Sales off a cliff

[kentannenbaum]

I've been a contributor for about six years. My total income from Alamy is about $13,500.  This year a whopping $243.  Since 2012, the slide into oblivion has been accelerating to the point of nearly no action, as yet, I continue to feed the beast.  Hasn't bothered me too much because of income from other companies, however, here it's July and with income of $243 it's hardly worth the effort continuing to contribute.  I thought the expansion into the US as well as more attention to advertising would make a strong case for staying but this is out of hand now.    Is there a consensus about what's happening?

 

Believe me, I'd like to understand the problem.  Thanks very much.  Ken

[John Morrison]

A thousand images in six years? That's the issue, I'd say...

[kentannenbaum]

Much as you've got a point, the fact is that many of my images sell elsewhere so my wonderment has grown about Alamy.  I suppose that it can't be all things to all people.  The other issue is the remarkable difference in amounts for a sale.  While I'm tuned into the changes that occurred over the years driving prices into the abyss, a more common $100-$300 sale from several years ago is now a few dollars.  But I digress.  The issue is not about pumping images out but maybe it should be.  I've known for years that high producers are favored in the algorithms.  Either way, thanks for the response.  

[Guest]

Much as you've got a point, the fact is that many of my images sell elsewhere so my wonderment has grown about Alamy.  I suppose that it can't be all things to all people.  The other issue is the remarkable difference in amounts for a sale.  While I'm tuned into the changes that occurred over the years driving prices into the abyss, a more common $100-$300 sale from several years ago is now a few dollars.  But I digress.  The issue is not about pumping images out but maybe it should be.  I've known for years that high producers are favored in the algorithms.  Either way, thanks for the response.  

 

just looking at your images, I would be hard pressed to see editorial clients being able to use many of them. Too many are more FAA styled than regular stock... you seem to be shooting more for POD sites than for Alamy.  Sheer numbers of images doesn't matter as much as some think, content is king and content has to be geared towards clients.

 

It's not 2008 so yes, sales here are not what they used to be but there are still plenty of sales around..

[kentannenbaum]

Geoff, well said.  I recognize the differences among us as photographers and stand firm with regard to what I do.  We can't help that, right?  I have a great deal of fun never knowing what will occur for me...check out my site and you'll see why I say that.  I'm sure you will keep shooting what you love...flowers, fields and other natural gifts to us all.  

 

http://kentannenbaum.com

[Phil Crean]

 

 

http://kentannenbaum.com

 

Very nice! 

[kentannenbaum]

Phil!  Thanks very much!  

[AlessandraRC]

I wish I had any sales to go off a cliff. Never made a penny here. 

[kentannenbaum]

Key wording has traditionally been a problem.  I use a micro stock key word app and ad to it, but you're correct about much of my work...if it's seen that's one thing, if it has to be described it another.   Life goes on.

 

It is true that the unusual nature of my work makes for a quick sale when something's right for a use...so I've done alright I guess.

 

I've got to go...safe travels. 

[John Mitchell]

I've been contributing to Alamy for about 8.5 years, and my gross Alamy income is now close to $58K. As a part-timer, I'm very happy with this amount. My monthly sales remain consistent (touch wood), but what I've noticed during the past couple of years is that almost all of my sales are coming from a core of images that remain in fairly high demand -- i.e. I seem to get a lot of return and similar clients. These images were shot with a specific market in mind, and some of them are quite rare. Fewer and fewer sales are coming from my eclectic general collection, so i think that the answer is increasing competition. Buyers now have a mind-boggling number of general images to choose from and a huge number of agencies to shop at.

[Lisa]

 I've known for years that high producers are favored in the algorithms.  Either way, thanks for the response.  

 

 

Based on my experience with only 2,000 images, I think the algorithms favor collections of any size that have sales in the past six months or past year, not sure what that magic formula is, but I don't think size matters. My sales have been doing really great for 2014, 2015 and 2016 annualized. I'm not seeing sales decreasing off a cliff, mine have been amazingly consistent. 

[Bryan]

Wow, that's pretty impressive John!

 

I feel that I am seeing more competition in the number of zooms. Don't know if this is just a blip, a figment of my imagination,  or a real trend, but I rarely see only one (my) zoom these days. So there is more competition to get seen in the first place then, having made the cut, many more hurdles to overcome.

[John Mitchell]

Wow, that's pretty impressive John!

 

I feel that I am seeing more competition in the number of zooms. Don't know if this is just a blip, a figment of my imagination,  or a real trend, but I rarely see only one (my) zoom these days. So there is more competition to get seen in the first place then, having made the cut, many more hurdles to overcome.

 

Thanks, Bryan (and thanks to Alamy). Hopefully pride doesn't really cometh before...

 

I concur, unless you have something very specific that a buyer is looking for and few others have, it is getting increasingly more difficult to get seen.

 

Of course, there are those "outstanding" images as well. No doubt they get seen more often. Unfortunately, I don't appear to have many of those.

[wiskerke]

I've been a contributor for about six years.

 

Time flies!

It looks like your earliest submissions are predating mine. Which were uploaded in February 2004.

;-)

I had to check the date too.

 

Joking aside, by now you must know what (from your work) sells at Alamy.

I quite like the diversity of your collection.

Do you start with the concept or with the image?

 

Have you ever checked what sort of images have commanded the highest fees? And which the lowest? Either as a single sale or accumulated.

Has this changed over time?

 

Has the drop off occurred only here or at the other outlets also? (Or are those not agencies?)

Has it been dropping gradually or suddenly?

 

Have you checked possible competition to your previous best sellers?

Check if they have sold in the same way as if you would check your own sales.

 

Have you checked All of Alamy for the occurrence of the concepts or the keywords that you used to sell regularly?

If your keywords are not in AoA for the rolling year, either your concepts are out of date or all the clients have left the building. Or you are using the wrong keywords. Again check AoA for possible alternatives.

Recently someone here alerted me of the use of millennials in searches.

 

Have you checked Google Images for images that are currently being used (not just for sale as stock) for your previous sellers? For your current images?

In other words: is your style still up to date. Either conceptual or technical. Style changes can be subtle: we used to work for paper, but now we may primarily be working for the screen. Which can be tiny too.

However some paper may still pay better.

 

Btw your pseudo is a bit unfortunate in Dutch and German speaking countries. Probably not the cause of the drop though.

 

wim

[kentannenbaum]

Hey, very funny about my pseudonym!  It's all quite simple, taken from my name Ken, my wife's name Anne and my son, Kyle = KAK!  How was I to know it means SHIT?

 

All of the analysis you mention would be worthwhile if I were less tired.  However, I do get the drift that generally speaking some images may be technically dated.  I'd say that Alamy is unusual for me compared to other RF companies I deal with.  I KNOW, I should have NEVER gone into RF.  But that's complicated and way too cumbersome to discuss here.  I WAS a regular contributor at The Image Bank which was bought by Getty years ago.  It was all RM and I did well.  But they got greedy and pulled the right of contributors to sell out of our own collections so many of us quit...big mistake.  I was left with many solid images and began setting up RF accounts at Shutterstock, iStock, Dreamstime and others.  It went well for several years, including at Alamy.  I still sell images virtually every day and have little complaint...but at Alamy, it's different and why I wondered out loud about the drop.  Obviously, it's my collection there and I believe the problem is I believe the hype that they were going after the advertising market.  My work is NOT editorial, simple as that and it's where the money is at Alamy.  Thanks for barking up a storm.  http://kentannenbaum.com

[AlessandraRC]

 

 I've known for years that high producers are favored in the algorithms.  Either way, thanks for the response.  

 

 

Based on my experience with only 2,000 images, I think the algorithms favor collections of any size that have sales in the past six months or past year, not sure what that magic formula is, but I don't think size matters. My sales have been doing really great for 2014, 2015 and 2016 annualized. I'm not seeing sales decreasing off a cliff, mine have been amazingly consistent. 

 

 

 

2,000 is not "only", it is a lot, at least to me!

[wiskerke]

So those clients probably have left for other shops, and you're still selling there. Which is the good news for you there, but less good for some here.

You do have images that could work in an either editorial or commercial environment. I like the barn and the beach a lot.

 

As for the question if some of it is dated, I just don't know. The barn and the beach recipe could very well work for different subjects in different environments, and are quite timeless. Concept images are not my strong point, but I do have some and some have worked. Some even have sold for quite a bit. And not totally by coincidence. But again it's not my strong point. And my style would usually still be editorial.

 

Some photographers are good editors of their own work; others are bad at it. The same goes for some editors at stock agencies. They may be good at picking nice images, but are they good at picking images that sell? Myself, I'm only a half convert. Maybe only one third ;-) A lot of what I do is still based on what I personally like. But at 62 I'm not yet immune to some fashion and style change. And it doesn't hurt to leave stuff out that just doesn't work here and include or even make some that does.

 

My recipe against getting tired is usually experimentation and playfulness. The results of which are not always worth showing though ;-)

My recipe for judging my own work is to hide it in a page (lightbox) of competitors and see which image I would pick in 2 seconds. Sort of Blink.

 

Things can have different meanings.

In my hometown there's a building called Vishal (= fish market):

 

 

 

However Google Images shows it's a man's name. (SFW)

KAK images in Google images is not entirely Safe For Work ;-) But entertaining: Trump is in there as a cake.

 

wim

[dov makabaw]

In my experience high volume can help but your active pseudo's should be kept tight and ruthlessly pruned if you want to maintain your ranking. I have this year sold a number of previous non performers ( no prior zooms ) for the first time in 7/8 years. 

 

At the end of the day you need to have what the buyers want at the time - unfortunately there are no easy answers. 

 

dov