Selling for pennies

[Duncan_Andison]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

Even if true it hardly explains why those selling at micros should feel hard done by getting micro level fees at Alamy.  After all you have willingly helped create such a market. As I explained I am also getting those sort of fees - and I have done the opposite of supporting micros by staying with RM and macros. 

 

If you are making five figures elsewhere it does rather beg the question. 

 

I can assure you I do. I have been full time for nearly 10 years now. I don't need to do commissions and I know longer shoot high volume. When I started at Alamy in 2010 I didn't feel comfortable placing all my eggs in one basket. I really liked how they worked then but it was obvious change was coming. 

 

I know you blame micro for the changes... the same way tractor manufactures were to blame for the demise of farm labourers, the same way automated vehicles will be to blame for the demise of taxi and delivery drivers. It's called change. We can't stop it and we all have to adapt or we die (metaphorically speaking). Do you honestly believe licence values would stay at the same level once the masses were able to take photographs and submit them? As soon as cameras turned digital, this was guaranteed to happen as it became easier to learn the skills of photography without the expense of developing negs etc. It's always the case when supply out paces demand in any industry.

 

I've adapted style 3 times over the last 10 years to create content that is needed. We have to keep moving... if we don't adapt to change we have no one to blame but ourselves. Alamy income is next to nothing for me in the bigger scheme of things so I don't stress about it. If I have to pull my port I can do so without worry. I don't submit much work here anymore in any case. For me it doesn't make sense to. For others it will be different. Just depends on what you do.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Duncan_Andison

[Brian Yarvin]

4 hours ago, geogphotos said:

As I have mentioned before ( and I always get loads of red arrows) I am mystified by those who willingly support micro stock ( and therefore accept that business model) and then complain about similar fees at Alamy.  

 

Surely willingly helping sustain a business model based on low fees ........???

 

Ian, I have not complained about the ten cent sales - indeed, I've noticed that they've really improved my stats and I appreciate this. 

 

As for the micros. When I started, I saw that the big users of my photos were going to them and didn't care that I wasn't there. And when I did submit? For the first few years, my revenues really jumped. And then something else happened - something that's almost never mentioned here - they started sourcing individual images from free sites.  Today, more than ninety percent of individual image usages are from free sites; our challenge is to convince buyers that they have to pay in the first place.

[Duncan_Andison]

39 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

what i keep being told is that micro prices are ok, if you get volume.  ironically the Chinese deal seemed to have those qualities but who knows.

 

 

 

Not even close to the same qualities. At those prices you'd need way more than quadruple the volume of micros. The $0.10 at that agency are poor but they are balanced out with higher licence fees as well. They aren't my favourite place but they are a big earner for me. Top two for me generate over 25k+ sales a year. The value of those Chinese sales would mean they have to shift at least 1000+ per day to keep up with one micro and still be behind them most times. This is why we feel more than a little put out by them.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Duncan_Andison

[geogphotos]

5 minutes ago, Duncan_Andison said:

 

Not even close to the same properties. At those prices you'd need way more than quadruple the volume of micros. The $0.10 at that agency are poor but they are balanced out with higher licence fees as well. They aren't my favourite place but they are a big earner for me. Top two for me generate over 25k+ sales a year. The value of those Chinese sales would mean they have to shift at least 1000+ per day to keep up with one micro and still be behind them most times. This is why we feel more than a little put out by them.

 

It's called change. Pocket change.😄

 

Apparently you can't stop it. A bit like farm labour losing out to tractors. 

 

I'm still puzzled why 10 cents is acceptable but 4 cents is upsetting you.

 

[Duncan_Andison]

56 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

It's called change. Pocket change.😄

 

Apparently you can't stop it. A bit like farm labour losing out to tractors. 

 

I'm still puzzled why 10 cents is acceptable but 4 cents is upsetting you.

 

 

Lol... you are a funny one Ian... upset?!?... not at all. I'm mildly entertained by your baiting attempts... but it's not that entertaining to keep me here for long 🤔😂😂

 

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Duncan_Andison

[geogphotos]

23 minutes ago, Duncan_Andison said:

 

Lol... you are a funny one Ian... upset?!?... not at all. I'm mildly entertained by your baiting attempts... but it's not that entertaining to keep me here for long 🤔😂😂

 

 

 

Just trying to understand your thinking. You say that change is inevitable and that we have no choice but to accept it and evolve. That you have been successful at doing that and must have accepted literally thousands and thousands of 10 cent fees. Actually, perhaps hundreds of thousands of such low fees.

 

So why is it so terrible from your perspective when you get a few such fees from Alamy? 

 

Perhaps 4 cents is the future and we all need to do more evolving? 😄

 

But certainly quite happy to leave the discussion at this point.

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by geogphotos

[Brian Yarvin]

2 hours ago, Duncan_Andison said:

I know you blame micro for the changes... the same way tractor manufactures were to blame for the demise of farm labourers, the same way automated vehicles will be to blame for the demise of taxi and delivery drivers. It's called change. We can't stop it and we all have to adapt or we die (metaphorically speaking). Do you honestly believe licence values would stay at the same level once the masses were able to take photographs and submit them? As soon as cameras turned digital, this was guaranteed to happen as it became easier to learn the skills of photography without the expense of developing negs etc. It's always the case when supply out paces demand in any industry.

 

Ian, here's where Duncan's logic fails. What happened in the early two thousands wasn't a flood of equivalent quality images - it was a flood of poor quality images at far lower prices. Soon the lower quality stuff pushed everything else out including the buyers who were will to pay good money. As I've seen, they're still out there, but only reachable to those in major markets with appropriate portfolios. Twenty five years ago, stock was the top of the market in both quality and price, today it's a dismal bottom.

 

Those of us who worked in stock photo agencies in the eighties and nineties know that there was just as much of a flood of poor quality images as there is now. Indeed, you didn't have to know Photoshop or raw processing; you just shot your film, popped it in a mailer, and shoved the slides in sheets when they came back. Most metadata was written in ballpoint pen on the cardboard slide mounts. In those days, there was no way to sell them. They cost money to store and money to ship to clients - and if clients saw them instead of your usual great stuff, they'd be unwilling to pay your previous price.

 

That being said, some of us have other stuff to sell too; in my case, books. If buyers see my images, recognize my name, buy my books, and then go on to work with me - I'm ahead. I can't hold out for the return of a market that has made a lateral move. I'm stunned and delighted by the quality of professional photography that's being done by top people today - just not for stock.

[geogphotos]

I have never been opposed to the idea of 'selling for pennies' ( within reason!) as long as the usage is in proportion to the fee.

 

That is precisely what RM licensing is, by definition, all about.

 

Alamy has been telling us that some new sales opportunities are in the pipeline. I would assume that most of that will be about low fees for small uses. I have no problem with that. 

 

My 'fixation' on micros has always been based on the licence rather than the fee.  It was presented as tapping a new market - so why did the standard licence need to be for a 500,000 print run?

 

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by geogphotos

[Brian Yarvin]

Ian, I've understood, but I'm not sure how many others have. As I recall, it was indeed presented as "tapping into a new market." And it did just that. The only problem was that it turned off the old market to stock. 

 

Yet another unmentioned dynamic here is the fact that back around 1998, only a tiny portion of people who wanted to be represented by stock agencies were able to achieve this. Certainly, early RF vendors were aware of this and knew they could sign collections that were almost as good and languishing as the majors of the time sought to protect their turf.

 

I suspect that this is why so many images are pouring into the free sites. Photographers created huge collections, discovered that the big money in stock photography happened a quarter of a century ago, and said "enough is enough." I also suspect that there are plenty of images posted to the free sites from people who've been promised the moon and pressured to produce by one agency or another and then discovered that it was all hot air.

 

For a real understanding of what's happening and why different generations are angry, you have to look much further back than just the past decade.

[geogphotos]

53 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

Ian, I've understood, but I'm not sure how many others have. As I recall, it was indeed presented as "tapping into a new market." And it did just that. The only problem was that it turned off the old market to stock. 

 

Yet another unmentioned dynamic here is the fact that back around 1998, only a tiny portion of people who wanted to be represented by stock agencies were able to achieve this. Certainly, early RF vendors were aware of this and knew they could sign collections that were almost as good and languishing as the majors of the time sought to protect their turf.

 

I suspect that this is why so many images are pouring into the free sites. Photographers created huge collections, discovered that the big money in stock photography happened a quarter of a century ago, and said "enough is enough." I also suspect that there are plenty of images posted to the free sites from people who've been promised the moon and pressured to produce by one agency or another and then discovered that it was all hot air.

 

For a real understanding of what's happening and why different generations are angry, you have to look much further back than just the past decade.

 

 

Brian, You remind me that Bruce Livingstone who started it all with iStock used the pseudonym 'Bitter'.  I don't think it was a random choice of name.

 

He had attempted to be a stock photographer and failed. In frustration he started giving his images away for free for other web designers to use ( early 2000s), he encouraged others to do the same. This was all about those cool designers who were charging $$/$$$ for those many people who wanted a website back in c 2001 and who needed images for those sites.

 

iStock was the 'designer's dirty little secret'. They could charge their clients the expected high prices for images that they were actually getting for free.

 

It grew. Running the website to provide free images cost money so an administration charge of $1 per download was introduced. That is the background to microstock pricing. 

 

Many people have forgotten ( I assume ) that they also had an  iStockPro alternative offering standard RF pricing ( of course it died after a short while) because it could not compete with free/almost free. 

 

As I have said the problem for all the rest of us was the licence not the fee. And look at where we are 20 years later.

 

Livingstone sold to Getty for $50 million. Ironically, ( in my opinion) he subsequently set up an exclusive stock agency site which is highly selective.

 

And, of course, the REEEEAAAAALY big question is.

 

What happened to Peebert? 

Edited January 26, 2022 by geogphotos

[John Mitchell]

On 25/01/2022 at 09:06, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Yes, I get them all the time. One famous site has ten cent fees regularly.

 

That was my experience as well at that famous / infamous microstock site. I did occasionally get some slightly better ones, but they certainly weren't "high value." Video clips used to do much better. However, the returns became pathetic for them too after last year's draconian commission changes. I've closed all my experimental micro accounts now. My average price here this month is currently $42, which is encouraging.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by John Mitchell

[Brian Yarvin]

Ian, of course there were thousands of "bitters." Most jumped into micro as quickly as they could and their younger counterparts are now flooding the free sites.

 

And Peebert? Even I forgot about him.

 

John; if my average sale at Alamy were even half of forty two dollars, I'd do nothing else but contribute. 

[Michael Ventura]

I'm at an average of $37.50 per sale this month but the second half of the month has slowed to a crawl, fortunately I had a decent first half.

[John Mitchell]

10 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

I'm at an average of $37.50 per sale this month but the second half of the month has slowed to a crawl, fortunately I had a decent first half.

 

Exact opposite for me. Totally dead during the first half of the month, but the patient is now breathing again. 😄

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Brian Yarvin said:

Ian, of course there were thousands of "bitters." Most jumped into micro as quickly as they could and their younger counterparts are now flooding the free sites.

 

And Peebert? Even I forgot about him.

 

John; if my average sale at Alamy were even half of forty two dollars, I'd do nothing else but contribute. 

 

I guess the drinks are on me then. Better hurry, though, the good times may not last...

[Chuck Nacke]

At this point at the end of Jan 2022 Alamy is doing OK, In my opinion.  to date 18 licenses and the average

is $44.00.  Much better than the other agencies or libraries that I still have images with.

 

It could be better, but so could my skiing in the last giant slalom race.......

 

Chuck

[Broad Norfolk]

After many years of Alamy work I've just had my first ever sub one$ sale reported. That's knocked the stuffing out of my day almost before it's begun.

BTW a DOOH item!!

Jim 😒

[Bryan]

Great news this morning, 10 sales appeared.  🙂

 

Not so good news, each for less than $1 😟

 

[Broad Norfolk]

10 minutes ago, Bryan said:

Great news this morning, 10 sales appeared.  🙂

 

Not so good news, each for less than $1 😟

 

Sounds a bit like my DOOH sale! I have had a couple of 'good' returns this month so I guess it's a case of swings and roundabouts but it doesn't help the average.

Onwards and upwards!

Jim,.

[Avpics]

27 DOOH sales for me this morning. Awesome.....

[ASP]

The last calendar year was, for me, the best grossing for quite a few years, and encouraging. However, having received a few sub $1 sales reported this month, I was prompted to check out this thread. I have been opted out of Novel Use since 2008 and out of China/Asia distribution for many years so I wondered if these sales were what James Allworth has suggested were erroneously bundled with the Chinese distribitor deal? I have asked AC to clarify and while waiting for a response have done a quick reverse image search. The bad news is the DOOH licenses for pennies does not just apply to the Chinese distributor deal. One of my images reported for sub $1 (direct sale, not distributor), and credited to Alamy was to a major UK commercial radio station, used on their Facebook and Twitter pages (inevitably re-tweeted).

 

This is very discouraging.

 

Alan

[Jansos]

3 hours ago, Bryan said:

Great news this morning, 10 sales appeared.  🙂

 

Not so good news, each for less than $1 😟

 

Same here, had ten this morning; all between $0.88 - 0.98 - great volumes but bargain basement prices. Alamy no doubt hate it as much as we do but they have deeper pockets and the extra % share from us poor punters. Perhaps it is inevitable if other sites are offering similar pics at rock-bottom prices. If you don't compete you go out of the market. Some might argue that Alamy have a USP but do they really, anymore? If people put their pics on other sites, that offer them at lower prices, then Alamy has to do the same. Sad consequence of an over saturated market. 😞

Edited January 28, 2022 by Jansos

[Cryptoprocta]

2 hours ago, Jansos said:

Same here, had ten this morning; all between $0.88 - 0.98 - great volumes but bargain basement prices. Alamy no doubt hate it as much as we do but they have deeper pockets and the extra % share from us poor punters. Perhaps it is inevitable if other sites are offering similar pics at rock-bottom prices. If you don't compete you go out of the market. Some might argue that Alamy have a USP but do they really, anymore? If people put their pics on other sites, that offer them at lower prices, then Alamy has to do the same. Sad consequence of an over saturated market. 😞

Given the volume of sales reported here (I have a mere 1 (36c net) today to add to the two (x38c net) I got earlier this month), and that we are an extremely tiny proportion of Alamy contributers, I'm sure Alamy is making a lot of money out of these apparently new deals.

I wonder how long they'll be able to keep claiming a $30 gross average sale, though.

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Cryptoprocta

[Taina]

On 25/01/2022 at 22:16, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Ian, here's where Duncan's logic fails. What happened in the early two thousands wasn't a flood of equivalent quality images - it was a flood of poor quality images at far lower prices. Soon the lower quality stuff pushed everything else out including the buyers who were will to pay good money. As I've seen, they're still out there, but only reachable to those in major markets with appropriate portfolios. Twenty five years ago, stock was the top of the market in both quality and price, today it's a dismal bottom.

 

 

Good point. This flood of poor to mediocre images IS the problem. 

 

Poor quality does not work in ALL image needs or uses. This is why I don't understand why Alamy is lumping all content together and selling it in bulk for cents. Why does Alamy want to be a microstock so desperately? Why not concentrate in quality?

 

The sad thing is that nobody seems to care about the product any more. 

 

Photos. Images. Our work.

 

Alamy sells it for cents.

Contributors find excuses why this is happening, or okay it because they have other income. 

 

What we are investing in our work is no small deal. It's time to take better care of our product. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rolf Adlercreutz]

I can't understand why so many are in across-the-board distribution.It makes no sense to me. I had a just over one dollar sale this week. A portrait of a person who has been dead since the mid 80s and it was world wide. Drives me crazy. Then this one came in:

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Consumer goods
Media: Garments/t-shirts
Print run: up to 1,000
Start: 27 January 2022
End: 27 January 2025
Duration: 1 year

$6,45!!!

A 50 year old picture of the Monty Python actors! Both these can't be re-created again. On the other hand, I have very few royalty-free pictures on Alamy but right before New Years a sale came in - a picture from the US taken in 1986 sold for $300!