What's a DOOH?

[geogphotos]

44 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Potential for whom, though? Probably not for us by the looks of it. Setting the initial price this low doesn't bode well IMO.

 

My last "regular" museum display license a few months ago was for $200, not 88 cents.

 

 

Obviously I don't know. 

 

But possibly instead of having your one image on display for $200, the user has paid the same amount for a rotating number of images at the same price.

 

One consequence of which will be more contributors moaning about small sale fees when otherwise they would have had no sale at all.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by geogphotos

[meanderingemu]

45 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Potential for whom, though? Probably not for us by the looks of it. Setting the initial price this low doesn't bode well IMO.

 

My last "regular" museum display license a few months ago was for $200, not 88 cents.

 

 

also, has anyone out of UK/Ireland gotten any of these in the numbers described above?   

[M.Chapman]

I have no particular problem with high volume low fee sales (I've got some images on Microstock as an experiment). But IMO Alamy need to allow us to select a minimum price threshold to protect more valuable images. Otherwise contributors will stop submitting their best work here for fear it will be "given away" and the slide in quality of Alamy's portfolio will continue. These bulk sales maybe good for Alamy in the short term, but IMO don't encourage the ongoing submission of good/unique images required for their future.

 

Mark

Edited January 28, 2022 by M.Chapman

[Rebecca Ore]

Rotating images of "move to historical <English area> near <famous castle or really pretty landscape> in an estate agent's window probably wouldn't be a problem.  It's using editorial pictures of people if you guys there are not protected against misleading uses of public figures.  If you are, shrug.    I can see rotating advertising photos for estate agents being harmless if property shot from public view doesn't need to be released.  

[Broad Norfolk]

10 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

I have no particular problem with high volume low fee sales (I've got some images on Microstock as an experiment). But IMO Alamy need to allow us to select a minimum price threshold to protect more valuable images. Otherwise contributors will stop submitting their best work here for fear it will be "given away" and the slide in quality of Alamy's portfolio will continue. These bulk sales maybe good for Alamy in the short term, but IMO don't encourage the ongoing submission of good/unique images required for their future.

 

Mark

I agree with you here, Mark. One of my other 'outlets' is to submit to National and International Salons with some success. I made it a rule to never submit any such images to stock for the very reason you mention. Accepted Salon images attract values of at least $$$ and it it not business sense to place these in a position where they could potentially realise less than a dollar. 

Jim.

[wilkopix]

15 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Potential for whom, though? Probably not for us by the looks of it. Setting the initial price this low doesn't bode well IMO.

 

My last "regular" museum display license a few months ago was for $200, not 88 cents.

I'm inclined to agree, unless Alamy can sell hundreds of thousands at that price I can't see any potential for contributors. Almost impossible to increase prices upwards once you start so low.

 

[Michael Ventura]

13 minutes ago, wilkopix said:

I'm inclined to agree, unless Alamy can sell hundreds of thousands at that price I can't see any potential for contributors. Almost impossible to increase prices upwards once you start so low.

 

 

I don't see ANY potential for contributors with bulk sub-dollar sales.  Even if you got 100 sales at 88 cents gross, that would only be $35.20 net.  The only winners here are buyers and maybe Alamy.....but not the contributor.

[meanderingemu]

6 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

I don't see ANY potential for contributors with bulk sub-dollar sales.  Even if you got 100 sales at 88 cents gross, that would only be $35.20 net.  The only winners here are buyers and maybe Alamy.....but not the contributor.

 

 

there are business strategies to have loss leaders to attract clients, but when you make your whole offering loss leaders that seems like a losing proposition. 

[BradleyPhoto]

So one of my images that has dropped in as a DOOH pennies sale I have seen being used on LBC website. I'm not aware of it being sold any other time and I would love to know how editorial usage on news website counts as DOOH https://www.lbc.co.uk/politics/sadiq-khan-council-tax-hike-government-refuse-fund-tfl/

 

 

 

[John Mitchell]

5 hours ago, wilkopix said:

I'm inclined to agree, unless Alamy can sell hundreds of thousands at that price I can't see any potential for contributors. Almost impossible to increase prices upwards once you start so low.

 

 

Yes, starting out at the bottom doesn't leave much room for negotiation. Sadly, it looks as if we'll see more "exciting opportunities" like this involving high volume, mini-priced sales that will benefit contributors very little. Hopefully I'm wrong about this...

[TheCrofter]

Well I've just had two sales of the same photo for $0.92 & $0.93 (Gross) today. As a relative newcomer to Stock Photography with Alamy, I must say compared with my last sale for digital media (The Guardian Website) at $8.81, that's quite a drop and very disappointing if this is going to be the norm from now on.

[Johnnie5]

 

[BradleyPhoto]

8 hours ago, kay said:

Which is fine if they're not also using as an image on their clearly news website

[Sally]

2 hours ago, BradleyPhoto said:

Which is fine if they're not also using as an image on their clearly news website

I found one of mine on Smooth Radio website (Lulu) here 

https://www.smoothradio.com/news/music/lulu-facts-age-children-husbands-facts/

 

i don’t really understand the license which states “Single use in online platforms, social channels and Editorial use in owned DOOH when used in an editorial context and in owned media.”

[BradleyPhoto]

6 hours ago, Sally said:

I found one of mine on Smooth Radio website (Lulu) here 

https://www.smoothradio.com/news/music/lulu-facts-age-children-husbands-facts/

 

i don’t really understand the license which states “Single use in online platforms, social channels and Editorial use in owned DOOH when used in an editorial context and in owned media.”

I’ve just been informed by Alamy that the flurry of DOOH uses that i’ve has reported but are all used on news websites are correct. 

 

It would seem that Alamy is licensing images to news websites as DOOH and for pennies. 

 

I don’t get it at all how an image on, for instance, BBC News can be licensed at one reasonable price but same image for a few pennies and DOOH on various other news / radio sites. 

 

I wonder if there’s simply one big deal with one of the large media organisations and they’re all put through as DOOH

[Jansos]

On 28/01/2022 at 09:08, Matt Ashmore said:

I have several licenses come in this morning similar to:

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Editorial website
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing
Image Size: Any size
Start: 01 October 2021
Duration: In perpetuity Single use in online platforms, social channels and Editorial use in owned DOOH when used in an editorial context and in owned media.

 

What's a DOOH?

 

Anything to do with this? 😉