Has Alamy become micro stock agency?

[Action Photographer]

One of my image was just sold for US $0.21 . This is even lower than the commission  you would get from microstock e.g. shuttewrstock or istock. I'm just wondering if Alamy has become on of those cheap stock agency.

[John Mitchell]

9 hours ago, Brasilnut said:

Large sample, Alamy earns me 15x more on average vs the average for a microstock image. However, volumes on micros tend to be some 10x greater than on here.

 

Don't think Alamy is a microstock agency, also because it offers the option of Rights-Managed and exclusivity. 

 

On here, I would welcome some lower priced bulk sales (even subscriptions) as long as there are volumes to justify. 

 

I wouldn't say that Alamy has become a microstock agency. However, they do seem to be trying to tap into the market FBFW.

 

Personally, I'd hate to see Alamy embrace subscriptions. If they did, I'd probably throw in the towel as I really dislike the microstock model. Bulk sales are bad enough as it is.

[Jan]

I recognize the central point of this discussion, lower prices at the end. This week alsof had a final sale of 0,21 cts. After a month with sales of 1.50, 6 and 11, it will be my lowest per image sale ever in the last 8 years. Call it microstock  or whatever, the net-result is disappointing and a middlefinger to all photographers doing their best to produce fine and special images for the market. Beside prices the 50/50 deal also changed to 40/60, which also felt like' 'take-it-or leave it'. 

[meanderingemu]

Answer : No

 

MS Don't charge me other fees at month end. Still no explanations from Alamy why the contract change brought all these new affiliates charges 

[Cryptoprocta]

On 17/11/2021 at 11:15, Joseph Clemson said:

Some RM In Perpetuity licences have been reported in this forum and perhaps they are more commonplace than they once were, but the fact that they are being reported tends to suggest that they are the exception rather than the rule.  It should also be remembered that there is a significant diference between RF and RM - In Perpetuity. An image issued with an RF licence can be used by the purchaser  for multiple projects with no further licence cost. One issued with an RM licence is limited to a particular project, even if it is in perpetuity. If the buyer wants to use it elsewhere legitimately, they need to buy another licence. 

For information: ten of my RM sales this month have been 'in perpetuity' and another is Duration: unlimited; several of these are small value sales.

From my personal perspective, they are becoming the rule, rather than the exceptions.

Also in most other sites, even though a licence is RF, there are many uses, especially for larger commercial publishers, which necessitate the purchase of an extended licence.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

For information: ten of my RM sales this month have been 'in perpetuity' and another is Duration: unlimited; several of these are small value sales.

From my personal perspective, they are becoming the rule, rather than the exceptions.

Also in most other sites, even though a licence is RF, there are many uses, especially for larger commercial publishers, which necessitate the purchase of an extended licence.

 

Isn't your comment about a chicken and egg situation? To my mind Alamy is responding to buyer expectations rather than being responsible for creating the situation that many buyers want perpetuity as the norm and RF terms. It is these 'other sites' that I would regard as much more responsible. 

 

Is it now okay to mention the existence of other agencies? 

Edited November 29, 2021 by geogphotos

[Cryptoprocta]

4 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Isn't your comment about a chicken and egg situation? To my mind Alamy is responding to buyer expectations rather than being responsible for creating the situation that many buyers want perpetuity as the norm and RF terms. It is these 'other sites' that I would regard as much more responsible. 

 

Is it now okay to mention the existence of other agencies? 

In some cases Alamy is undercutting the opposition, due to their requiring extended licences in some situations. I was only highlighting the existence of extended licences (sometimes called enhanced licences etc), and pointing out that in my own situation, perpetuity is fast becoming the norm. My reply was directly to the post I quoted, not just a random observation.

[geogphotos]

9 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

In some cases Alamy is undercutting the opposition, due to their requiring extended licences in some situations. I was only highlighting the existence of extended licences (sometimes called enhanced licences etc), and pointing out that in my own situation, perpetuity is fast becoming the norm. My reply was directly to the post I quoted, not just a random observation.

 

 

I would think that what Alamy is doing is directly following on from the subscription deals ( or photo packs) that the competition introduced long ago and which they no doubt feel are required to try and maintain market share. 

 

Fortunately, even now, most of my routine Alamy sales would be classed as 'extended licences' in micro-stock terminology.  

 

Even PU licences are way higher than the 'normal' micro licence though they do offer 'perpetuity'.

 

Country: Worldwide Usage: Personal use, Personal prints, cards and gifts. Non-commercial use only, not for resale. Media: Non-commercial, one time, personal/home use Start: 05 November 2021 Duration: In perpetuity

$ 19.99

Edited November 29, 2021 by geogphotos

[CarlMillerPhotos]

On 04/11/2021 at 03:41, Joseph Clemson said:

So Alamy is not microstock in spite of the downwards pressures. Microstock contributors who come here expecting it to work just as the other microstock agencies usually find themseleves vey disappointed.

Yep. It's become worse than microstock. At least with microstock you EXPECT pennies per license.

[Steve F]

42 minutes ago, CarlMillerPhotos said:

Yep. It's become worse than microstock. At least with microstock you EXPECT pennies per license.

 

What's your average license per image on Alamy?

Edited December 2, 2021 by Steve F

[Jan]

2015:  18,14

2016:  17,67

2017:  12,44

2018:  15,94

2019:  12,71

2020: 13,25

2021:  13,25

 

But: last three months it was: 5,00 and 2,44 and 2,42 average per image sold. With three images under 1,00.

That's not what you call happiness!

Edited December 2, 2021 by Jan

[Marianne]

The only stock agencies I contribute to at all these days are Alamy and one microstock agency, and for the past few months my average earning per license there has been higher than my average here, with many more licenses and $$ there, despite a much smaller portfolio. I also have seen nearly every RM license here for the past year be "in perpetuity."

 

But I don't see Alamy as microstock, because I am usually more likely to get $$ and $$$ licenses here than there (though I do get $$ (net to me) licenses on my micro agency with some regularity). Although I once had a $750 license on another micro, $325 to me for a 1-year exclusive license, that was an outlier. A "good" micro license is generally $17-20 net to me. If that was the best I could expect here, I'd be gone. 

 

I've been with Alamy since 2008, and have seen price volatility since they first introduced PU. I still remember many years ago, getting a $250 sale for a studio shoot I did, followed a few days later by $1.50 for another similar image from the same shoot. But the $ "in perpetuity, any size image" sales I'm seeing now are not PU, and it is discouraging even if I understand why such deals are being made. Moreover, my RM images are not available elsewhere so I can't help but resent getting a pittance for them coupled with the in perpetuity nature of the license and the high resolution - sometimes 7000+ long side size. 

 

I don't think anyone here is saying it's Alamy's fault that there is downward pressure on photo prices, it's a result of many things - the perceived ease of digital photography, the ubiquitousness of the microstock model, the need to compete in a very difficult market - but to be fair, that still doesn't mean we don't feel discouraged by low prices, especially when we know that $$$ licenses are a real possibility.  

 

[Marianne]

On 02/12/2021 at 13:43, Steve F said:

 

What's your average license per image on Alamy?

 

Average per sale: (gross)

 

2015: $74.58

2016: $68.09

2017: $60.54

2018: $33.60

2019: $57.18

2020: $12.50 (worst year ever here)

2021: $45.79 (so far)

 

I didn't include sales on S in the mix - which started out $25 net to me, but have been $ net per sale for the past few years. A different model I know. Past few months my sales there and here have been indistinguishable, but my overall net per image license is clearly higher than on any micros even at 40% of the totals shown here (and some of my higher value licenses this year were 50%)

 

[Betty LaRue]

I am one sale away from tying my top 2 years of sales volume, which are 2017 & 2018 when I licensed the same volume of images. Dead tie.

2017, what I sold amounted to $12,739 gross. My portion was $6,043.

2018 the gross was $9,192.50.  Net to me, $4,776.

 

This year, gross for 11 months is 2396.70. For me, $1176.17

This month of December added won’t change those figures much.

And…I have roughly 1700 more images than I had in 2017.

Edited December 3, 2021 by Betty LaRue

[Betty LaRue]

The idiot laugher strikes again! 😂😂🤣

[John Mitchell]

On 03/12/2021 at 11:26, Betty LaRue said:

I am one sale away from tying my top 2 years of sales volume, which are 2017 & 2018 when I licensed the same volume of images. Dead tie.

2017, what I sold amounted to $12,739 gross. My portion was $6,043.

2018 the gross was $9,192.50.  Net to me, $4,776.

 

This year, gross for 11 months is 2396.70. For me, $1176.17

This month of December added won’t change those figures much.

And…I have roughly 1700 more images than I had in 2017.

 

It looks as if I could end up with almost the same number of sales as last year, but gross income is way down from 2020, almost 30%.

Don't want to even think about net income this year. 🤯

 

P.S. 2017 certainly was good year for you. Double it and you'll be eating Platinum pie in the sky. 🥧🌅

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by John Mitchell

[Betty LaRue]

5 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

It looks as if I could end up with almost the same number of sales as last year, but gross income is way down from 2020, almost 30%.

Don't want to even think about net income this year. 🤯

 

P.S. 2017 certainly was good year for you. Double it and you'll be eating Platinum pie in the sky. 🥧🌅

 

 

That’ll be the day, John. That’ll never happen considering where stock is today. As much as I love the ease of digital cameras, they did us in. Also the ease of uploading compared to sending in disks. All of that would have eliminated a lot of people who wouldn’t go to the trouble of mailing CDs and waiting all of that time to hear if they were accepted. And man, it was a pain, wasn’t it?

[John Mitchell]

7 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

That’ll be the day, John. That’ll never happen considering where stock is today. As much as I love the ease of digital cameras, they did us in. Also the ease of uploading compared to sending in disks. All of that would have eliminated a lot of people who wouldn’t go to the trouble of mailing CDs and waiting all of that time to hear if they were accepted. And man, it was a pain, wasn’t it?

 

 I'll never taste the mythical Platinum pie in the sky either. Mind you, at this point I don't really give a hoot. My interest in stock photography is on the wane, which is probably a good thing. Your "real" pies are starting to look a lot tastier. Yes, preparing and sending in CD's was painfully slow. However, it did provide breathing space and time for reflection. You're correct, though, people weaned on instant digital everything probably wouldn't put up with it now. Isn't it wonderful being so old and wise? 👴👵

[Jan]

Cd's was a pain in the ass but you remember sending in real slides and wait for weeks to get an answer. 

[wiskerke]

8 hours ago, Jan said:

Cd's was a pain in the ass but you remember sending in real slides and wait for weeks to get an answer. 

 

Let alone losing slides. Yikes!

It was ok if they lost them though 💰.

 

wim

[John Mitchell]

9 hours ago, Jan said:

Cd's was a pain in the ass but you remember sending in real slides and wait for weeks to get an answer. 

 

Labeling all those slides was also a big job. When digital came along, the specialist agency (now defunct) that I contributed to required a spreadsheet with all the metadata -- which they couldn't import at the time -- along with each CD/DVD.  Filling that out to their specs was really tedious. However, most sales were $$$, which relieved the pain somewhat.

[Jan]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

However, most sales were $$$, which relieved the pain somewhat.

Surely true. Those good old days, says this pensioner. 

[Betty LaRue]

There would be millions fewer images out there if we still had to go through all of that. I admit when I joined up, I didn’t have to do it too long before the switch. But it was long enough. If I’d known then what I know now, I wouldn’t have wished for the change. Besides everything mentioned, there were trips to the post office and mailing costs. Then the looong wait began.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t we have to wait for the images to pass QC before sending in the next? It seems like about the best one could do is around 2 subs a month.

Do any of you remember the date we were able to submit by uploading?

Never mind. It looks like my first web upload was in July of 2007, the previous by CD in May 2007. So there around about. It failed. 😕🙃

Edited December 5, 2021 by Betty LaRue

[Chuck Nacke]

Hey all I can say is "If you do not want to see Micro Stock licenses do not shoot Micro Stock Images."

 

I see so many images on Alamy that can be found on any Micro site, and the IPTC information is

brief and not well thought out.  I do think Alamy could do better with licensing fees, but it is up to

all contributors to do better with the images that they upload and the IPTC information that they 

provide.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Chuck

[meanderingemu]

On 04/12/2021 at 14:54, Betty LaRue said:

The idiot laugher strikes again! 😂😂🤣

 

interesting i actually enjoy getting laughter, too much seriousness recently on this forum, if i brought laughter to one person i think this is great. 

[Betty LaRue]

24 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

interesting i actually enjoy getting laughter, too much seriousness recently on this forum, if i brought laughter to one person i think this is great. 

I enjoy laughter, also. If you’ve read all of my posts, you’d know that. This person laughs at serious posts, where a laughing face is inappropriate and out of place. Meant more as derision. But that’s okay, I’m amused by that person’s sorry life that he/she has nothing else to get kicks out of but doing that.