Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

Daily Mail shares at 13-year high after jump in online revenue

The publisher of Britain's Daily Mail tabloid and leading news website MailOnline posted a 6 percent increase in first-quarter revenue on Wednesday, boosted by a jump in online advertising  

 

C'mon Alamy - enough is enough. Start charging a fair price for images. I would think that there are few photographers who could boast a 6% increase in first quarter revenue? How does the mail manage this? Ever cheaper images I would suggest is part of the equation.

 

regards

 

Richard Wayman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very much +1 !!!!!!! Also Telegraph and all News Int titles.....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

 

The deal obviously suits both Mailonline and Alamy. We are just colatoral damage.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure Alamy would like to change it now if James West's comments are anything to go by but they are probably tied in to a time frame.  I really don't see how the low fees can really be worth their while as they have to generate an invoice for each one which costs them someone's time.  The sooner we get a more reasonable and FAIR rate the better.

 

Pearl

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Daily Mail & similar have a viable alternative to photos Alamy makes available?

 

- live, and out of the loop, from New York

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another.

 

Allan

 

+1 that is.

 

 

EDIT:

I was not replying to Ann's post.

 

Allan

Edited by Allan Bell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I would love to see higher fees, It's a free market situation. If Getty etc bid lower, Alamy will lose the business. There aren't many Alamy shots in the Times these days, presumably undercut by competitors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pearl wrote  >>I really don't see how the low fees can really be worth their while as they have to generate an invoice for each one which costs them someone's time.<<

 

If on an annual subscription deal they only have to generate one invoice per year to the newspaper in the deal  -  e.g. newspaper can use up to YY,000 pics for XX,000 $ with the XX,000 $ paid in advance once per year?  Very convenient for both agent and newspaper.  Downside is it really upsets photographers because their share of the XX,000 $ on reported sales is very small and there is no incentive for newspaper to fully report all sales which is why photographers keep finding pictures which are used but not reported or paid.

 

ALL agencies really do need to do some re-balancing or change of mechanism which stops photographers being more and more disenchanted. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Daily Mail & similar have a viable alternative to photos Alamy makes available?

 

- live, and out of the loop, from New York

Hi Ann,

 

Yes they have access to the whole spectrum of agencies. But they do use a fair number of Alamy images. Whether this is down to price or no viable alternative I wouldn't know.

I take Bryan's recent point though. A cut-throat business to be sure. However, if Alamy did increase prices to the likes of the Mail then the only winner has got to be the photographer AND Alamy. I for one do not like to see these $6 per usage fees (then wait a year or more to get your $3 cut) and would rather not sell at that price.

Some people say that 'something is better than nothing' but there lies the road to ruin. The costs that we photographers endure - time as well as financial - should be compensated for in a fair and professional manner. We are increasingly being treated with contempt.

 

Regards

Richard 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pearl wrote  >>I really don't see how the low fees can really be worth their while as they have to generate an invoice for each one which costs them someone's time.<<

 

If on an annual subscription deal they only have to generate one invoice per year to the newspaper in the deal  -  e.g. newspaper can use up to YY,000 pics for XX,000 $ with the XX,000 $ paid in advance once per year?  Very convenient for both agent and newspaper.  Downside is it really upsets photographers because their share of the XX,000 $ on reported sales is very small and there is no incentive for newspaper to fully report all sales which is why photographers keep finding pictures which are used but not reported or paid.

 

ALL agencies really do need to do some re-balancing or change of mechanism which stops photographers being more and more disenchanted. 

They have to generate a separate invoice to each photographer for each of their images licensed.  That has to be time consuming surely?

 

Pearl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pearl wrote  >>I really don't see how the low fees can really be worth their while as they have to generate an invoice for each one which costs them someone's time.<<

 

If on an annual subscription deal they only have to generate one invoice per year to the newspaper in the deal  -  e.g. newspaper can use up to YY,000 pics for XX,000 $ with the XX,000 $ paid in advance once per year?  Very convenient for both agent and newspaper.  Downside is it really upsets photographers because their share of the XX,000 $ on reported sales is very small and there is no incentive for newspaper to fully report all sales which is why photographers keep finding pictures which are used but not reported or paid.

 

ALL agencies really do need to do some re-balancing or change of mechanism which stops photographers being more and more disenchanted. 

They have to generate a separate invoice to each photographer for each of their images licensed.  That has to be time consuming surely?

 

Pearl

 

 

Yes.  That is what an agency takes 50% of our income for.  Agencies can survive on these deals.  Photographers dependent on the income from their photographs can not survive on deals at this level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

...

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes.  That is what an agency takes 50% of our income for.  Agencies can survive on these deals.  Photographers dependent on the income from their photographs can not survive on deals at this level.

 

 

But if you take Alamy as an example, there's little incentive for any rebalancing of costs v income since most work is subsidized - I cannot see how secondary editorial will change when there's no demand for change. That's the beauty of crowd-sourcing, it's not a business to most and so no real need to cater for the input side of the equation.

 

True enough Geoff but there are issues such as 'professional pride' , 'respect' , 'fairtrade' , 'morality' , 'equity' and other, presumably unfashionable, terms that should play a part in business.

That they don't seem to anymore in ours is, maybe, just a sign of the times in business generally. 

 

Regards

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread doesn't concern me directly because I'm not based in the UK, but I'm wondering why so many contributors stay in the newspaper scheme. Wouldn't it be better to opt out? Looking back through my sales, I have what appear to be leases to UK newspapers outside the scheme. The fees were certainly a lot fairer than what are being mentioned here. Is it a question of much higher sales volume within the scheme?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread doesn't concern me directly because I'm not based in the UK, but I'm wondering why so many contributors stay in the newspaper scheme. Wouldn't it be better to opt out? Looking back through my sales, I have what appear to be leases to UK newspapers outside the scheme. The fees were certainly a lot fairer than what are being mentioned here. Is it a question of much higher sales volume within the scheme?

 

My guess you are not opted in. If you were, it doesn't matter where you are based, they will use your photos, and pay you ~$5.95 per use, 6 months later. The worst part is, those photos will be all over the world, in multiple languages, and you don't get paid a penny because is "Third party use". The only way to fight back this kind of abuse, opt out! I may not get the occasional $5.95, but at least I don't feel being kicked on the groin from time to time. Ironically, I got a few sales from UK newspaper and magazine for much better fee recently. Go figure. -_-

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    Daily Mail shares at 13-year high after jump in online revenue

The publisher of Britain's Daily Mail tabloid and leading news website MailOnline posted a 6 percent increase in first-quarter revenue on Wednesday, boosted by a jump in online advertising  

 

C'mon Alamy - enough is enough. Start charging a fair price for images. I would think that there are few photographers who could boast a 6% increase in first quarter revenue? How does the mail manage this? Ever cheaper images I would suggest is part of the equation.

 

regards

 

Richard Wayman

 

 

Ahh yes.... Alamy's Micro pricing scheme.... but without the volume to make up for the lower prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes.  That is what an agency takes 50% of our income for.  Agencies can survive on these deals.  Photographers dependent on the income from their photographs can not survive on deals at this level.

 

 

But if you take Alamy as an example, there's little incentive for any rebalancing of costs v income since most work is subsidized - I cannot see how secondary editorial will change when there's no demand for change. That's the beauty of crowd-sourcing, it's not a business to most and so no real need to cater for the input side of the equation.

 

 

Exactly correct Geoff.  And there's the problem  -  for us.  Both the agents who proposed these deals and the clients who benefit from them seem content with the arrangement.

 

And those who treat this industry as a hobby are not truly involved.

 

Sad to watch something so vibrant wither and die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This thread doesn't concern me directly because I'm not based in the UK, but I'm wondering why so many contributors stay in the newspaper scheme. Wouldn't it be better to opt out? Looking back through my sales, I have what appear to be leases to UK newspapers outside the scheme. The fees were certainly a lot fairer than what are being mentioned here. Is it a question of much higher sales volume within the scheme?

 

My guess you are not opted in. If you were, it doesn't matter where you are based, they will use your photos, and pay you ~$5.95 per use, 6 months later. The worst part is, those photos will be all over the world, in multiple languages, and you don't get paid a penny because is "Third party use". The only way to fight back this kind of abuse, opt out! I may not get the occasional $5.95, but at least I don't feel being kicked on the groin from time to time. Ironically, I got a few sales from UK newspaper and magazine for much better fee recently. Go figure. -_-

 

I was in the scheme for awhile but opted out after hearing some of the horror stories. What I meant by "not concerning me directly" is that I don't think that most of my images would be of any interest to UK newspapers. Mind you, as mentioned, I do seem to have leased a few travel images to UK papers outside the scheme for relatively OK prices.

 

For instance, this looks like it could be one from a few years ago:

 

Country: United Kingdom

Usage: Editorial

Media: Newspaper - national

Industry sector: Media Industry

Sub-Industry: Publishing

Print run: up to 500,000

Placement: Inside

Image Size: 1/4 page

Start: 09 January 2009

End: 10 January 2009

$ 84.01

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread doesn't concern me directly because I'm not based in the UK, but I'm wondering why so many contributors stay in the newspaper scheme. Wouldn't it be better to opt out? Looking back through my sales, I have what appear to be leases to UK newspapers outside the scheme. The fees were certainly a lot fairer than what are being mentioned here. Is it a question of much higher sales volume within the scheme?

 

John, opting out of one newspaper scheme is irrelevant  -  and even a distraction.  If it was only the Alamy UK newspaper scheme which was based on this type of payment model then there would be little problem.  But several major agencies, competing with each other, are offering more and more rights destroying and ridiculous fee bulk packages and access subscriptions to media / publisher / book clients across Europe and now in the US.  (And also, as a result, photographers good direct sales to these clients are rapidly disappearing). That's why I say ALL agencies need to put the brakes on this fee slaughter before it is too late. Unfortunately those agencies who have tried to maintain fee levels, including some I know in the US, are having the legs cut off them by other agencies swooping in with these undercutting deals.  Its a vicious circle  -  for working editorial stock photographers it's a deathly downward spiral.  Last agency to pull out of the dive is a chicken. We're the turkeys.

 

These fee models concern all photographers, not just those in the UK or those signed up for one agency's UK newspaper deal.  If the agencies really think these deals are, for them, nonviable then you would expect to see them reversed.  Instead they are spreading.  Broadly speaking, the (editorial) agencies are taking a gamble on being able to fly their machines on free, crowd-sourced air alone.  Their low fees are shutting off the flow of both aviation fuel and skilled pilots.  Like Saint-Exupery's south american pilot finally choosing to glide in that beautiful, serene place high above the storm clouds he could not outrun  -  they may talk a while with the gods but inevitably gravity cuts in.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I opted out some time ago now but I still get newspapers buying my images, however I now get far better prices than I did under the scheme. moral is just opt out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread doesn't concern me directly because I'm not based in the UK, but I'm wondering why so many contributors stay in the newspaper scheme. Wouldn't it be better to opt out? Looking back through my sales, I have what appear to be leases to UK newspapers outside the scheme. The fees were certainly a lot fairer than what are being mentioned here. Is it a question of much higher sales volume within the scheme?

 

 

John, I am not based in the UK, but the Mail Online has used MANY of my images (I currently have 8 that have been used in the past month that I've not had reported)...not just from here at Alamy but from other agents as well.  I agree with you - fees from other newspapers are a better deal, but there are still places like the Mail Online and others that provide low fees.  I suspect the low fees are based on "web usage".  As has been mentioned, the problem with the Mail Online is the redistribution all over the world and the constant "liberation" of images from their website.

 

For what it's worth, I just received a royalty payment for 10.61£ from an image licensed to another news website (here in the U.S.) as well as 1.72£ for an image used on a web blog in the U.K.  Earlier last year I received 5.30£ for an image used on the website of a large Argentine Newspaper.  These sales are not through microstock agencies and they are not through Alamy's newspaper scheme (this is net - 50% royalty split at the other agency).

Edited by Ed Endicott

Share this post


Link to post
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

×
×
  • 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.