Jump to content

Micro sales


Recommended Posts

The bit I'm confused with...

 

Is for the exact same usage, ie editorial/online/worldwide etc can sell to one organisation for say $2 and to another organisation for $40

 

For the exact same usage.

I am assuming therefore that the sale price is determined by the size of the package a company buys from Alamy ?

 

If so that's one massive discount from buyer a) to buyer b) surely ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Again, proof (as if proof was needed when Alamy has officially confirmed it) that price has nothing to do with the quality of the image, but only the discount of the buyer.

 

 

The fee depends on the usage and the deal that the client has not on a subjective assessment of 'quality'. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Celluloid Hero said:

From what I have read here, pay 17 cents and you can use the image for pretty well anything you want to.

 

I know what you mean but I don't see that in my licences.

 

Here are two recent low-ball ones. They do not cover commercial use -  restricted to Editorial.

 

I'm not saying I like it but even so it is not true, from what I see, that these clients can do whatever they want with the image. 

 

I very much doubt that the first one will actually be for print use - no idea why they have that in the licence.

 

Unfortunately in a world dominated by RF and micro pricing this is where we have ended up. 

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial, Websites, apps, social media & blogs, editorial, any size, in perpetuity, worldwide
Media: Website, app and social media
Print run: Unlimited
Placement: Any - print cover & inside, electronic, online
Image Size: Any size
Start: 18 February 2022
Duration: In perpetuity

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial, For editorial use on website and associated social media
Media: Website, app and social media
Start: 21 February 2022
End: 21 February 2023

 

 

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

4 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

The fee depends on the usage and the deal that the client has not on a subjective assessment of 'quality'. 

Yes,  you and I both know that; but another forum member reguarly says, nay asserts, that it's all about the quality of the image.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Yes,  you and I both know that; but another forum member reguarly says, nay asserts, that it's all about the quality of the image.

 

People say all sorts of things on this forum 😄

 

I hate the expression but it is appropriate ' we are where we are'.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These low-ball sales are alarming and a pretty pointless discussion. Almost equally pointless is the argument from high flyers who are indigent that their beautifully crafted photographs should fall to such depths. Let's put our egos away and ask why would Alamy or anyone else think this is an area worth pursuing. It is just so demoralising!

  • Love 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robert M Estall said:

These low-ball sales are alarming and a pretty pointless discussion. Almost equally pointless is the argument from high flyers who are indigent that their beautifully crafted photographs should fall to such depths. Let's put our egos away and ask why would Alamy or anyone else think this is an area worth pursuing. It is just so demoralising!

 

It strikes me that it's all about Alamy's custom licensing shtick. They apparently want to be all things to all clients -- a traditional RM stock agency, a hip RF agency, and even a microstock agency. This modas operandi has both good and bad aspects for contributors. Seems it's something we just have to learn to live with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, we've always "had to live with" the deals that stock agencies made for us. I saw some pretty awful ones back in the eighties and nineties. 

 

What I really wish were that the quality argument was true. (And I've been an advocate of the quality argument in the past.) Yes, better image quality and better meta-data will make our work seem better to customers but unless it's in a tightly controlled environment where buyers know they're going to have to pay before they enter, AND that extra expense is made to be appealing throughout the entire experience, it's not going to work. 

 

Robert, you've confused the words "indignant" and "indigent" and that has to be one of the most profound and interesting mistakes I've seen. So many of us old stock photographers are both!

  • Love 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting subjective terms like "quality" aside, what I see with my own sales nowadays is that the higher priced (upper $$ and $$$) ones seem to be dependent on two main factors -- scarcity and the type of client. There are still a few traditional RM buyers (e.g. high-circulation print, museum display, TV) left who are willing to pay more for images that are difficult to find. Luckily I still have some of those in my collection. That said, I had a "rare" image that has licensed several times for $$$ in the past sell to an editorial website for $ this month. When it comes to editorial sales, the buyers are increasingly ones --- websites, social media, newspapers, etc. -- who will only pay a pittance no matter what the "quality" or uniqueness of the image is. There really isn't anything we can do about this state of affairs since Alamy wants to please all types of customers.

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Love 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

John, we've always "had to live with" the deals that stock agencies made for us. I saw some pretty awful ones back in the eighties and nineties. 

 

What I really wish were that the quality argument was true. (And I've been an advocate of the quality argument in the past.) Yes, better image quality and better meta-data will make our work seem better to customers but unless it's in a tightly controlled environment where buyers know they're going to have to pay before they enter, AND that extra expense is made to be appealing throughout the entire experience, it's not going to work. 

 

Robert, you've confused the words "indignant" and "indigent" and that has to be one of the most profound and interesting mistakes I've seen. So many of us old stock photographers are both!

another dyslexic photographer. and too reliant on spell check

 

Edited by Robert M Estall
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/02/2022 at 11:06, Cryptoprocta said:

While Alamy prices were higher, the low sales volume was almost tolerable.

Now that it's low and super-low prices and low sales volume, it's not; especially for those who have different content, RM, on Alamy. They might well, arguably, put their content RF over various sites in a hope of maximising their total earnings. Not that many people expect much nowadays or moving forward.

 

I was fine with the low sales volume, but with better licensing terms and prices. now it's lower prices, and over 90% of which were unlimited licenses which didn't work in my favor; I've had more than double the sales compared to two years ago, but the net remained the same. Even if I wanted to try spreading elsewhere, the avenues I have are limited and closed; I can't upload anywhere else as most places won't accept the stuff I have. so i am here exclusive, and at big A's mercy...  I don't think they care much about obtaining higher prices for the quality content they have available. keeping clients and higher sales is priority.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Celluloid Hero said:

Ending the week on a high -  an RM sale for 26 cents gross with 10 cents (7p) to me. Yippee!

At this rate am estimating reaching the $50 payout threshold approximately June 19th, 2096.

 

 

       

 

 

That's you set up for Friday night then.

Maybe share half a Twix and a swig of Fanta?

Edited by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Celluloid Hero said:

Ending the week on a high -  an RM sale for 26 cents gross with 10 cents (7p) to me. Yippee!

At this rate am estimating reaching the $50 payout threshold approximately June 19th, 2096.

 

 

       

 

 

Damn it you will get there a month before me.😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Broad Norfolk said:

Sorry, folks. I was going to winge about yet more $ sales but I've decided at my age that I just can't be bothered. My business diversifies into more 'satisifying' directions. 

Strawberries and cream for tea!

Jim. 😏

No twix?  😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, aphperspective said:

Diabetic never go far without one (or two).🙄

 

Next time we meet up I had better have a ready supply with me. How about Mars bars?

 

Allan

 

Edited by Allan Bell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Next time we meet up I had better have a ready supply with me. How about Mars bars?

 

Allan

 

Mars bars fine Allen dipped in my Murphy's keeps the old sugar balance just about right. 🙄 

  • 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.