To make content, contribute and invest.

[John Mitchell]

5 hours ago, Allan Stone said:

Is there a way of finding out the things that sell really well, is there a list or top 100 images that have sold?

.

 

 

A year or two ago, I remember Alamy providing a list of bestselling images -- i.e. ones that had licensed more than 25 times in a year. I recall getting an e-mail about it. However, the tweet (or whatever it was) mysteriously disappeared in a very short period of time. Hmmm...

[sooth]

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

A year or two ago, I remember Alamy providing a list of bestselling images -- i.e. ones that had licensed more than 25 times in a year. I recall getting an e-mail about it. However, the tweet (or whatever it was) mysteriously disappeared in a very short period of time. Hmmm...

 

they provided a link to a lightbox of best selling images in 2021. there were live news images, a few travel images, and a few that sold for $$$$ in 2021. I don't recall my reaction to any of the images as this is amazing.

Edited April 6, 2023 by sooth

[John Mitchell]

7 minutes ago, sooth said:

 

they provided a link to a lightbox of best selling images in 2021. there were live news images, a few travel images, and a few that sold for $$$$ in 2021. I don't recall my reaction to any of the images as this is amazing.

 

That must be the one. There were a number of historical/archival images in there as well if I remember correctly.

[sooth]

.

Edited October 19, 2023 by sooth

[geogphotos]

7 hours ago, Phil said:

 

The pros and cons of spreading our stock media across multiple platforms to hopefully increase our sales is an oft-mentioned aspect of selling stock media.

 

Some agree - some don't.  I'm generally in the "don"t do it" group.   There is anecdotal 1st hand evidence offered by at least one stock platform that buyers in many instances make efforts to shop around different stock platforms for the cheapest price.  Given this why compete against ourselves for the lowest price?

 

 

An aspect of this to consider is that photo editors may not have much choice if their company has set up an arrangement to buy from Agency X then that is where they have to go to buy.  Another company may only allow their picture editors to buy from Agency Z ( unless there is very good reason otehrwise) because that is what has been decided at a higher level.

 

So having images with both X and Z can compensate for the occasions when individual comparative shoppers chose the lowest price ( competing against yourself).

 

Consider which sort of buyer is making the majority of sales/ revenue.

Edited April 6, 2023 by geogphotos

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

On 05/04/2023 at 10:43, Allan Stone said:

...the monetary side of things is a must not a bonus for me, I've sold many images as a photographer, I have been commissioned time and time again...

AFAICT, your images are salable;

28300 images, not your current 283,

will produce $$ daily, year after year;
don't expect weekly sales until 2830 images;

1 in 20 will license for ~$30US gross each

over the years; more optimistically it might

be 1/15 for ~$35US gross each over time;

1 in 20 is my specific estimate for yours,

not anyone else; mine is 1/15 to 1/10;
upload already-taken photos; commercial

looking images can still license editorially;

do most obvious keywording now so images
are uploaded much faster, come back later

to add tertiary & quaternary keywording, IMO...
regardless it'll be a long slog, it will indeed;
work in front of telly, pay nieces & nephews...

🤑     OH MERCY I HOPE I'M RIGHT    🤑

Edited April 7, 2023 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg

[Marianne]

5 hours ago, sooth said:

 

https://archive.is/liZwp

 

I had one of my images sold to a newspaper (llink above). the article had two images, one of the image was mine with "Alamy" as the credit line, and another a wikipedia image with "Alamy" erroneously in the credit line. that wikipedia image was similar to a photo that I had on alamy except that it was taken in autumn instead of spring/summer.  I think what happened was they meant to get both my images, but instead found a similar image on wikipedia (with a public domain license) and used that instead.

 

Do you live in the Hudson Valley? That quaint little town is less than an hour and a half from where I live & I hadn't heard of it before. New York really is a pretty big state. And lovely. Much more country than city even if it's not what most people think. I always assume everyone's from the UK here unless their profile says different. 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Marianne

[Marianne]

Oh sorry - @Allan Stone welcome to Alamy & the forum! 

[Phil]

15 hours ago, geogphotos said:

An aspect of this to consider is that photo editors may not have much choice if their company has set up an arrangement to buy from Agency X then that is where they have to go to buy.  Another company may only allow their picture editors to buy from Agency Z ( unless there is very good reason otehrwise) because that is what has been decided at a higher level.

 

So having images with both X and Z can compensate for the occasions when individual comparative shoppers chose the lowest price ( competing against yourself).

 

Consider which sort of buyer is making the majority of sales/ revenue.

 

This could be a consideration of course.  

 

What's not obvious is how a contributor determines if buyers are constrained by contractual stock media purchase agreements made by higher-ups.   For UK stock contributors it might be a bit easier to make a reasoned guess given that the UK newspaper and publications industry is a much larger buyer percentage for UK contributors than non-UK contributors.   This might provide UK contributors more buyer clues.

[Brian Yarvin]

Phil, buyer subscriptions are far more than a "consideration." Virtually every client I deal with has them and this means they never comparison shop. What sooth is describing is a different, but equally serious problem - using free images. Wikipedia doesn't sell or license images, they put them online as creative commons content. This means that for most uses, they're free. And if they turn out to be commercial in some way, it's easier to get 99% of your images for free and pay an occasional penalty than shell out the bucks up front.

 

Free is the big thing at the moment, and free is the only area of stock photography that's growing right now.

 

 

[NYCat]

I need a sad emoji.

 

Paulette

[Phil]

34 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

Phil, buyer subscriptions are far more than a "consideration." Virtually every client I deal with has them and this means they never comparison shop. What sooth is describing is a different, but equally serious problem - using free images. Wikipedia doesn't sell or license images, they put them online as creative commons content. This means that for most uses, they're free. And if they turn out to be commercial in some way, it's easier to get 99% of your images for free and pay an occasional penalty than shell out the bucks up front.

 

Free is the big thing at the moment, and free is the only area of stock photography that's growing right now.

 

 

 

Brian - of course that is entirely correct.   For whatever reason the subscription model failed to register in my head in my previous post.   I suppose I was thinking more along the line of Alamy's agreements with UK newspapers/publications.  Which perhaps are actually subscriptions and image bundles. 

 

But is it possible that some subscription buyers have subscription deals on different platforms to give them more flexibility, choice, etc.?   That could allow them to really leverage the subscription model.

 

 

[Aul Zitzke]

On 06/04/2023 at 15:57, Allan Stone said:

Thank you John  for your reply, you underlined what I thought may well be the issue within this market.

I've looked on from afar for sometime and when I've done a little research it does seem to be a tougher and tougher market to be in and a very time consuming market to be in.

Forget the shooting, the processing, the editing, the key wording and the financial investment (not that we can really forget about any of that) but I am still hoping that within the the realms of what I shoot I can still make a return, however small....If it is terribly small , then I am not sure what next!

 

Rather than blanket bomb the site with many dull and average images that may never be seen (of course I have lots of them) I still wish to add work that I enjoy shooting and I hope (probably stupid thing to say} will have some punch and be relevant....

The problem I see with Alamy is the lack of censorship or Quality Control (of course that's the beauty of Alamy but also perhaps how we all get lost in the mix).

 

I'm very new to the forum but is there a pecking order in place, or some sort of editing or placement involved from their editing team so 'your work' can be seen in front of others? More commercial, more professional work or what is deemed great imagery or more relevant work to the market or what's trending must get lost because of how many images are uploaded weekly or is there a tiered system somehow?

 

Thank again John Morrison 

 

 

I don´t think that Alamy represents the whole stock market. There are great differences between the stock agencies. Alamy is the so called "macro stock", but is that true? I have really nice rewarding at another agency, which is actually called "micro stock", but altogether micro stock is much more profitable for me and I don´t need 10000+ images to have a relevant income.

[Allan Stone]

One great thing is the knowledge, support from members on this forum  

Thanks 

 

One thing I do quickly realise is how complicated the market is and talent doesn't always pay! 

 

Do any of the Alamy team shoot and upload I wonder? Perhaps they realise it's not profitable and are out playing instead.....

[IKuzmin]

1 hour ago, Aul Zitzke said:

I have really nice rewarding at another agency, which is actually called "micro stock", but altogether micro stock is much more profitable for me and I don´t need 10000+ images to have a relevant income.

I have a selection of worse images (per composition/light/heavy crop/downsampling to increase sharpness, etc) at a microstock (only one for now as three other started to pay not even peanuts but peanut shells, and I cancelled contracts with them) and it gives me ~1/3 of what I get from Alamy.

[Wahavi]

Some of my friends and acquaintances use stock photos for their websites or physical publications and what is interesting for me that each of them has only one favourite stock agency, and they ALWAYS buy from that one. Maybe others "operate" the same way, and never shop around for the cheapest. We always make emotional decisions.

[Michael Ventura]

On 07/04/2023 at 00:44, Marianne said:

 

Do you live in the Hudson Valley? That quaint little town is less than an hour and a half from where I live & I hadn't heard of it before. New York really is a pretty big state. And lovely. Much more country than city even if it's not what most people think. I always assume everyone's from the UK here unless their profile says different. 

 

I just spent this past Saturday night in Kingston, NY.  Love the Hudson River Valley, so many beautiful small towns. I have several childhood friends who have ended up there after living in NYC for a while...all artists of some sort.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Michael Ventura

[sooth]

On 07/04/2023 at 00:44, Marianne said:

 

Do you live in the Hudson Valley? That quaint little town is less than an hour and a half from where I live & I hadn't heard of it before. New York really is a pretty big state. And lovely. Much more country than city even if it's not what most people think. I always assume everyone's from the UK here unless their profile says different. 

 

no, not in the hudson valley, but in nyc. I biked over to rosendale from poughkeepsie hoping to get close to kingston, but didn't make it that far. First time I've heard of Rosendale was many years ago when the community's resident brass band joined us during a climate march in washington dc. Apparently Rosendale is a very liberal town, you might think Berkeley California is liberal, but Rosendale is more so. They were also famous for its natural cement mines, highest quality in the usa, used to build the statue of liberty and brooklyn bridge.

[Marianne]

7 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

I just spent this past Saturday night in Kingston, NY.  Love the Hudson River Valley, so many beautiful small towns. I have several childhood friends who have ended up there after living in NYC for a while...all artists of some sort.

 

It's a nice town. I had a good friend from high school who was originally from there so I visited with her a couple of times before it was so trendy and artsy. My husband and I live in northern Westchester, an hour from midtown Manhattan, and have been trying to decide where to move to. Moving upstate around the Cold Spring area, a bit south of Kingston, is really appealing. Lots of cute artsy towns and it's a trek but still an easy enough drive into the city.  

[Marianne]

5 hours ago, sooth said:

 

no, not in the hudson valley, but in nyc. I biked over to rosendale from poughkeepsie hoping to get close to kingston, but didn't make it that far. First time I've heard of Rosendale was many years ago when the community's resident brass band joined us during a climate march in washington dc. Apparently Rosendale is a very liberal town, you might think Berkeley California is liberal, but Rosendale is more so. They were also famous for its natural cement mines, highest quality in the usa, used to build the statue of liberty and brooklyn bridge.

 

Really interesting! history. So many small towns to explore.