‘Silver’ commission model

[Gorilla Dave]

The 20% offered to contributors with small portfolios is a massive disincentive to providing new stock.

Is there a reason for retaining the 'Silver' commission model ?

[Sultanpepa]

On the contrary I think the incentive is to work towards getting a bigger portfolio as soon as possible giving you the best chance of reaching higher commission levels. There's less incentive to submit just a few images. However on the whole commission prices are awful and the $1.60gr licenses to the newspapers are an absolute insult. Same goes for bulk deals, these are definitely not in the contributors interest or benefit. 

[Gorilla Dave]

22 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said:

On the contrary I think the incentive is to work towards getting a bigger portfolio as soon as possible giving you the best chance of reaching higher commission levels. There's less incentive to submit just a few images. However on the whole commission prices are awful and the $1.60gr licenses to the newspapers are an absolute insult. Same goes for bulk deals, these are definitely not in the contributors interest or benefit. 

 

There are a number of reasons why a contrib’s portfolio might be smaller.

My first sale came in 2006 when I had just 20 images on-line and I received 70% commission at that time.

Being offered 20% of smaller fees is not an incentive.

 

[imageplotter]

Well. It certainly incentivises certain photographers and agencies to file en mass, at low, often embarrassingly low quality. We can see whole CFexpress cards of same-samey images being filed via the newsfeed which will grant certain people a fairly quick route to 40%, and via large stock uploads too. 

[Phil]

I'm currently in the Gold level and I've grown my small portfolio slightly this year.  Over the last half of 2023 my sales volume is down 80% and average per image sale price is down over 50% compared to same time 2022.   So I'm headed down to Silver level come 1 July 2024 if trend continues of greatly reduced sales volume and revenue.  

 

It's not clear to me that being downgraded to lower commission level is an incentive to work harder and grow portfolio by 2x etc. just to stay at same sales and revenue level considering the large uncertainties created by out-of-my-control macro forces of greatly reduced sales volume and revenues working against us.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Phil

[geogphotos]

Alamy changes commission to increase revenue not to incentivise contributors. 

[Phil]

21 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Alamy changes commission to increase revenue not to incentivise contributors. 

 

I suppose that might be their motive but unclear how much revenue increase might be realized.

 

But seems it also could be counter-productive for their revenue by penalizing and dis-incentivizing their suppliers for market forces beyond contributors ability to compensate.

[geogphotos]

I don't see how anybody could argue that cutting commission by 50% is designed to incentivise anybody. 

 

Sadly,  those market forces you mention have left Alamy squeezing its contributors. Maybe they feel that they have no real choice, or maybe they just know that they can get away with it. 

[Gervais Montacute]

23 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I don't see how anybody could argue that cutting commission by 50% is designed to incentivise anybody. 

 

 

 

Most people should treat this as a hobby. Photography is to me. You would need to be uber lucky to make meaningful money from photography in this day and age imo. Just treat it as a bit of fun. I do a sort of retirement job I've been doing for about 15 years on and off. Probably work about 2 to 3 months a year in terms of hours per day. That job involves commission of payments based on placements if you prefer and I have always treated that as a hobby.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Gervais Montacute

[Phil Robinson]

23 hours ago, Gervais Montacute said:

 

Most people should treat this as a hobby. Photography is to me. 

Many people certainly do treat this as a hobby, a bit of fun - often the ones who complain most about the lack of sales - but saying most people "should" is odd.
For some of us this a major source of income. You don't need to be "uber lucky" to make money, you need to put in the time and effort to build a large commercial portfolio that supplies the market with what it wants.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Phil Robinson

[geogphotos]

I'm sure that this will get me red arrows but here goes. It's just an opinion. 

 

Many people do treat stock as a hobby and as such they don't really have to care about the financial return.  20% or 40% of $200 pa (or whatever it is) is hardly life changing. 

 

For them it's all a bit of a game moaning about low fees, sales droughts, and whatever the latest controversy is in the stock industry

 

Like Phil, for me, stock is very important part of my income and I work hard at it every day ( fair enough, looking at my images perhaps I need to work a lot harder! 😞)

 

The red arrows bit?

 

In all honesty I wouldn't be too upset if some hobbyists found other outlets for their photography and left more of the stock photo pie on the table. And even more than that. I wouldn't be too upset if Alamy loaded the dice a little bit more in favour of those of us trying to make a living from it and who have delivered the goods for Alamy over a long period. 

 

There. Said it. 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by geogphotos

[Mr Standfast]

 

From a business point of view, my understanding of the tiers...

 

Silver - Your business plan has few points of alignment with Alamy's business plan, you do have a plan don't you?

 

Gold - Your business plan has some points of alignment with Alamy's business plan, you don't cost us anything.

 

Platinum - Your business plan is broadly in alignment with Alamy's business plan, because you are an agency! Would you like some cake?

 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Mr Standfast
typing

[Gervais Montacute]

4 hours ago, Phil Robinson said:

Many people certainly do treat this as a hobby, a bit of fun - often the ones who complain most about the lack of sales - but saying most people "should" is odd.
For some of us this a major source of income. You don't need to be "uber lucky" to make money, you need to put in the time and effort to build a large commercial portfolio that supplies the market with what it wants.

 

Sure. Questions people need to ask themselves might include - Have I increased my portfolio consistently over a period of years? Has my income gone up on a consistent basis over a period of years? If the answer is yes to those two questions that's a good start. But then there's the question of what constitutes a 'major source of income'. Amounts of major sources of income varies wildly from person to person. Some people might regard £500 a month net from photography as really good. Others might regard £100 a month net as great. I would need to be 'uber uber lucky' to get anywhere near either of those two examples.

 

[geogphotos]

3 minutes ago, Gervais Montacute said:

 

Sure. Questions people need to ask themselves might include - Have I increased my portfolio consistently over a period of years? Has my income gone up on a consistent basis over a period of years? If the answer is yes to those two questions that's a good start. But then there's the question of what constitutes a 'major source of income'. Amounts of major sources of income varies wildly from person to person. Some people might regard £500 a month net from photography as really good. Others might regard £100 a month net as great. I would need to be 'uber uber lucky' to get anywhere near either of those two examples.

 

 

 

I think that the term 'psychological reward' is more relevant rather than financial gain when it comes to whether or not contributors continue. 

[Jill Morgan]

I am one of the "hobby" photographers, but still take my images seriously and expect decent reward for my work, whether it is my main income or supplemental income. I try to avoid uploading junk images anymore like I did when I started out, simply thinking more was better instead of quality and properly processed was better.  

 

I am having one of the better years this year even with my small port.  Some decent prices overall.  Opted out of the China distribution and other cheap areas as I refuse to get a few pennies for my work, even though many would argue it's better than nothing.  No it's not.

 

I still have a few thousand images on cards to go through and upload this winter.  Haven't had time to do them properly, and won't upload unless they are processed properly.  I think too many just snap, quickly add keywords and upload without considering the framing, contrast, or pop of the image in a sea of images.

 

Jill

[Martin L]

If a full time 'pro' feels they are being out competed by a part time amateur hobbyist then I don't think the blame can be placed on the amateur.

There should be no reason for Alamy to 'load it in their favour', their 'pro-ness' should do the job for them.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Martin L

[geogphotos]

1 minute ago, Martin L said:

If a full time 'pro' feels they are being out competed by a part time amateur hobbyist then I don't think the blame can be placed on the amateur.

There should be no reason for Alamy to load it their favour, their 'pro-ness' should do the job for them.

 

Where do you get the 'out competed' idea from?

 

And this is not about 'blame'.

Edited December 14, 2023 by geogphotos

[Martin L]

So why are you concerned?

[geogphotos]

Just now, Martin L said:

So why are you concerned?

 

 

I'm not concerned. 

[Martin L]

Why do you want it loaded in your favour?

[geogphotos]

2 minutes ago, Martin L said:

Why do you want it loaded in your favour?

 

Other agencies have commission systems which reward success and commitment. 

 

Really, is it so hard to imagine making $200 a year?

[Mr Standfast]

G'night all

[Martin L]

Deleted

Edited December 14, 2023 by Martin L

[Gervais Montacute]

22 hours ago, Martin L said:

If a full time 'pro' feels they are being out competed by a part time amateur hobbyist then I don't think the blame can be placed on the amateur.

There should be no reason for Alamy to 'load it in their favour', their 'pro-ness' should do the job for them.

 

In the placements industry, this has been a thing for ages. What people forget is the placement game is all about numbers. It's difficult for any distributor to make allowances for contributors who are pros. Or who says they're pros. I could say I'm a pro. Anyone could. The placement/commission payment business is highly competitive. It's obviously not like showing up work on a salary and getting paid every month whether you do any real work or not. Did you know that in most workplaces 80% of the work is done by 20% of the employees? It's a statistical fact. Roughly.

I love it in my main hobby when people tell me they're pros and you're getting in the way with your hobby. A lot of these pros in my game make about £10K per annum - IF they're lucky. Depends what people mean by being pro and as I said earlier what constitutes the amount of money you need to make per year that makes you a pro. Sort of anyway.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Gervais Montacute

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, Gervais Montacute said:

 

In the placements industry, this has been a thing for ages. What people forget is the placement game is all about numbers. It's difficult for any distributor to make allowances for contributors who are pros. Or who says they're pros. I could say I'm a pro. Anyone could. The placement/commission payment business is highly competitive. It's obviously not like showing up work on a salary and getting paid every month whether you do any real work or not. Did you know that in most workplaces 80% of the work is done by 20% of the employees? It's a statistical fact. Roughly.

I love it in my main hobby when people tell me they're pros and you're getting in the way with your hobby. A lot of these pros in my game make about £10K per annum - IF they're lucky. Depends what people mean by being pro and as I said earlier what constitutes the amount of money you need to make per year that makes you a pro. Sort of anyway.

 

 

The only ones who have used the term 'pro'  in this discussion is Martin and yourself.

 

I have never described myself as a professional photographer because I am not.

 

How people describe themselves is immaterial to how they perform on Alamy.