Is it time to leave the UK Newspaper Scheme?

[losdemas]

 

"Is it time to leave the UK newspaper scheme?"

 

Yes I think you should ALL leave the newspaper scheme 

 

Pearl

Agreed!

 

Actually, I'll go one step further, it should NEVER existed. It's an insult to ALL hard working photographers!

 

 

I suspect that Pearl's comment was ever-so-slightly tongue in cheek, meaning that if we all left the UK Newspaper Scheme, then there would be less competition for her.

[Cryptoprocta]

It may be a moot point after RF-editorial is introduced.

[Martin Carlsson]

 

I have been so tempted to join the UK newspaper scheme on a number of occasions, just for the benefits of increasing ranking in Alamy. I get brought back down to Earth, however, by the occasional thread such as this. If I were able to keep on top of infringements, then it would be another matter... .

Of course we don't know how the ranking works exactly, but Alamy have stated that the $$$ amount of sales also factors in. So enough small sales could possibly bring down the average and reduce rank?

 

FWIW, I was always opted out until middle of last year and finally decided to give it a go. Not impressed, as others have said it brings far more infringements than $ in my pocket. Yes, also gives more chances to chase, but I already have plenty more infringement cases than I'd like... and online infringements generally don't pay well anyway. So, opting out again. Also, worth noting is that even when opted out of newspaper scheme I had sales to UK (online) papers, and prices were (at least slightly) better.

 

-Jason

 

 

Hi Jason,

 

Do you have a link to back this up (that $ amount would matter) or recall where it came from? I would find it a bit ironic both either reward or punish us for something that is in the hands of Alamy (discounts, price negotiations), not us.

 

Don't ever remember having seen/heard Alamy say that the $ amount mattered when it came to ranking. My back of the head summary would be zooms and sales (number of sales, as well as frequency), specialisation benefit and with a bit of diversity thrown in.

 

Thanks!

Martin

[Pearl]

 

 

I have been so tempted to join the UK newspaper scheme on a number of occasions, just for the benefits of increasing ranking in Alamy. I get brought back down to Earth, however, by the occasional thread such as this. If I were able to keep on top of infringements, then it would be another matter... .

Of course we don't know how the ranking works exactly, but Alamy have stated that the $$$ amount of sales also factors in. So enough small sales could possibly bring down the average and reduce rank?

 

FWIW, I was always opted out until middle of last year and finally decided to give it a go. Not impressed, as others have said it brings far more infringements than $ in my pocket. Yes, also gives more chances to chase, but I already have plenty more infringement cases than I'd like... and online infringements generally don't pay well anyway. So, opting out again. Also, worth noting is that even when opted out of newspaper scheme I had sales to UK (online) papers, and prices were (at least slightly) better.

 

-Jason

 

 

Hi Jason,

 

Do you have a link to back this up (that $ amount would matter) or recall where it came from? I would find it a bit ironic both either reward or punish us for something that is in the hands of Alamy (discounts, price negotiations), not us.

 

Don't ever remember having seen/heard Alamy say that the $ amount mattered when it came to ranking. My back of the head summary would be zooms and sales (number of sales, as well as frequency), specialisation benefit and with a bit of diversity thrown in.

 

Thanks!

Martin

 

 

Martin, I have been told by Alamy that average sale price also counts towards ranking and that was from someone at a higher level than MS.  

 

Pearl

[Matt Ashmore]

Martin, I have been told by Alamy that average sale price also counts towards ranking and that was from someone at a higher level than MS.  

 

Pearl

 

 

So someone who sells 100 images at $5 each will have a lower ranking than someone who sells one image for $200 ?

I would like to think that total sales value would outweigh average price.

[Pearl]

 

Martin, I have been told by Alamy that average sale price also counts towards ranking and that was from someone at a higher level than MS.  

 

Pearl

 

 

So someone who sells 100 images at $5 each will have a lower ranking than someone who sells one image for $200 ?

I would like to think that total sales value would outweigh average price.

 

 

I don't know how it is weighted, I am just telling you that average sale price is one of the factors used to calculate rank.  It is not totally unreasonable for Alamy to reward those who get big sales e.g if a person sells 100 images at $500 each they should be ranked higher than someone who sells 100 images at $5 each IMO.

 

Pearl

[Reciprocity Images]

Hi Jason,

 

Do you have a link to back this up (that $ amount would matter) or recall where it came from? I would find it a bit ironic both either reward or punish us for something that is in the hands of Alamy (discounts, price negotiations), not us.

 

Don't ever remember having seen/heard Alamy say that the $ amount mattered when it came to ranking. My back of the head summary would be zooms and sales (number of sales, as well as frequency), specialisation benefit and with a bit of diversity thrown in.

 

Thanks!

Martin

Hi Martin,

 

Unfortunately I can't find anything directly from Alamy at the moment, and no I can not be 100% sure that is the case. However, I do seem to remember hearing it from Alamy at some point in the past and a few other members of the forums have also mentioned it at various times. A quick search through old threads found a few clues, but nothing definitive... Would of course be nice to have confirmation one way or another from Alamy!

 

I do think it is entirely possible and even extremely probable that sales price does factor in (eg. a sale for $10 vs. one for $1,000 should be weighted differently). As others have mentioned however, we have no way of knowing the exact ratio or weighting of the individual factors – sales price, number of sales, and CTR. The whole intent of the Alamy ranking system would be to put the images that consistently sell, and even better: those that sell for higher prices, in front of buyers. Yes, Alamy have a hand in this to some degree (as you mentioned with discounts, etc) but that is equalized for all contributors – What you can influence is the subject matter and quality of the images you shoot and submit. And there are certainly images that will either sell for higher prices to certain markets, or images that will sell consistently (volume). Those are the ones that (in theory!) will earn you a higher rank and more importantly, put more money in your pocket (No matter how the numbers are crunched behind the scenes).

 

Whether it's better 10 sales for $100, or 2 for $200 we can't be sure. I think it's just best to decide for yourself if those low-prices sales will help or hurt your bottom line and go from there. May depend on the type(s) of imagery you submit: If you opt into the low price schemes and the volume off-sets the low pricing it may be worth it. However, if you are getting only low-priced sales without the volume, and/or without any bigger sales to bring up the average, then it would seem to make sense that it could have an adverse effect on rank. 

 

-Jason

[Keith Douglas]

From my own experience, I'm pretty certain that sales in $ plays a big part in determining the rank of each portfolio. It would make sense to me if the sales element was based on average $ sales per image in that portfolio rather than average $ per sale or just total $. This would certainly be consistent with what I've seen happen with my own ranking over the last couple of years.