Deleting my account: will I lose money already earned from sales (less than $50)

[Hayley]

hello everyone,

I recently put in a request to delete my account and remove all my images from sale.
Since 2018, I've only had $15 worth of sales, and my current cleared balance is $7.

I know it's a tiny amount of money, but will I just lose those $7 when my account is deleted?

[Alamy]

Hi Hayley, 

 

Once your account is closed and all your sales are cleared, you will be included in the next payment run. 

 

Thanks,

Chantelle 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

On 23/06/2023 at 06:05, Hayley said:

I recently put in a request to delete my account...I've only had $15 worth of sales...

why Hayley why?

there's no guarantee but if

67 images ==> $15US

then possibly

670 images ==> $150US

6700 images ==> $1500US

67000 images ==> $15000US

please Hayley please

think about it  😺__ 😺

[Alexander Hogg]

Jeffrey Once the balance is cleared and with 2100 image only about $100 but I get what you are saying 

[Rebecca Ore]

I don't think you can make truly informed decisions on fewer than 1000 photos unless this is absolutely not anything you find any pleasure in besides the money.  Money is terribly useful but if taking photos turns into just another data management job, the money is better in financial data management.

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

52 minutes ago, Alexander Hogg said:

with 2100 image only about $100...

AlexH, me mate
("welcome to Edinburgh, welcome to Scotland")

over what period of time?
each contrib collection a different rough prediction

with yours, 2100 images begat $100

then maybe 21000 ==> $1000

105000 ==> $5000

this assumes NEW variety in all new images...

stock photography for most is a volume game

there's no need to doubt it...
after all, The Proclaimers said it best:
"I would walk 500 miles and I would walk 500 more"

[Alexander Hogg]

19 minutes ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

AlexH, me mate
("welcome to Edinburgh, welcome to Scotland")

over what period of time?
each contrib collection a different rough prediction

with yours, 2100 images begat $100

then maybe 21000 ==> $1000

105000 ==> $5000

this assumes NEW variety in all new images...

stock photography for most is a volume game

there's no need to doubt it...
after all, The Proclaimers said it best:
"I would walk 500 miles and I would walk 500 more"

I agree 

[Mr Standfast]

2 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

why Hayley why?

there's no guarantee but if

67 images ==> $15US

then possibly

670 images ==> $150US

6700 images ==> $1500US

67000 images ==> $15000US

please Hayley please

think about it  😺__ 😺

Looking at Hayleys  portfolio, lots of nice images. Certainly scalable. 

 

 

 

 

[Steve F]

44 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

Looking at Hayleys  portfolio, lots of nice images. Certainly scalable. 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed

[Chuck Nacke]

8 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

AlexH, me mate
("welcome to Edinburgh, welcome to Scotland")

over what period of time?
each contrib collection a different rough prediction

with yours, 2100 images begat $100

then maybe 21000 ==> $1000

105000 ==> $5000

this assumes NEW variety in all new images...

stock photography for most is a volume game

there's no need to doubt it...
after all, The Proclaimers said it best:
"I would walk 500 miles and I would walk 500 more"

Have to disagree with you, Jeffery (not the first time),

 

This Idea that Stock Photography is a numbers game is in my opinion is an idea that is hurting Stock Photography.

I would put forward that Stock Photography is a process of making existing images that are in demand for any number of

reasons or making new images that illustrate a topical issue or event that is of great interest across boundaries.

 

P.S. with less than 2100 images online with Alamy I am approaching $60,000.00 in licenses.

 

Chuck

[Brian Yarvin]

Chuck, the idea of stock photography as a numbers game is one of those myths that won't go away. Remembering and reviewing the law of supply and demand would be far more enlightening, but it's tough to go against the tide.

[geogphotos]

4 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

Chuck, the idea of stock photography as a numbers game is one of those myths that won't go away. Remembering and reviewing the law of supply and demand would be far more enlightening, but it's tough to go against the tide.

 

 

It makes sense to me that the more images you have the more you are like to sell. 

[Steve F]

8 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

the idea of stock photography as a numbers game is one of those myths that won't go away.

 

Don't know about myth....

 

3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

It makes sense to me that the more images you have the more you are like to sell. 

 

Yes

 

8 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

This Idea that Stock Photography is a numbers game is in my opinion is an idea that is hurting Stock Photography.

 

Sure, you can spend more time producing higher quality images, rather than mass producing more mediocre images (no offense meant to anyone with large collections with this statement!). But the more images available, high quality or less so, the more you should sell.

 

 

I've added about 600 images a year since I started. Results seem to bear out that having a larger portfolio is a "good thing"! 2022 was my best year for licenses and revenue. I'm over 50% of both at the halfway point of 2023.

 

[Brian Yarvin]

Oh good grief! It's not about numbers and it's not about quality - take a closer look at what went into your shoots and the decisions behind them.

 

And the OP might have wanted to have their account deleted because they have a better option that requires exclusivity.

[Steve F]

1 minute ago, Brian Yarvin said:

And the OP might have wanted to have their account deleted because they have a better option that requires exclusivity.

 

Well yes, we may have got a bit distracted.... 🙈

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

IanM SteveF, my heros, my best chums of all chums, across the sea from me:

 

A larger collection need not be mediocre, it can always be

the best the contributor is able to do -- every single image...

Another way to prove volume-variety is a major factor:

imagine if all the new images one is to upload between

now & 2030 were suddenly all available now !!
(except images containing what does not yet exist in 2023)

That's in addition to one's current collection...

Who can say there would be no permanent "bump up" in $$ ??

I'll tell you who, mate: 🤔__ 🤔__ 🤔
BLOODY NO ONE

Edited June 27, 2023 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg

[Brian Yarvin]

Double good grief. I'm going to learn how to post in pirate.

[Michael Ventura]

24 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

Double good grief. I'm going to learn how to post in pirate.

 

😅

 

I do think doing well in stock is a combo of quantity, quality and saleable subject matter.  If you have the last two, then the more you have, the more you can make.   Of course the one variable we can't control so much is what the buyers are paying when you have agencies and "photographers" pretty much giving away images.