RATES

[Robbie Shaw]

I have just sold three photos, of which were sold on Alamy for $0.83, meaning i get a whole 9 cents.  Not only that the use is in perpetuity !   Has anyone else been a victim of what I can only say is to me fraud.  I reckon both photos will be used for a calendar.  I have been in touch with Alamy who gave me this 'reason' - 

New customers that we don’t interact with invariably come to the site, search, price and license images and pay the shop front prices.

 

Customers we actively go after, contact us about specific needs or key customers with large spends and image requirements may negotiate on price; which always starts with our shop front pricing. In this case, the customer was allowed a discount as they had licenced a large number of images.

 

If you wish to terminate your account, we can start the termination process for you.

 

I am seriously considering cancelling my  Alamy contract.  Anyone else had this experience please.

[BobD]

On 15/09/2021 at 15:19, Alamy said:

Hi all, 

 

The stock industry is very competitive and we do have to compete with our competitors or we risk loosing customers, and therefore sales. In order to do this we have to offer discounts, but also image packs. We aren't the only company to offer image packs, and our average licence fee has maintained over the last few years.

 

Our sales teams work extremely hard to negotiate on deals with all forms of customers and always try to get the best market value possible for each license. 

 

Thanks, 

Alamy

 

These are our images you are practically giving away. You want to sell image packs and we have no say in the matter.

Alamy should do the decent thing and at least allow us an opt out, as we have with novel use.

[imageplotter]

On 16/09/2021 at 11:24, meanderingemu said:

 

why can't i give this a "Thanks" for stating this  "up arrow" for agreeing "HaHa" for the general content and "Sad" for where we are being taken. 

Dunno. 🙂

Sorry for the whining tone, I was just quite upset when I saw that one appear on the sales history.  They same publisher bought a few more at the same price and same time, but the others are all older, expired live news pics (also of cabinet members), so that part I can accept as the new reality for stock pics. But for news images which are less than 24 hrs old, it is a bit of a kick in the stomach at a time where we all struggle to still earn money with these images. My only joy is that corporate photography work, events and client portraiture are finally getting going again and despite competition being strong in those areas, too, rates (or at least my rates) have not declined and are holding up well. Mysterious.

 

Ps. to add insult to injury, a personal use sale just came through (a very tiny number of my images are still personal use enabled) at $0.50 gross. My earnings are...oh never mind. Alamy is a microstock agency now, full stop.  

Edited September 18, 2021 by imageplotter
edit

[George Chin]

On 15/09/2021 at 10:31, Sultanpepa said:

 

How can Alamy even try to justify that? 😠

Was that for a 5 yrear licence?  or a licence in perpetuity?
I always believed that the principle behind 'earning' a commission meant actually doing something meaningful to justify taking a commission.  Giving copyright away does not fall into that category.  If you set your stall out in a street market, then your customers' expectations will be to pay street market prices in line with the other stalls you are in competition with on that street. 
Inflation is a rampant 3% and the cost of living is going up for everything including energy, food, taxes, etc.  Yet the price of licensing copyright in photographs is falling dramatically e.g. $29 down to less than $1.  It would appear that when Alamy's costs go up, the response is not to raise prices, but to sell more images for less to increase the bottom line to the sad demise of the contributors.  Is that a sustainable business model for growth? 
Competing with Getty for example ignores the fact that Getty owns copyright through acquisition and can afford to reduce their margins. They also have other businesses including wholly owned agencies and partnerships with non-competitive agreements, video and audio, print sales through photo.com and FineArt, etc.  The take-away is that diversification can be a route to increased profitability by creating more revenue streams.  

The supermarket analogy is an appropriate one when you consider that Aldi and Lidl are selling the same products as Tesco, Sainsburys, Asda, Morrisons, Waitrose and M&S.  Some are own brand and others have been offered through promotions from manufacturers.  The most profitable part of John Lewis is Waitrose and at M&s it is the Food Hall - which confirms that customers are willing to pay more for the same product.  And significantly, the supermarkets are not afraid to price test, raise and maintain prices, yet keep the promotions.

The concept of giving photographers the choice of opting in or out of microstock, appear to have by-passed Alamy; including options for a premium or standard rate, etc.  There appears to be a clear lack of a pricing and marketing strategy.  Some images are clearly worth a premium rate whilst others are not and to sell everything at the same low price on a minimum five year licence devalues images to a point where it hits rock bottom and nowhere else to go. 

 

That is exactly where we are at !!

 

[George Chin]

Example of Licensing terms for a $1.80 sale :

This is a worldwide editorial five year license for editorial website use, at any size, single use including online platforms, social channels and DOOH (Digital Out Of Home advertising).  

Country: Worldwide Usage: Editorial Media: Editorial website Industry sector: Media, design & publishing Image Size: Any size Start: 06 September 2021 End: 06 September 2026 Single use in online platforms, social channels and DOOH when used in an editorial context and in owned media.   This is not microstock. It is an archive image taken at a unique event of three persons who will not be photographed together again. It is also an exclusive and can not be repeated.  The value to the purchaser has added value in that it may drive users through social media backlinks to their website and may generate click advertising and a raised online presence.  DOOH means that this image can be used without permission with a sponsorhip or brand.   The fee charged does not reflect the use to which the licensee will attach this image to.  No one at Alamy appears to have any appreciation that the digital use of images has a greater value to the user than non-digital use.

$ 1.80

[meanderingemu]

as i feel the question is getting lost, and we have yet to see an answer

 

@Alamy can you please validate how licence price is determined and reconciled in cases of partial use of package

 

Client pays $100 for a 10 pack, and only uses 8 licences (because it is still cheaper than the individual price)

 

 

When and how will the reconciliation be done that they paid $12.50 per image downloaded?

 

 

 

[George Chin]

14 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

as i feel the question is getting lost, and we have yet to see an answer

 

@Alamy can you please validate how licence price is determined and reconciled in cases of partial use of package

 

Client pays $100 for a 10 pack, and only uses 8 licences (because it is still cheaper than the individual price)

 

 

When and how will the reconciliation be done that they paid $12.50 per image downloaded?

 

 

 

I don't think that you will get a satisfactory answer without requesting an audit on your sales. 

[meanderingemu]

4 minutes ago, George Chin said:

I don't think that you will get a satisfactory answer without requesting an audit on your sales. 

 

but i can't ask for an audit until Alamy actually clearly states how the Calculation is done, as it is not clearly stated in the Contract, same as "date of sale", and we seem where that is leading.  

[Sultanpepa]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

as i feel the question is getting lost, and we have yet to see an answer

 

@Alamy can you please validate how licence price is determined and reconciled in cases of partial use of package

 

Client pays $100 for a 10 pack, and only uses 8 licences (because it is still cheaper than the individual price)

 

 

When and how will the reconciliation be done that they paid $12.50 per image downloaded?

 

 

 

 

I don't think Alamy/PA will give two hoots whether the customer uses all the images or not. They've got their money and that's all they'll care about. Anything that isn't payed out to contributors is a bonus for them. Don't be building your hopes up of anything extra coming your way.

[meanderingemu]

2 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

I don't think Alamy/PA will give two hoots whether the customer uses all the images or not. They've got their money and that's all they'll care about. Anything that isn't payed out to contributors is a bonus for them. Don't be building your hopes up of anything extra coming your way.

 

 

i am not expecting anything Extra, just the price the client Effectively paid for each download They actually got. 

[dunstun365]

Trouble is, they even cut the rates at a certain large MS agency last year and I think Alamy are loosing too many sales to them. & had to respond. Alamy are cutting the rate for lower earners (Me) soon but it won't be as bad if they increased sales somehow. If not it just won't be worth contributing here anymore which is a shame as it's much less stressfull than microstock.  

Edited October 4, 2021 by dunstun365