dustydingo Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 . . . sub- distributors are also competitors) . . . as are all contributors to this forum. So, iwould you all please follow the advice of those who advocate opting out of the distributor scheme and leave ALL distributor sales and their sometimes piddling fees to me . . . Much obliged . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Most of my earnings come from distribution. Nowadays it's only way to earn money commensurate with work done. The problem here is that serious distributors don't want to take on vast quantities of unedited material. That means no GI or CI, no other big commercial agencies, no leading specialists (some of whom can get very good editorial fees - see my post above) and few top regional agencies. The remainder might be working their socks off, but are probably too disadvantaged to have much impact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Most of my earnings come from distribution. Nowadays it's only way to earn money commensurate with work done. The problem here is that serious distributors don't want to take on vast quantities of unedited material. That means no GI or CI, no other big commercial agencies, no leading specialists (some of whom can get very good editorial fees - see my post above) and few top regional agencies. The remainder might be working their socks off, but are probably too disadvantaged to have much impact Very much my experience. IME, it's all about distribution if you want to make serious money. The best aggregators not only get your work on the best agencies but also in top placements which is very important. As to what costs the distributors have...the same costs that any business has and those costs increase if they sell your imagery..... staff to process the sales, invoicing, accounting costs...... and those are only the start. I doubt most owrk out of spare bedrooms so office space to cover plus all those pesky costs which don't get subsidized by many photographers. Quite happy to see people opt out of distribution......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Quite happy to see people opt out of distribution......... Hey, get back in the queue . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 The problem here is that serious distributors don't want to take on vast quantities of unedited material. If indeed distributors do "do all the work," wouldn't that include editing work supplied by other agencies such as Alamy -- i.e. they can choose what they want and delete the rest? They don't necessarily have to take on vast quantities of stuff that they don't want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 The problem here is that serious distributors don't want to take on vast quantities of unedited material. If indeed distributors do "do all the work," wouldn't that include editing work supplied by other agencies such as Alamy -- i.e. they can choose what they want and delete the rest? They don't necessarily have to take on vast quantities of stuff that they don't want. Very likely because they earn more by editing direct submissions. Some distributors do edit, but only if they know in advance that the work has value, and has some kind of identity or 'brand'. Corbis, for example, are picky. On the other hand, for a small, or under-resourced company, sifting through millions of images can only be the stuff of nightmare. Alamy tried it once with their 'best of'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I withdrew from distribution quite some time ago now, I didn't think that 70% of my efforts being spirited away was a good deal. Even back then I felt that two agents were sharing the load of one and were due no more than a combined 50%. I withdrew from this when I had a full time job so I feel Manway was wrong here. But sure, Alamy's choice of phrase could have been better, without photographers, agents and distributors are nothing. I hear you, Dougie, but I'd lose about 20% of my sales if I opted out, which is significant, even with the low prices. It would, however, be instructive to know exactly why distributors deserve a bigger cut than both Alamy and the photographer. It is a bit tough to swallow. I suppose the 40% slice does attract new distributors into the network, still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabbro Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Correct me if I am wrong here, but I remembered the distributor cut has always been 40%. It was Alamy increased their cut from 20% to 30% to fund the office in Germany, and stayed on 30% even after Germany office is well established. Same as the 10% cut in direct sales. None of us like the paltry license fees from Russian Federations, India and Czech Republic. But the concept of PAYing for using a photograph is somewhat novel in these places.So I am glad they are PAYing something other than downloading for nothing. Aside from occasional distributor sales with reasonable prices, I found it is much easier to swallow than, say the UK Newspaper scheme, which you know you are screwed in the get go. Yet people still opt in... What can I say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Correct me if I am wrong here, but I remembered the distributor cut has always been 40%. It was Alamy increased their cut from 20% to 30% to fund the office in Germany, and stayed on 30% even after Germany office is well established. Same as the 10% cut in direct sales. None of us like the paltry license fees from Russian Federations, India and Czech Republic. But the concept of PAYing for using a photograph is somewhat novel in these places.So I am glad they are PAYing something other than downloading for nothing. Aside from occasional distributor sales with reasonable prices, I found it is much easier to swallow than, say the UK Newspaper scheme, which you know you are screwed in the get go. Yet people still opt in... What can I say? Worse, Alamy used to take 15% on distribution sales....... third parties have been at 40% since I blew in, in 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 It is a spectacularly stupid statement - of the three parties involved, the final agent is the one who does the least work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 This is starting to sound like a game of blackjack. It looks as if the distributors might have become the dealers, though, rather than the suppliers. I'm not a card player, but isn't there a saying "the dealer takes all"? Hope it doesn't eventually come to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alamy Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 We were of course referring to the work the distributor does in sourcing the customer, processing the sale, billing and collecting funds etc. We've recorded the feedback on the wording of the info for this one though - we're sorry to those of you have taken it in a way that wasn't intended on our part. Many thanks Alamy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.