Jump to content
  • 0

Very low payment for pictures


Dolorous Dave
 Share

Question

Hello all,

 

I am still very much a novice with stock imagery but I had one or two small successes last year which encouraged me. However, this year The sales I have been getting have been for $1.53, $0.22, $0.22, and today a massive $015! It seems rediculous that Alamy are selling pictures for such prices - it does not seem worthwhile of them or me.

 

Am I missing sometihng?

 

Thanks in advance,

MP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 1
20 minutes ago, Dolorous Dave said:

- it does not seem worthwhile of them or me.

 

...i tend to agree with yor point;

there have been a few threads on the same issue.

 

so i don't think you're missing anything. 

Anything uploaded, regardeless of how much time was taken in preparing the shot can be sold for a few cents on a perpetual licence.

It is a bit disappointing to say the least.

 

GD

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1
2 hours ago, Dolorous Dave said:

Hello all,

 

I am still very much a novice with stock imagery but I had one or two small successes last year which encouraged me. However, this year The sales I have been getting have been for $1.53, $0.22, $0.22, and today a massive $015! It seems rediculous that Alamy are selling pictures for such prices - it does not seem worthwhile of them or me.

 

Am I missing sometihng?

 

Thanks in advance,

MP

 

 

From an Alamy standpoint these are likely loss leaders, and it may make sense for their bottom line and marketing strategy, however for contributor it only makes cents and no sense. 

 

One of the big issue from an individual image provider is that we do not share in any of the positive future impact of the strategy.  Let's say Alamy makes a deal with a new prospect under cutting rates for them on a large project to see how great the database is, it will likely be other sellers who get future reward if strategy works in securing client long term   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1
2 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

From an Alamy standpoint these are likely loss leaders, and it may make sense for their bottom line and marketing strategy, however for contributor it only makes cents and no sense. 

 

One of the big issue from an individual image provider is that we do not share in any of the positive future impact of the strategy.  Let's say Alamy makes a deal with a new prospect under cutting rates for them on a large project to see how great the database is, it will likely be other sellers who get future reward if strategy works in securing client long term   

 

Our customers love us

Enterprise Home - scroll down.

At least click on the

buttons.
 
And maybe try these as well:

wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1

These very low fees have become absolutely normal in stock photography and, unfortunately, they will not go away.

 

It is financially 'worthwhile' for Alamy because they are getting bulk deals, but not for Alamy contributors - because there is not sufficient volume. 

 

On the other hand Alamy does get many more decently priced sales than other agencies so it is a question of swings and roundabouts. 

 

For many contributors, especially those just starting out, it may well be that it is simply not worth it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1
Posted (edited)

These days, every time I go to the grocery store, eat at a restaurant, or fill up with gas, prices have gone up.  Shouldn't image prices be rising as well? Or are image buyers, unlike the rest of us, immune to encroaching hyperinflation?

 

Just sayin'... 🙄

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Love 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1
1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

These days, every time I go to the grocery store, eat at a restaurant, or fill up with gas, prices have gone up.  Shouldn't image prices be rising as well? Or are image buyers, unlike the rest of us, immune to encroaching hyperinflation?

 

Just sayin'... 🙄

 

 

 

 

There is no shortage in the of suppy of images. More likely is a decrease in demand and/or a further squeeze on image prices simply because of inflation of other business costs faced by publishers.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Posted (edited)

Thanks all for sharing your thoughts, you have made some good points.

 

I shall just have to accept it and hope for greater success. I will only need to sell 1,563 pictures at $0.16 a time to reach the required $250 yearly threshold to get the decent payout percentage.... ho hum.

Edited by Dolorous Dave
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

There is no shortage in the of suppy of images. More likely is a decrease in demand and/or a further squeeze on image prices simply because of inflation of other business costs faced by publishers.  

 

Yes, I know. I was just venting -- i.e. it was a rhetorical question.

 

You're right about Alamy being about the last place left where it's possible to see decent prices, especially for certain uses. Looking at my $$$ and high $$ licenses this year, they are for TV use, museum display, and "multiple editorial use." I guess these buyers have healthy budgets and are willing to pay fairly. As you know, textbook publishers used to pay well, but that's ancient history now.

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.