Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Back in the late 1970s when I worked in an office of a stock photo agency that was later bought by Tony Stone they use to send the slides(35mm,2-1/4,4x5) in sealed plastic.Outside would be a bold orange sticker  that stated if you opened the plastic seal holding the slides it would cost you $500.00.

 

 

L

 

That was when agencies and shooters ran the show, Linda. I'm not sure when he started doing it, but in the '80s Tony used to make and sell large dupes of our 35mm transparencies. And they were not the high-quality dupes that Pete Turner produced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I despair,

This is just a licence to steal images. Its almost impossible to track unauthorised use in print anyway.  Why give any likely infringers the ability to take whatever they want by paying a very low fixed fee?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than giving out full sized high res images for $15.00, if a client wants a cropped section of an image, then Alamy should do the cropping as per instructions and allow for the smaller sized website download... not the whole ball of wax!

 
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... I am seriously thinking of opting out completely! ...

 

I'm sorry but opt out of what? Is this some program? What am I missing?

 

 

By "opt out", I mean leave Alamy entirely (I am not in any scheme to opt out of!) as I am soooooo tired of seeing my work and other Alamy photographers sold off for next to nothing and as soon as Alamy (or any other stock library) licenses my work for single figures for allegedly RM (and stock libraries seem to have conveniently forgotten there is a difference), I will leave what is now a sinking ship called stock libraries and divert my attention to direct licensing where images buyers will still license direct from me at a fair and reasonable price.  It would apper that Alamy is now charging less than micros as awhile back, I needed an insect for a personal project and I paid the micro $84.00.  

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheila, this is sad what is going on lately.

 

Few months ago I started the process of closing all my accounts on micros. Late is better than never - I understood what I'm doing wrong. I decided to work with Alamy and sell images directly through my own stock website, mostly RM. Now I see Alamy is starting to pay in micro prices... I feel like I came back to start of bad thing done before. Something very wrong is going on lately.

Btw. micros are giving images away for free, I mean really for free.

 

That's true that many years ago it was big cost to take and prepare photo. But isn't it today? Travel cost, studio session cost, whatever kind of photography is not for free, gear is not free (maybe I should ask Nikon if they'll give me 70-200II or just memory cards for penny? I won't use it to much... I should have better price?).

 

To be serious, I honestly want to believe that current prices are just latest promotion and all will come back to normal soon. If not, more and more people will open their own websites (it already started if you observe global trend) and will get the full 100% of fair price.

 

I really like Alamy but something wrong is going on lately and I start to worry.

Edited by Arletta
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Adobe would work very well if it allowed the full download of software then trusted to the client to only use the tools they paid for. 

 

I'm all for evolution and all that, but normally contributors are consulted before things change, that could effect how they do their business. In the two years I've been here, it just feels like a gradual slide downward to essentially a devaluation of what we do to the point where that trend is manifested into other clients/agencies we work with. The continuing message of "The pro photographer is dead" was created by agencies hell bent on profit over looking after the folk who got them there. Alamy has seen itself needing to fit into the model of lower pricing to compete with the trend. 

 

The more I think about it, the more exclusivity is totally key to bringing it all back. If Alamy could say with confidence that it's library was totally exclusive then it could buck the trend and start to pave a way forward. At the moment, most people have the same images on various different sites so Alamy have no choice but to compete. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this doom and gloom and pessimism. Cue Mr Greenberg's recent thread about cynicism...

 

I've seen NO significant reduction in fees since I joined Alamy six years ago. My average licence fee has remained fairly constant, and healthy, over those six years. I've never had a ridiculously low fee.

 

I wonder if that could be because I refuse to wallow in negativity and pessimism?

 

Alan

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about $29 for five-year website use? I charge (grudgingly) a minimum of $50 for one-year editorial website use through my PhotoShelter website. I made a $650 website use (corporate, three years) sale on my own a couple of years ago. I realize that it's a jungle out there, but something is drastically wrong with this picture IMO.

 

I had been gone for awhile and when I returned, I noticed this and thought, 'What the heck has happened to Alamy?' $29 for 5 yr license? Have they gone micro after I left all micro's to be with Alamy? 

 

Have to agree.... Although the last thing I want is more work to build a site of stock images and keep up with licenses, I'm going to seriously consider bailing. Sure I want to sell images, but would prefer not to be r***d in the process and make a mere pittance on my work; Hell $14.50 won't give me a tank of gas to last 5 yrs.! Not that my measly amount of images will hurt Alamy when removed, but I'd rather work with those that value my work or just hang it up.... Stock may have been great in the '90s and early 2000s, but anymore it's a bloody joke. Plus a waste of my time: load up a bunch of images, then delete them. Geez.

 

Will decide this weekend if I want to delete my submissions and stay the hell out of stock entities all together. At my age, 6 months will go by fast! lol And by Christmas hopefully will have my own stock site/licenses figured out and set up. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this doom and gloom and pessimism. Cue Mr Greenberg's recent thread about cynicism...

 

I've seen NO significant reduction in fees since I joined Alamy six years ago. My average licence fee has remained fairly constant, and healthy, over those six years. I've never had a ridiculously low fee.

 

I wonder if that could be because I refuse to wallow in negativity and pessimism?

 

Alan

 

You may simply have missed the collapse. Apart from one year I had seen a steady climb in revenue from 2002 to  2008 and then it fell 70%, with the tiniest of bounces in 2010. Since then I have been at a third of my peak gross revenue, and declining, for the last 4 years. This year is already ahead of 2013 but still only flat over the last 5 years. That is despite more thought and effort over those last few years. What was intended to be part of my pension plan has effectively disappeared but at the moment I am still thinking hard about how I DO make it work. Facing reality and being frustrated is not wallowing in negativity - instead I see many people being critical of business practices which they don't control looking for ways of making their photography pay. I see most people looking to take control of their futures even if it is outside the, apparently broken, stock library model.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued by contributors who talk, blithely, about setting up their own stock websites and getting "100% of every sale" instead of just 50% of diminishing fees.

 

I supply pix on a regular basis to a few publications and organisations (often in conjunction with words), but I doubt if I'd get many stock sales, beyond these regular clients, by setting up my own stock site. I get sales via Alamy from people around the world: sales I wouldn't get via any website I might create. I don't like the low fees any more than the other contributors; nevertheless I appreciate sales that drop in without me having to do any further work on marketing, distributing, invoicing, etc...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All this doom and gloom and pessimism. Cue Mr Greenberg's recent thread about cynicism...

 

I've seen NO significant reduction in fees since I joined Alamy six years ago. My average licence fee has remained fairly constant, and healthy, over those six years. I've never had a ridiculously low fee.

 

I wonder if that could be because I refuse to wallow in negativity and pessimism?

 

Alan

 

You may simply have missed the collapse. Apart from one year I had seen a steady climb in revenue from 2002 to  2008 and then it fell 70%, with the tiniest of bounces in 2010. Since then I have been at a third of my peak gross revenue, and declining, for the last 4 years. This year is already ahead of 2013 but still only flat over the last 5 years. That is despite more thought and effort over those last few years. What was intended to be part of my pension plan has effectively disappeared but at the moment I am still thinking hard about how I DO make it work. Facing reality and being frustrated is not wallowing in negativity - instead I see many people being critical of business practices which they don't control looking for ways of making their photography pay. I see most people looking to take control of their futures even if it is outside the, apparently broken, stock library model.

 

Negativity and pessimism aside, my average price per image (PPI) dropped from $89 to $74 from 2012 to 2013 (boy, those new graphs do come in handy). Gross income fell 35% during the same period. This year to date my average PPI is about $83, but this figure may be skewed by an exceptionally good January when I made a number of $100+ sales. Or could image prices be leveling off? 

 

Looking back a bit further, my PPI in 2009 was $124 and $108 in 2010.

 

P.S. I'm not in NU or the newspaper scheme. Most of my sales are RM editorial.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued by contributors who talk, blithely, about setting up their own stock websites and getting "100% of every sale" instead of just 50% of diminishing fees.

 

I supply pix on a regular basis to a few publications and organisations (often in conjunction with words), but I doubt if I'd get many stock sales, beyond these regular clients, by setting up my own stock site. I get sales via Alamy from people around the world: sales I wouldn't get via any website I might create. I don't like the low fees any more than the other contributors; nevertheless I appreciate sales that drop in without me having to do any further work on marketing, distributing, invoicing, etc...

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

As someone who has his own site and has created other for my other business interests you are absolutely right. Creating the site is the easy bit - generating traffic, managing sales etc is a much, MUCH bigger task. 100% of nothing is still nothing - getting any sales at all is a lot of constant, hard work, marketing, promoting, querying editors, searching for contacts oh and actually taking photographs. And that is all before invoicing, cash management, chasing payment, pursuing infringements ...

 

For many years I was an IT contractor and bemoaned agents fees until I created my own consultancy, my fees were higher but I made less money per hour, indeed per year because of all the other non-billable stuff I had to do, and was not very good at. I went back to contracting and concentrated in raising my skills and standing, my fees went up consistently until 2008.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm intrigued by contributors who talk, blithely, about setting up their own stock websites and getting "100% of every sale" instead of just 50% of diminishing fees.

 

I supply pix on a regular basis to a few publications and organisations (often in conjunction with words), but I doubt if I'd get many stock sales, beyond these regular clients, by setting up my own stock site. I get sales via Alamy from people around the world: sales I wouldn't get via any website I might create. I don't like the low fees any more than the other contributors; nevertheless I appreciate sales that drop in without me having to do any further work on marketing, distributing, invoicing, etc...

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

As someone who has his own site and has created other for my other business interests you are absolutely right. Creating the site is the easy bit - generating traffic, managing sales etc is a much, MUCH bigger task. 100% of nothing is still nothing - getting any sales at all is a lot of constant, hard work, marketing, promoting, querying editors, searching for contacts oh and actually taking photographs. And that is all before invoicing, cash management, chasing payment, pursuing infringements ...

 

For many years I was an IT contractor and bemoaned agents fees until I created my own consultancy, my fees were higher but I made less money per hour, indeed per year because of all the other non-billable stuff I had to do, and was not very good at. I went back to contracting and concentrated in raising my skills and standing, my fees went up consistently until 2008.

 

I'm using PhotoShelter, so maintaining the site, managing sales etc. are relatively easy. However, sales are few and far between these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paulstw, on 30 May 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:snapback.png

"The pro photographer is dead"

 

 

not yet

 

km

 

Here here KM

still live and kicking too

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paulstw, on 30 May 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:snapback.png

 

"The pro photographer is dead"

 

 

 

not yet

 

km

 

Here here KM

still live and kicking too

"Alive and Kicking" - sounds like a good title for a song......

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Paulstw, on 30 May 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:snapback.png

"The pro photographer is dead"

 

 

not yet

 

km

 

Here here KM

still live and kicking too

"Alive and Kicking" - sounds like a good title for a song......

 

Shouldn't that be "Alive and Clicking"? B)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Alive and Kicking" - sounds like a good title for a song......

 

 

Only if you have a simple mind :)

 

Alan

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Alive and Kicking" - sounds like a good title for a song......

 

 

Only if you have a simple mind :)

 

Alan

 

 

. . . or two.

 

dd

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm intrigued by contributors who talk, blithely, about setting up their own stock websites and getting "100% of every sale" instead of just 50% of diminishing fees.

 

I supply pix on a regular basis to a few publications and organisations (often in conjunction with words), but I doubt if I'd get many stock sales, beyond these regular clients, by setting up my own stock site. I get sales via Alamy from people around the world: sales I wouldn't get via any website I might create. I don't like the low fees any more than the other contributors; nevertheless I appreciate sales that drop in without me having to do any further work on marketing, distributing, invoicing, etc...

 

100% of nothing is still nothing -  ...

 

 

 

I reckon one would need to ask themselves; is receiving nothing better than giving away my work? My answer: Yes!

 

I'm passionate about photography, perhaps will never be great at it, but I'll be capturing till I die. Like many, I'd love to make a living at something I love, but I refuse to put in the time, effort and money only to have others want my work for pennies to use for 5 yrs. Honestly, I'd rather no one have it, if that's the case.

 

I don't begrudge anyone that is ok with giving away their work. Though I think perhaps along with so many "photogs" out there, that is one of the biggest reasons for the fall in prices for photography. Stock companies want to make a good buck on my work, along with thousands of others' work, yet I'm supposed to devalue myself and my work for them to do the same to me? Just doesn't make sense to participate.

 

I may not make anything at stock in the future, but that's ok. I think the best plan for me is to concentrate on acquiring private and corporate clients and see how that goes. Surely I'll find some who will value my work. :)

 

Now I'm off to delete all my work from Alamy. Good luck to all!

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Now I'm off to delete all my work from Alamy. Good luck to all!" -- Charly

 

And what would the point be in doing that, Charly? Sheila's way of exiting Alamy, no longer viewing them as a path for her new work but leaving her present collection in place, makes sense if she's dissatisfied  Many people in this forum have advised you to add new images to your collection in the year you've been here, but you haven't done that. 

 

If I decide to disconnect from Alamy, who I do not see as a villain in the stock world, I will do as Sheila (might) do. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Now I'm off to delete all my work from Alamy. Good luck to all!" -- Charly

 

And what would the point be in doing that, Charly? Sheila's way of exiting Alamy, no longer viewing them as a path for her new work but leaving her present collection in place, makes sense if she's dissatisfied  Many people in this forum have advised you to add new images to your collection in the year you've been here, but you haven't done that. 

 

If I decide to disconnect from Alamy, who I do not see as a villain in the stock world, I will do as Sheila (might) do. 

I tend to agree. I can appreciate Charly's concerns; however, if I were to exit Alamy, which I'm not planning to do, I would leave my collection with them. It took a lot of work and time (I'm slow) to get all those images online, and deleting everything wouldn't exactly be cost-effective. Also, Alamy is one of the few good guys in today's cut-throat stock photo world IMO. But of course everyone has to choose his or her own path

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 last two posts ^^

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add my 2 cents to those who have mentioned that "going it alone" is not as easy as one may think - I too have had difficulties, my self representation experiment for stock have not gone well and A and G still account for 95% of my sales. "PS" is not an effective vehicle for stock IMHO, but I see Sheila is using "PD", a newer alternative.

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.