Jump to content

What about a minimum price option in the "restrictions" fields?


Recommended Posts

I know it has already been discussed on the forum but I still think we should be able to define a price under which an image can not be sold.

This could easily be added to the "restrictions" fields.

Then, only when we think an image is worth it, we could set a minimum price for it to be licensed.

What would you (contrbutors and Alamy staff of course) think of a brand new "minimum price" feature within our already useful "restrictions" options?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Loads of people value their work differently. If the image is rare then yes, absolutely, however, if it's amongst 15k simillars from different accounts, the buyer will always get the cheapest one time and time again. A buyer sitting at a computer likely has more than one stock library up on the screen searching for images on a particular subject. They'll just buy the cheapest one that fits their license needs. 

 

Also what's stopping a buyer just lifting the phone to negotiate a price? I don't know the answer to lowering fees but I know that HMRC are likely to advise to pick another profession lol 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right, the buyer will always have the choice of a cheaper option.

But I would also like to have the choice to license some of my images at micostock prices or not.

And If the buyer prefers to buy an image from another contributor because it is cheaper than the minimum price I would have set for mine, I am fine with that.

Edited by Olivier Parent
Link to post
Share on other sites

Minimum price for what ? Editorial use, commercial use, local newspaper, national newspaper?

 

There are too many variables when pricing an image. End use is the important factor. That is why we use agencies. We defer to their skill and understanding of the market to get the best price / deal for both the photographer and the agency.

 

Remember the agency takes their cut from the license fee so it is in their interest to get the best price possible.

 

Submitting to a stock agency is all about volume selling, you can never look at an image in isolation. Yes, you may only get $6 for this sale but for the next sale, you may get $300. Average fee - $153. Thats a better number.

 

If you have a truly unique and valuable collection of images, then probably selling through Alamy is the wrong place for you.

Edited by Andrew Spiers
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

When you agree to an Alamy contract you agree to let Alamy set the price.

 

I think photographers setting a minimum price would make Alamy's business unmanageable.  Alamy prices would be all over the map, and it would make some images unavailable to all clients for certain uses. Clients would not like that, and would go elsewhere.

 

Remember some clients may need images cheap for some projects, but be willing to pay much more for other projects.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

it would make some images unavailable to all clients for certain uses. Clients would not like that, and would go elsewhere.

 

 

Well, that does not seem much different to me than other restrictions. You can already choose not to sell to some countries, or to some kind of businesses using Alamy's restrictions fields. So, in fact, images are already unavailable for certain clients or uses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If my experience of human nature is even close to universal, then the second you set a minimum price, that's what everyone will pay . . . no thanks.

 

dd

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

When Alamy sell an image, I wouldn't like to think that any negotiations are compromised by a minimum fee coming into the equation.

 

In this day and age there are some uses that provide reasonable sales such as book covers.

 

Jim.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If my experience of human nature is even close to universal, then the second you set a minimum price, that's what everyone will pay . . . no thanks.

&

dd

Interesting point. That makes sense. Edited by Olivier Parent
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Maybe.

Let's see if it gets some constructive replies here.

 

I see what you mean. I take it back.

 

Paulette

 

No, no, you were probably right. I am quite new to this forum and this may not be the right place for this topic.

And my poor English does not make things easier.

Well, to say the least, my idea does not seem to be very welcomed...

I think it is me that should take it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Minimum prices are a fact already on Alamy.

 

From time to time I see an image where the generic prices

Presentation € 20.00
Website € 35.00 etc.

have a line, I think in red: this image is not available for this price. (Or something like that.)

So there already is a way to set minimum prices.

No, I have no idea how, it probably helps if you're an agency. You may be able to do this with certain restrictions, like this has been done before. Maybe restrict Low res use?

If someone has tried this, could he/she please report?

 

The other way is to opt out of the newspaper deal. Most of these really low prices are for UK newspapers.

Remember that when you opt out, those clients will not see your images any more, as long as they're logged in.

(Disclaimer: I'm opted in in Newspaper and Novel)

 

wim

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an example of minimum pricing applied in list of restrictions: $250.  But this is curated, and very considered work, and the pricing underlines this. 

 

http://www.corbisimages.com/Search#pr=gallery+Stock&p=1

 

The problem for a non-curated collection is that either the minimum price is so low that buyers will think they are in a pound shop, or photographers are priced out of the market.  Or leave it up to individual contribs to set their own pricing and buyers will think they are in a madhouse.

 

Gallery stock are doing it in the right way:  first produce work that has real value, then stick two fingers up to budget buyers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an example of minimum pricing applied in list of restrictions: $250.  But this is curated, and very considered work, and the pricing underlines this. 

 

http://www.corbisimages.com/Search#pr=gallery+Stock&p=1

 

The problem for a non-curated collection is that either the minimum price is so low that buyers will think they are in a pound shop, or photographers are priced out of the market.  Or leave it up to individual contribs to set their own pricing and buyers will think they are in a madhouse.

 

Gallery stock are doing it in the right way:  first produce work that has real value, then stick two fingers up to budget buyers.

 

There's a curated section on Alamy as well. And it's growing every day. Well maybe every month ;-)

 

It's so nice to see that even Corbis in their curated gallery can get their subjects and keywording so wrong:

42-47474648 = Clamp tool - ROTFL- Oh but it looks sooo cool ;-)

On Alamy: micrometer and clamp tool The silly stuff only comes up when you click creative, but even that is not overwhelmingly so as it was when it started. The first micrometer showing under clamp tool is on page 3. And only has it in his/her keywords; not in the caption. Plus it only shows up this high because it is RF.

 

wim

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here is an example of minimum pricing applied in list of restrictions: $250.  But this is curated, and very considered work, and the pricing underlines this. 

 

http://www.corbisimages.com/Search#pr=gallery+Stock&p=1

 

The problem for a non-curated collection is that either the minimum price is so low that buyers will think they are in a pound shop, or photographers are priced out of the market.  Or leave it up to individual contribs to set their own pricing and buyers will think they are in a madhouse.

 

Gallery stock are doing it in the right way:  first produce work that has real value, then stick two fingers up to budget buyers.

 

There's a curated section on Alamy as well. And it's growing every day. Well maybe every month ;-)

 

It's so nice to see that even Corbis in their curated gallery can get their subjects and keywording so wrong:

42-47474648 = Clamp tool - ROTFL- Oh but it looks sooo cool ;-)

On Alamy: micrometer and clamp tool The silly stuff only comes up when you click creative, but even that is not overwhelmingly so as it was when it started. The first micrometer showing under clamp tool is on page 3. And only has it in his/her keywords; not in the caption. Plus it only shows up this high because it is RF.

 

wim

 

 

It's an external agency called Gallery Stock, not a Corbis curated gallery, and will probably be responsible for its own keywording.  Corbis is actually very good on keywording. 

 

In fact most of Corbis is curated, and reflects a diversity of taste:  all contribs have their own editor or CD.  Also, like Getty, they do serious research into trends etc, but are a bit more focussed on authentic photography, rather than just dancing to the market (well, with an IT philanthropist in charge maybe they can afford to do that).  The curated bit of Alamy seems to reflect one individual's taste in art photography, a completely different thing.  

 

Unfortunately low pricing for website use of regular/newsy/even premium content at G/C, curated or not, can be as low as anywhere.  Some specialist and boutique agencies don't bother with that market, but even then, they have little control over what their distributors do.

 

What has happened to authentic photojournalism and editorial photography is pretty terrible, but applying minimum pricing won't fix it: far too little too late.

Edited by Robert Brook
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like the idea of contributors being able to set a minimum price, I don't think it would be realistic given Alamy's huge inventory -- much/most of which never moves -- and the intensely competitive marketplace. It would also turn off some potential buyers, something I'm sure Alamy would not want to do these days. Such a move might also trigger an accounting nightmare (or at least an even bigger one).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that many years ago our absolute minimum Usage Fee was $200.00 per image.  In fact, just a few years further back, we regularly charged a $50 Research Fee (which was deducted from any related Usage Fees) just to put together a submission of images (this was back in the transparency days).  Most all of our clients were happy to pay the $50 Research Fee.  Quite honestly, photographers have shot themselves in the proverbial foot.  When I see sales through Alamy for $10 or $20 or even $50 USD, my stomach churns. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea but... to many of my friends (98%) would set up $1 as min. price and I'm pretty sure that will kill Alamy (and all of us) very soon. We better stay on actual level and trust that Alamy knows what to do for us.

 

On the other hand, I REALLY don't like to sell for less than $20. Just makes me feel awfully bad when it happens to get $6.

Edited by Arletta
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting idea, I am sure we all have specific images, a small percentage of our collections, that we believe have a much higher value that other images in our collections for one reason or another. I like the idea of being able to have a "minimum ceiling" for these images.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea but... to many of my friends (98%) would set up $1 as min. price and I'm pretty sure that will kill Alamy (and all of us) very soon. We better stay on actual level and trust that Alamy knows what to do for us.

 

On the other hand, I REALLY don't like to sell for less than $20. Just makes me feel awfully bad when it happens to get $6.

 

That's an interesting point. Being able to set minimum prices could start an undercutting price war among contributors eager to make any kind of sale at all. We might need a minimum minimum price restriction as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not use such an option for at least 99% of my images. But there are a few images (maybe between 0.1 to 1%) I would not feel comfortable uploading in case they are licensed for a very low price. So, they may never get online. Then, if another contributor has similar images he or she wishes to license whatever the price, I am absolutely fine with that.

  • Upvote 1
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.