njene Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Don't worry, Donald Trump says that he's going to make stock photography "great" again. YAY Trump!! He will make stock YOOOOGE again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Put simply, the impact of digital technology and Microstock has decimated the value of much published imagery in recent years. However, I'm blowed if I'm going to drill more holes in the bottom of the stricken stock photography ship by subscribing to the view that it doesn't matter if you go micro and sell images for a few cents as long as you get loads of sales. I think it does matter because selling photos for cents accelerates the perceived devaluation of the photographer's skill, as well as the ability to invest in time and equipment. The time seems not too far away when there will be no professional photographers to undertake politically and practically challenging projects, because the images they sell no longer command enough income to fund them. In a similar way there will be no professional investigative journalists to hold politicians and all-powerful business to account, because quality newspapers are dying and nobody is prepared to pay for real journalism when the internet makes everything apparently 'free'. I don't think it is a brave new world we are entering and I want to resist the transition as best I can. I learned how to be a stock photographer on microstock, but I now regret being part of the beast I participated in creating. I still have an archive of images on microstock, but I will not feed that beast by giving it more fodder. I'm a small voice, but I will not subscribe to defeat. Very well said! Personally, with the massive drop in prices - thanks to those microstockers - I don't travel overseas anymore, I don't bother to do time consuming projects anymore (like sitting days on end in a tiny hide waiting for a rare animal to appear). I used to shoot for an editor of childrens' magazines. Was well paid till microstock popped up and then the sales stopped because they paid $1 per image instead of $100. I dropped my prices by 50% but while I used to have lots of sales per month, I only got a few per year, only for local subjects they didn't find on microstock sites. Last I've heard from them, they offered me $15 for a shot of a newborn elephant in the Antwerp zoo. I kindly told them to buy a camera and shoot it themselves, because $15 doesn't even pay for the entrance fee........ The photography job isn't respected anymore since microstock appeared. That editors don't bother to credit pictures with the photographers' names speaks volumes. B.t.w. quite funny that people who support microstock - thus support ruining the photography business - now come here ......... and complain they don't have any decent sales. Yeah well, like kids who break their toys first and then wonder why it ...... Cheers, Philippe Going to play devil's advocate here You can't blame the microstockers. Many are those that love photography and want to find a place to sell what they take as opposed to just leaving it on the hard drive. And they have every right to do so. Wildlife photographers are probably the hardest hit in this area. Think of the many many people who take safaris, head out on game drives every day in East Africa. That's thousands of easily processed digital images floating around of lions, zebras, cheetahs, hippos, etc. The list is endless. We used to be in awe of those amazing images we would find in National Geographic and applaud the time, money and expertise spent by these photographers to capture and process these images. It is now so easy that anyone can produce a decent image with the great cameras, lenses and just using the automated features in Photoshop and Lightroom. Technology has changed many professions. Henry Ford pretty much put the horse dealer out of business. Such is progress. But for every profession that gets hit hard, another profession will crop up. Photography is a profession that is fading as a main income source. It is a fact of the digital age. No individuals are to blame. You can't stop the train from racing down the tracks. There will probably always be a demand for that super image, but they will be few and far between. We as Alamy contributors, are taking away the jobs from staff photographers, yet we don't stop submitting to Alamy Live News. We want the money just as much as they do and we have every right to chase it. Internet technology has created a boom in the home business, where people such as I can compete with the large companies on an even keel. Growth in that area is phenomenal. Where there is a downside in one area (such as photography) there is an increase in another - the small home based business which photography has become as well. Jill Sorry, but I have to disagree completely. "You can't blame the microstockers. Many are those that love photography and want to find a place to sell what they take as opposed to just leaving it on the hard drive" You use the word "selling". Do you really dare to use the word "selling" when all you get is the price of a chewing gum or what you have to pay to take a leak in a public restroom ....???? What are we? Toddlers you have to reward with a lollipop? "It is now so easy that anyone can produce a decent image with the great cameras, lenses and just using the automated features in Photoshop and Lightroom." No, it isn't! See all the dross in Alamy's archive. Technology has changed many professions. Henry Ford pretty much put the horse dealer out of business. Such is progress. Photography isn't replaced by something else. The problem is that microstockers work ridiculously UNDER the price. I don't call that progress. I call it unfair competition. Working for 1/100th of the price is something to be really proud off. Hell, I bet you even would find idiots who would PAY to see their work published. Photography is a profession that is fading as a main income source. It is a fact of the digital age. No individuals are to blame. Sure, individuals are to blame. I have the word "NO" in my dictionary. When I get an insulting offer, I say NO. We as Alamy contributors, are taking away the jobs from staff photographers, yet we don't stop submitting to Alamy Live News. We want the money just as much as they do and we have every right to chase it. No, we don't, because we simply haven't got access to most happenings. Who is allowed to shoot along the field at soccer matches? Who is allowed to shoot at political meetings? Who is allowed to cover war zones? ..... I'm not! Fact is, microstockers don't sell because their pictures are so damn good. Their pictures sell like hotcakes because they are GIVEN AWAY ! Cheers, Philippe We as Alamy contributors, are taking away the jobs from staff photographers, yet we don't stop submitting to Alamy Live News. We want the money just as much as they do and we have every right to chase it. No, we don't, because we simply haven't got access to most happenings. Who is allowed to shoot along the field at soccer matches? Who is allowed to shoot at political meetings? Who is allowed to cover war zones? ..... I'm not! Sporting events are probably the one area that are still protected. But fans can even get some decent shots if they are close to the action. But many hard news stories are covered in Alamy News, and the other stock agencies. How many of the news items in the British Press are now supplied by freelancers? How often have we heard of staff photogs being laid off? But just looking at a photo from the Toronto Star of the Toronto Blue Jays baseball game yesterday, they now use Canadian Press photos and no longer send a staffer. I used to work for a Toronto Daily, and you would always have a sports staff photographer or two. I think to say that freelancers aren't affecting the lack of staff photographers in newspapers is burying our heads in the sand. Newspapers themselves are struggling to compete in the digital age. Online income from advertisers is nowhere near the income from print. Yet they still need a physical and online edition to survive. Cut pricing to newspapers is also seen on Alamy as well as images they buy from Microstock. Magazines are having a harder time surviving as well. "It is now so easy that anyone can produce a decent image with the great cameras, lenses and just using the automated features in Photoshop and Lightroom." No, it isn't! See all the dross in Alamy's archive. Yes there is a lot of dross, and some of it is mine. Yet an image I never would upload now sold text book for $180. Dark and muddy. One of my first submissions. But it did capture good human expression on a carnival ride. With the ease of post-processing, I am sure they managed to clean it up quite nicely, especially since it wasn't going to be a huge image, which is where most images purchased here will end up, as smaller images in papers and magazines and digital editions. So it doesn't even have to be a decent image. And for most purposes, buyers just aren't looking for that super lit, well compositioned image. A good one will do. And there are a lot of good images on microstock. Technology has changed many professions. Henry Ford pretty much put the horse dealer out of business. Such is progress. Photography isn't replaced by something else. The problem is that microstockers work ridiculously UNDER the price. I don't call that progress. I call it unfair competition. Working for 1/100th of the price is something to be really proud off. Hell, I bet you even would find idiots who would PAY to see their work published. Photography isn't being replaced, but the hard work to produce it has. The simple fact that there are millions of images out there employs the simple adage of supply and demand. The supply exceeds the demand. And when that happens, prices fall. It happens in all industries. And yes, there are many people who don't make their living doing photography and just want to put it out there. That too is a fact we can't get away from.. I manufacture horse and dog equipment. That is my bread and butter. It pays the mortgage, puts food on my table. Yet I go to shows and event where people make the same product as me and sell it for half the price because they don't count the time it take them to make the product. When I ask them, they say, "Well, I do this in my spare time as I enjoy sewing and sew a lot of it while I watch TV". This impacts my business where I make a living doing mine. But they aren't going away, and I have to accept they will always be there. Trying to tell them that they are affecting those that need it to make a living doesn't jar them one bit. Photography is a profession that is fading as a main income source. It is a fact of the digital age. No individuals are to blame. Sure, individuals are to blame. I have the word "NO" in my dictionary. When I get an insulting offer, I say NO. I say no individuals are to blame as they really don't care. They don't read forums, they make their living elsewhere. It isn't an important issue to them, same as the people I deal with at shows. You as a photographer trying to make a living see it as an issue, the other guys don't. I think it is maybe time for the agencies (not the contributors) to start culling their collections and keeping the available images down to a respectable level. Although it is nice Alamy doesn't filter for content, maybe its time they did. Of course that would affect commissions so there again we would lower prices. Maybe its time to remove images from contributors who haven't uploaded in a year or more. Same with the Microstock agencies. Keep the content tight and quality and you can get more money. But there will always be a new one coming along willing to take anything. It's an uphill battle and the hill will just keep getting steeper. Just my two cents. I am one of the people who take safaris and have vast numbers of images of wildlife. I cannot really compete with the likes of Joel Sartore (he is here too) but I try to only upload good images and I do not submit to microstock. Good, clear photos of animal behavior are still needed for books and magazines. Ooops maybe I am giving my competition a useful piece of information. Paulette And you have a great tight collection Paullette. But can you make a lving from it? Do you not think the number of wildlife images available is almost overwhelming? Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Indeed I don't expect to make a living and you can tell that by how small my collection is. I just don't think I have to go the microstock route and I don't think I need to neglect quality and selectiveness. The money I do make is greatly appreciated and I like to value my own work. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Don't worry, Donald Trump says that he's going to make stock photography "great" again. YAY Trump!! He will make stock YOOOOGE again! It's gonna be tremendous. Tremendous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Indeed I don't expect to make a living and you can tell that by how small my collection is. I just don't think I have to go the microstock route and I don't think I need to neglect quality and selectiveness. The money I do make is greatly appreciated and I like to value my own work. Paulette I too Paulette value my work and time and don't sell on microstock. Well, I do have 21 of my mediocre Africa images and some from the zoo. Wouldn't cut it here and at the rate they sell, it will be about 25 years before I make my $75. When something is important you to you, it doesn't mean it is important to others. Our priority isn't other peoples' priorities. As much as we want to drum it into their heads, they don't care. It isn't relevant to their lives. I have learned acceptance of that I cannot change and to come up with the ideas others can't do cheaply. It isn't easy either in my actual profession or in photography. The saturation and therefore the devaluation of images can only be changed by the agencies we deal with. And as they are busy undercutting each other, I don't see that changing any time soon. Capitalism at its best. Reminds of people who want higher minimum wages but shop at Walmart because the prices are lover. The cause and effect don't register. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Indeed I don't expect to make a living and you can tell that by how small my collection is. I just don't think I have to go the microstock route and I don't think I need to neglect quality and selectiveness. The money I do make is greatly appreciated and I like to value my own work. Paulette I too Paulette value my work and time and don't sell on microstock. Well, I do have 21 of my mediocre Africa images and some from the zoo. Wouldn't cut it here and at the rate they sell, it will be about 25 years before I make my $75. When something is important you to you, it doesn't mean it is important to others. Our priority isn't other peoples' priorities. As much as we want to drum it into their heads, they don't care. It isn't relevant to their lives. I have learned acceptance of that I cannot change and to come up with the ideas others can't do cheaply. It isn't easy either in my actual profession or in photography. The saturation and therefore the devaluation of images can only be changed by the agencies we deal with. And as they are busy undercutting each other, I don't see that changing any time soon. Capitalism at its best. Reminds of people who want higher minimum wages but shop at Walmart because the prices are lover. The cause and effect don't register. Jill ... or tree-huggers (like me) who won't spend a little extra to buy recycled paper products. Guess you meant "lower" rather than "lover" (Freudian slip). Personally, I don't think that anything will or can stop the continuing $ devaluation of images. As supply continues to balloon, even those subjects still in high demand will fetch lower and lower prices. Don't mean to sound depressing, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 I find it ironic that most of the concern about the state of the stock photography business rests with amateur and semi professional photographers concerned with the influx of amateur and semi professional photographers ruining the photography business. We have seen the enemy, and it is us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 I find it ironic that most of the concern about the state of the stock photography business rests with amateur and semi professional photographers concerned with the influx of amateur and semi professional photographers ruining the photography business. We have seen the enemy, and it is us. Not me! I have pretty much stopped submitting to any stock channel. I just use my pictures as part of my own illustrated articles. I am trying to develop a niche field and client group that I can service directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian58 Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 If money is the most important, youre main goal. This is the wrong avenue, wrong place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 I find it ironic that most of the concern about the state of the stock photography business rests with amateur and semi professional photographers concerned with the influx of amateur and semi professional photographers ruining the photography business. We have seen the enemy, and it is us. Even more ironic is the fact that despite all the upheavals and increasing competition, many of us license considerably more images every year than we did in pre-internet, pre-digital days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian58 Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Blaming microstock??? HA!! well thats a laugh if ever there was one. some 50% here are also microstockers, Alamy enlists microstockers via the MSG!......... sitting around in a trad-agency today waiting for the odd. 50 bucks sale is as entertaining as watching paint dry. If I told you some of the names behind the pseudos in two of the major micro-stock agencies, I bet many here would go to the local and get well pissed. Besides the word "micro" is old and outdated, the major ones sell as much credit-sales and enhanced-licenses as any of the trad agencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 I find it ironic that most of the concern about the state of the stock photography business rests with amateur and semi professional photographers concerned with the influx of amateur and semi professional photographers ruining the photography business. We have seen the enemy, and it is us. There were already more and more amateur and semi-professionals BEFORE microstock popped up. That competition was due to the appearance of the digital cameras. Amateurs didn't ruin the stock photography business because they could hardly get a foot in the door at the specialist agencies which all paid decent sums. Again, microstock with their credits and subscriptions ruined the market by working ridiculously under the price. And like the piped piper of Hamelin, they lured at first all those amateurs who didn't care what they were paid as long as they were published Cheers, Philippe Microstock is a symptom of the disease, it's not the cause. Returns fell significantly after the credit crunch, not after the start of micro which was years previous. Simple reason, the web and ease of publication has increased massively the number of places where you can place adverts... the cash generator for publishers has had severe strains put on it without a corresponding increase in revenues from advertisers. It's not rocket science to see why costs needed to be cut - hence undercutting by the trad agencies (that goes back a long time ago IME) and eventually the greater use of micro and recycled articles/adertorials in many outlets. You add in the web so that international photographers can compete for international sales and you pile more pressure on lowering the price points. Then you have the real problem.... it's very evident at Alamy and at micros...people working (well working is really the wrong word) for no returns, i.e. they are subsizing their production. That's got nothing to do with the price points, it's about the ROI.... sales prices are for the ego these days (if you are in business). And as Christian said, many sales over on the dark side are for prices which often exceeed the ones commonly seen here. Saying that it's about price point only is silly, it shows you haven't really looked or understood a swathe of the market. One reason Alamy wants more microstockers is they are often switched on to higher value production.......not just searching for easy to snap shots. One well known one hiring part of an airport terminal..... Like Christian, I am quite happy to have work at micros and also have work at the top commercial agencies - I stated in stock in the 1980s - that was when a lot of nature photographers started complaining about rich amateurs spoiling the business...... nothing changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MircoV Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Again. There is nothing to be afraid of. I still dont understand why many just stop by saying micro sell for lower revenue. Yes but dont forget the VOLUME what makes it not only up but also surpasses traditional agencies in revenue per image in most cases. Important is for me the revenue per image per year. I dont mind if it is sold 200 times of 1 dollar or 4 times for 50 dollars. End result is the same. But practice says that it more like this..... micro 200 sales for 1 dollar versus 1 sale for 20 dollars. I prefer the micro option. 200 dollars in the pocket. Should i stop submitting to micros and loose those 200 dollars just because one sale is 1 dollar? I would be mad to do that. Alamy is doing the right move. Just like for example an other agency did from Spain. They add a microstock collection just to stay in track. Its not anymore about wich agencies are giving most per sale but it is all about wich agency gives most per month. Off course it is only a speculation of me but the reason that Alamy is that succesfull is because they easy adapt i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Again. There is nothing to be afraid of. I still dont understand why many just stop by saying micro sell for lower revenue. Yes but dont forget the VOLUME what makes it not only up but also surpasses traditional agencies in revenue per image in most cases. Important is for me the revenue per image per year. I dont mind if it is sold 200 times of 1 dollar or 4 times for 50 dollars. End result is the same. But practice says that it more like this..... micro 200 sales for 1 dollar versus 1 sale for 20 dollars. I prefer the micro option. 200 dollars in the pocket. Should i stop submitting to micros and loose those 200 dollars just because one sale is 1 dollar? I would be mad to do that. Alamy is doing the right move. Just like for example an other agency did from Spain. They add a microstock collection just to stay in track. Its not anymore about wich agencies are giving most per sale but it is all about wich agency gives most per month. Off course it is only a speculation of me but the reason that Alamy is that succesfull is because they easy adapt i think. I hear what you're saying, but for myself and many others it isn't about the money. I don't have enough of an income (anything like it) with my relatively tiny portfolio, so the amount I earn isn't too important. Photography is my passion and I know I'm good at it, and that means something because I'm not good at many things and am not known to boast about the few things I am good at. So I take pride in my photography, and know I deserve to sell each image for a decent sum. I'd rather sell 1 for £100 than 500 for £1 each. I think we all understand both points, and it's just a matter of opinion which we agree with. Nobody's opinion or way of thinking is wrong, it's just what's most important to the individual. Photography for me, at present, is my passion rather than my income, and selling any image I work hard at for a few pence just doesn't sit right with me. Geoff. + 500,000 Cheers, Philippe i fully concur and add the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Again. There is nothing to be afraid of. I still dont understand why many just stop by saying micro sell for lower revenue. Yes but dont forget the VOLUME what makes it not only up but also surpasses traditional agencies in revenue per image in most cases. Important is for me the revenue per image per year. I dont mind if it is sold 200 times of 1 dollar or 4 times for 50 dollars. End result is the same. But practice says that it more like this..... micro 200 sales for 1 dollar versus 1 sale for 20 dollars. I prefer the micro option. 200 dollars in the pocket. Should i stop submitting to micros and loose those 200 dollars just because one sale is 1 dollar? I would be mad to do that. Alamy is doing the right move. Just like for example an other agency did from Spain. They add a microstock collection just to stay in track. Its not anymore about wich agencies are giving most per sale but it is all about wich agency gives most per month. Off course it is only a speculation of me but the reason that Alamy is that succesfull is because they easy adapt i think. I hear what you're saying, but for myself and many others it isn't about the money. I don't have enough of an income (anything like it) with my relatively tiny portfolio, so the amount I earn isn't too important. Photography is my passion and I know I'm good at it, and that means something because I'm not good at many things and am not known to boast about the few things I am good at. So I take pride in my photography, and know I deserve to sell each image for a decent sum. I'd rather sell 1 for £100 than 500 for £1 each. I think we all understand both points, and it's just a matter of opinion which we agree with. Nobody's opinion or way of thinking is wrong, it's just what's most important to the individual. Photography for me, at present, is my passion rather than my income, and selling any image I work hard at for a few pence just doesn't sit right with me. Geoff. + 500,000 Cheers, Philippe i fully concur and add the same Me too. Which came first, the symptom or the disease, the chicken or the egg? Doesn't really matter at this point IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MircoV Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I understand finally what your point is. I am quit stuborn. I respect your thinking and it makes if course fully sense to me. It is about what is important for you. Also i guess it is because of the images we are making. I am honoust....Your images are more the quality type thats whats explains that you add much more value on it and rather would not like to sell them for 1000 times. I hope i understand your point now... Please confirm . I have more occassional images where i dont add much value to like you do and therefore want to take out the max from it... I also do other photography... So dont think i dont love it. I do.. But they are mixed between the generic ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrumu Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Again. There is nothing to be afraid of. I still dont understand why many just stop by saying micro sell for lower revenue. Yes but dont forget the VOLUME what makes it not only up but also surpasses traditional agencies in revenue per image in most cases. Important is for me the revenue per image per year. I dont mind if it is sold 200 times of 1 dollar or 4 times for 50 dollars. End result is the same. But practice says that it more like this..... micro 200 sales for 1 dollar versus 1 sale for 20 dollars. I prefer the micro option. 200 dollars in the pocket. Should i stop submitting to micros and loose those 200 dollars just because one sale is 1 dollar? I would be mad to do that. Alamy is doing the right move. Just like for example an other agency did from Spain. They add a microstock collection just to stay in track. Its not anymore about wich agencies are giving most per sale but it is all about wich agency gives most per month. Off course it is only a speculation of me but the reason that Alamy is that succesfull is because they easy adapt i think. Ok, but let's assume there were no microstock, i.e. that picture of yours which sells 200 times for 1 dollar is not available for 1 dollar, but only for a higher price at a traditional agency. Don't you think that quite a few of the 200 potential buyers would be ready to pay a higher price if the picture was not available for 1 dollar? Christoph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Again. There is nothing to be afraid of. I still dont understand why many just stop by saying micro sell for lower revenue. Yes but dont forget the VOLUME what makes it not only up but also surpasses traditional agencies in revenue per image in most cases. Important is for me the revenue per image per year. I dont mind if it is sold 200 times of 1 dollar or 4 times for 50 dollars. End result is the same. But practice says that it more like this..... micro 200 sales for 1 dollar versus 1 sale for 20 dollars. I prefer the micro option. 200 dollars in the pocket. Should i stop submitting to micros and loose those 200 dollars just because one sale is 1 dollar? I would be mad to do that. Alamy is doing the right move. Just like for example an other agency did from Spain. They add a microstock collection just to stay in track. Its not anymore about wich agencies are giving most per sale but it is all about wich agency gives most per month. Off course it is only a speculation of me but the reason that Alamy is that succesfull is because they easy adapt i think. I hear what you're saying, but for myself and many others it isn't about the money. I don't have enough of an income (anything like it) with my relatively tiny portfolio, so the amount I earn isn't too important. Photography is my passion and I know I'm good at it, and that means something because I'm not good at many things and am not known to boast about the few things I am good at. So I take pride in my photography, and know I deserve to sell each image for a decent sum. I'd rather sell 1 for £100 than 500 for £1 each. I think we all understand both points, and it's just a matter of opinion which we agree with. Nobody's opinion or way of thinking is wrong, it's just what's most important to the individual. Photography for me, at present, is my passion rather than my income, and selling any image I work hard at for a few pence just doesn't sit right with me. Geoff. But don't you see the irony in wanting to sell images at higher prices whilst at the same time not making a case for stock to be treated like a business. Stock is morphing, at many agencies, into a camera club with benefits.... that suits those agencies but leaves the whole industry without one side of the economic argument regarding price points/ROI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Again. There is nothing to be afraid of. I still dont understand why many just stop by saying micro sell for lower revenue. Yes but dont forget the VOLUME what makes it not only up but also surpasses traditional agencies in revenue per image in most cases. Important is for me the revenue per image per year. I dont mind if it is sold 200 times of 1 dollar or 4 times for 50 dollars. End result is the same. But practice says that it more like this..... micro 200 sales for 1 dollar versus 1 sale for 20 dollars. I prefer the micro option. 200 dollars in the pocket. Should i stop submitting to micros and loose those 200 dollars just because one sale is 1 dollar? I would be mad to do that. Alamy is doing the right move. Just like for example an other agency did from Spain. They add a microstock collection just to stay in track. Its not anymore about wich agencies are giving most per sale but it is all about wich agency gives most per month. Off course it is only a speculation of me but the reason that Alamy is that succesfull is because they easy adapt i think. I hear what you're saying, but for myself and many others it isn't about the money. I don't have enough of an income (anything like it) with my relatively tiny portfolio, so the amount I earn isn't too important. Photography is my passion and I know I'm good at it, and that means something because I'm not good at many things and am not known to boast about the few things I am good at. So I take pride in my photography, and know I deserve to sell each image for a decent sum. I'd rather sell 1 for £100 than 500 for £1 each. I think we all understand both points, and it's just a matter of opinion which we agree with. Nobody's opinion or way of thinking is wrong, it's just what's most important to the individual. Photography for me, at present, is my passion rather than my income, and selling any image I work hard at for a few pence just doesn't sit right with me. Geoff. But don't you see the irony in wanting to sell images at higher prices whilst at the same time not making a case for stock to be treated like a business. Stock is morphing, at many agencies, into a camera club with benefits.... that suits those agencies but leaves the whole industry without one side of the economic argument regarding price points/ROI. Morphing into "a camera club with benefits." I like that. Great description and very true. I'm not as experienced a stock photographer as you, but during the 90's when I started selling my images as stock (i was combining writing and photography back then), things were a lot more businesslike and less hyped up. Part of this change, I think, can be blamed on the rise of social media and the growing mania for "contests" (cooking, singing, dancing, etc.) in general -- e.g. there is a certain image request service where sales are "awarded" to participants. P.S. I'm of course not criticizing the forum's monthly picture challenge thread, which is always fun and very instructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian58 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Look! ten years back and more it was quite easy to make a good living with a good portfolio in the old traditional agencies, RM only at that time. Five-figure sales reports were a common monthly revenue, I'm sure Geoff agrees. Things change and today the RM trad-agencies have lost its clout, lots its power, they simply can not keep up with these new whizz-kids. Also they came in too late for the action, laughing and shrugging their shoulders when Oringer and Livingstone launched their new born micros. Well look at it now. I would say, its completely impossible to survive as a stock-photographer unless you stick your fingers in every pot, micro, RM, RF, you name it. You have to spread out as much as possible, explore every avenue, every corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobro Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share Posted June 2, 2016 MircoV has 21,444. I will need another lifetime to achieve that amount. Lobro: go to "my alamy", scroll down to "Alamy measures" then click on "all of alamy". You will find a spreadsheet. Set the range of dates to one year (Like 28 May 2015- 27 May 2016) then type in a search term that is present in a subset of your images. For instance I have one or two pictures of Copacabana beach in Rio de Janeiro in my port. When I type Copacabana in the search term, the query returns four pages of search terms customers used in the last year in combination with Copacabana. I also see that, of all those searchers, there were a total of only 6 sales of Copacabana images. I have done that for a number of search terms I have RM images for, and have found that most subjects I have photographed have not been much searched for and don't seem to generate sales. This has helped me answer the no sales on Alamy question I have asked myself. I don't necessarily believe that one needs more images to sell, one needs images that customers want to buy, and it could be just a handful of images. Obviously if you have many images customers want, you will sell more, but 1,000 images of a subject/place no one cares about (for instance in my port I have pictures of Itaipava, Petropolis, who cares) will not help you to sell more. Oh, many thanks for this tip, I did not know about this option. I wish you lots of sales! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biel Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 the market is overloaded with near free pics so your's pics need to be unique or, near all the others=near nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexandre Fagundes Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 I don't necessarily believe that one needs more images to sell, one needs images that customers want to buy, and it could be just a handful of images. Obviously if you have many images customers want, you will sell more, but 1,000 images of a subject/place no one cares about (for instance in my port I have pictures of Itaipava, Petropolis, who cares) will not help you to sell more. Hi AlessandraRC, I am a newbie here at Alamy, have been selling my images since 2005 in a microstock agency. I have pretty good sales of brazilian images there, so, IMO there is a lot of people looking for brazilian images. If the number of searches for brazilian images here is small than what is missing is a stronger marketing effort of Alamy in Brazil. I live in Sao Paulo, Brazil, BTW. Everyday I take an elevator in my office building where I see advertising of another Stock Agency who is advertising in many places here in Sao Paulo. I have spoken with an employee of this agency and they told me that they sell very well brazilian images, in fact, she said I should focus on that if I would work with them (which I didnt, at least for now). I am not suggesting you move to any of those two agencies, but I am suggesting that Alamy should have a more agressive marketing approach if they want us to keep our images here to sell. Of course, you dont need to wait for Alamy to do all the effort and should promote your images yourself, using social media for instance linking to your images. Let me know your thoughts about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Yates Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 I don't necessarily believe that one needs more images to sell, one needs images that customers want to buy, and it could be just a handful of images. Obviously if you have many images customers want, you will sell more, but 1,000 images of a subject/place no one cares about (for instance in my port I have pictures of Itaipava, Petropolis, who cares) will not help you to sell more. Hi AlessandraRC, I am a newbie here at Alamy, have been selling my images since 2005 in Dreamstime, a microstock agency. I have pretty good sales of brazilian images there, so, IMO there is a lot of people looking for brazilian images. If the number of searches for brazilian images here is small than what is missing is a stronger marketing effort of Alamy in Brazil. I live in Sao Paulo, Brazil, BTW. Everyday I take an elevator in my office building where I see advertising of GettyImages who is advertising in many places here in Sao Paulo. I have spoken with an employee at Getty and they told me that they sell very well brazilian images, in fact, she said I should focus on that if I would work with them (which I didnt, at least for now). I am not suggesting you move to any of those two agencies, but I am suggesting that Alamy should have a more agressive marketing approach if they want us to keep our images here to sell. Of course, you dont need to wait for Alamy to do all the effort and should promote your images yourself, using social media for instance linking to your images. This image of Sao Paulo has sold 134 times at Dreamstime and accumulated $434 in revenue (discounted the agency comission that vary a lot depending on the package of the buyer) http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-pinheiros-river-bridge-sao-paulo-brazil-image7262766 Let me know your thoughts about that. PS: Am I allowed to talk about other agencies here? My best selling image on Alamy has sold 30 times and accumulated $1564. Therefore i would not DREAM of putting it anywhere else. and no it's not good to talk about other agencies it's a definite thread killer. Regards Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 I don't necessarily believe that one needs more images to sell, one needs images that customers want to buy, and it could be just a handful of images. Obviously if you have many images customers want, you will sell more, but 1,000 images of a subject/place no one cares about (for instance in my port I have pictures of Itaipava, Petropolis, who cares) will not help you to sell more. Hi AlessandraRC, I am a newbie here at Alamy, have been selling my images since 2005 in Dreamstime, a microstock agency. I have pretty good sales of brazilian images there, so, IMO there is a lot of people looking for brazilian images. If the number of searches for brazilian images here is small than what is missing is a stronger marketing effort of Alamy in Brazil. I live in Sao Paulo, Brazil, BTW. Everyday I take an elevator in my office building where I see advertising of GettyImages who is advertising in many places here in Sao Paulo. I have spoken with an employee at Getty and they told me that they sell very well brazilian images, in fact, she said I should focus on that if I would work with them (which I didnt, at least for now). I am not suggesting you move to any of those two agencies, but I am suggesting that Alamy should have a more agressive marketing approach if they want us to keep our images here to sell. Of course, you dont need to wait for Alamy to do all the effort and should promote your images yourself, using social media for instance linking to your images. This image of Sao Paulo has sold 134 times at Dreamstime and accumulated $434 in revenue (discounted the agency comission that vary a lot depending on the package of the buyer) http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-pinheiros-river-bridge-sao-paulo-brazil-image7262766 Let me know your thoughts about that. PS: Am I allowed to talk about other agencies here? Here is alamy's policy on discussing their competitors: http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/2170-threads-that-promote-highlight-direct-competitors-to-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.