Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm just curious to find out if everybody submits their images to agencies other than Alamy? ( I'm not asking them to be named). And if you do, are your images exclusive to each agency?

 

I use 4 agencies and have had pretty encouraging sales for my first year, but Alamy commissions are much healthier, so I'm tending to concentrate on Alamy more. I've noticed that certain agencies will sell more of a particular style of image, so I'll be tailoring my submissions more in the future.

 

What is the norm. Single agency, exclusive with some or the same to all?

 

Dave

Edited by Dave D
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exclusive

 

1.
excluding or not admitting other things.
"my exclusive focus is on San Antonio issues"
unable to exist or be true if something else exists or is true.
"these approaches are not exclusive; many students will combine them"
synonyms: incompatible, irreconcilable
"mutually exclusive alternatives"
(of terms) excluding all but what is specified.
synonyms: not including, excluding, leaving out, omitting, excepting
"prices exclusive of sales tax"
 
2.
restricted or limited to the person, group, or area concerned.
"the couple had exclusive possession of the condo"
synonyms: sole, unshared, unique, only, individual, personal, private
"a room for your exclusive use"
 
Dave, Alamy allows you to submit to other agencies, but you must sell with the same license, RM or RF, at each place. And don't say an image is exclusive when it's not. 
 
And a tip: always include the Latin word for flora and fauna in your keywords.
 
Your images are looking good. 
Edited by Ed Rooney
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stockfotoart
On 11.12.2016 at 15:05, Dave D said:

By exclusive, I meant that, for instance, all landscape and nature images to one agency, all studio shots to another etc.

 

.

Edited by Stockfotoart
Link to post
Share on other sites

I submit to several agencies. Some were exclusive, but I negotiated with them many years ago to change my contract into a non-exclusive one, because the drop in sales and prices didn't justify the exclusivity anymore.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

So do you pretty much send the same images to all, or are you selective, Philippe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By exclusive, I meant that, for instance, all landscape and nature images to one agency, all studio shots to another etc.

 

 

Is the price they pay worth it? Do they sell a lot?

You have to make the calculations whether or not it would be more profitable to earn perhaps a little less per sale but have a whole lot more sales by submitting the same images also to other agencies. 

 

Cheers,

Philippe

Do you think that having the same image on many agencies would put you at risk of selling it at the lowest price each time? I'm guessing that buyers would search on a couple of sites before making their choice?

 

Having said that, some of the sites that pay just a few cents per image for the majority of the time, do have the occasional 3 figure sales

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I submit to several agencies. Some were exclusive, but I negotiated with them many years ago to change my contract into a non-exclusive one, because the drop in sales and prices didn't justify the exclusivity anymore.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

So do you pretty much send the same images to all, or are you selective, Philippe?

 

Now, I submit the same images to all the agencies I work with, with a few exceptions like those that are nature specialists which - of course - only accept nature images. Now that most agencies cooperate with one another, the trick is to select carefully those agencies whose networks don't mingle.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

Thank you Philippe.

My main interest is nature (plants and flowers) so I'll be looking to be exclusive with these next year. I've upgraded my kit recently so I'll be adding images at a higher, steady rate over the coming months.

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By exclusive, I meant that, for instance, all landscape and nature images to one agency, all studio shots to another etc.

 

 

That's not exclusive. 

 

It's image exclusive, which is the more common model of exclusivity, though some agencies have artist exclusivity of some sort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By exclusive, I meant that, for instance, all landscape and nature images to one agency, all studio shots to another etc.

 

 

 

That's not exclusive.

I apologise if I've used the word exclusive in the wrong context.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

By exclusive, I meant that, for instance, all landscape and nature images to one agency, all studio shots to another etc.

 

 

 

That's not exclusive.

It's image exclusive, which is the more common model of exclusivity, though some agencies have artist exclusivity of some sort.

Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stock libraries are not agencies. 

 
A stock agent has a legal responsibility to, as much as humanly possible, act in the best interest of the photographer, while also acting in the agencies best interest as well.
 
It seems like a small point, but use of the word agency determines the photographer’s thinking. Most photographers think of libraries as agents. If more photographers thought of stock libraries as libraries, then it would lead to better business planning on the photographers part. Some photographers may not have the concern they are expressing on the Re-Rank thread. 
 
Does the farmer call the grocery store an agent? Does the farmer give only one grocery store a exclusive on his cauliflowers? Does the grocery store pay the farmer market value for their cauliflowers, or a much higher price reflecting the total cost of growing a cauliflower? Do some farmers sell their cauliflowers direct to consumers at their front gate? Do some farmers decide to stop growing cauliflowers and grow tomatoes instead?
 
About 20 years ago the association for stock agencies in the USA changed its name from PACA (Picture AGENCY Council of America), to PACA (Picture ARCHIVES Council of America).
 
At the same time most of the now ARCHIVES took the agency language out of the photographer’s contract. By their contracts ARCHIVES were no longer the photographer’s AGENTS.
 
There was nothing sinister about this change. It was just an honest name change, reflecting reality.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stock libraries are not agencies.

 

A stock agent has a legal responsibility to, as much as humanly possible, act in the best interest of the photographer, while also acting in the agencies best interest as well.

 

It seems like a small point, but use of the word agency determines the photographer’s thinking. Most photographers think of libraries as agents. If more photographers thought of stock libraries as libraries, then it would lead to better business planning on the photographers part. Some photographers may not have the concern they are expressing on the Re-Rank thread.

 

Does the farmer call the grocery store an agent? Does the farmer give only one grocery store a exclusive on his cauliflowers? Does the grocery store pay the farmer market value for their cauliflowers, or a much higher price reflecting the total cost of growing a cauliflower? Do some farmers sell their cauliflowers direct to consumers at their front gate? Do some farmers decide to stop growing cauliflowers and grow tomatoes instead?

 

About 20 years ago the association for stock agencies in the USA changed its name from PACA (Picture AGENCY Council of America), to PACA (Picture ARCHIVES Council of America).

 

At the same time most of the now ARCHIVES took the agency language out of the photographer’s contract. By their contracts ARCHIVES were no longer the photographer’s AGENTS.

 

There was nothing sinister about this change. It was just an honest name change, reflecting reality.

Thanks Bill for the information, although I'm well aware of the literal difference between agencies and libraries.

My choice of terminology has no impact on how I view the businesses that I choose to submit my images to.

 

I may be reading your reply totally wrong, but I'm feeling like I've been told off. Not a nice feeling. I'm not really sure I want to ask any more questions in case I'm reprimanded again!

 

Thank you

Edited by Dave D
Link to post
Share on other sites

David:

 
I am trying to help, not only you, but other photographers who may be reading the thread. Give me a -1 if you have a problem.
 
The difference is legal, and that is very important.
 
Ask questions.
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

David:

 
I am trying to help, not only you, but other photographers who may be reading the thread. Give me a -1 if you have a problem.
 
The difference is legal, and that is very important.
 
Ask questions.

 

 

Bill, I get what you are saying about "agencies". However, let's not forget that Alamy uses the term "agency" liberally in its About pages and elsewhere. It's not just the photographer's thinking:

 

"A stock photo agency represents photographers and agencies who want to sell their imagery. Clients buy from stock agencies because they are specialists or aggregators of imagery, with specially designed websites dedicated to providing fast search and a wide choice of fresh stock images. Stock photo agencies are often best placed to negotiate with a range of customers from a range of industries, and provide a trusted and secure way to purchase images." - Alamy

 

Regarding submitting to other agencies/libraries, I don't do much of that these days, simply because it's now so easy -- with all the overlapping networks -- to inadvertently start competing with oneself, often for lower fees.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

David:

 

I am trying to help, not only you, but other photographers who may be reading the thread. Give me a -1 if you have a problem.

 

The difference is legal, and that is very important.

 

Ask questions.

 

 

Bill, I get what you are saying about "agencies". However, let's not forget that Alamy uses the term "agency" liberally in its About pages and elsewhere. It's not just the photographer's thinking:

 

"A stock photo agency represents photographers and agencies who want to sell their imagery. Clients buy from stock agencies because they are specialists or aggregators of imagery, with specially designed websites dedicated to providing fast search and a wide choice of fresh stock images. Stock photo agencies are often best placed to negotiate with a range of customers from a range of industries, and provide a trusted and secure way to purchase images." - Alamy

 

Regarding submitting to other agencies/libraries, I don't do much of that these days, simply because it's now so easy -- with all the overlapping networks -- to inadvertently start competing with oneself, often for lower fees.

That was my main concern John. On another library I have over 50 sales which total much less that my first 2 on Alamy. It's nice to see emails every day telling me of another sale but I'm getting over the honeymoon period now and quality is better than quantity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

David:

 

I am trying to help, not only you, but other photographers who may be reading the thread. Give me a -1 if you have a problem.

 

The difference is legal, and that is very important.

 

Ask questions.

 

Bill, I get what you are saying about "agencies". However, let's not forget that Alamy uses the term "agency" liberally in its About pages and elsewhere. It's not just the photographer's thinking:

 

"A stock photo agency represents photographers and agencies who want to sell their imagery. Clients buy from stock agencies because they are specialists or aggregators of imagery, with specially designed websites dedicated to providing fast search and a wide choice of fresh stock images. Stock photo agencies are often best placed to negotiate with a range of customers from a range of industries, and provide a trusted and secure way to purchase images." - Alamy

 

Regarding submitting to other agencies/libraries, I don't do much of that these days, simply because it's now so easy -- with all the overlapping networks -- to inadvertently start competing with oneself, often for lower fees.

That was my main concern John. On another library I have over 50 sales which total much less that my first 2 on Alamy. It's nice to see emails every day telling me of another sale but I'm getting over the honeymoon period now and quality is better than quantity.

 

 

I think that competing with yourself is a real concern these days, especially for generalists. Submitting to specialist collections (a more neutral term) certainly makes sense, though, if you have enough images.

 

There are many different opinions about this, though.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

David:

 

I am trying to help, not only you, but other photographers who may be reading the thread. Give me a -1 if you have a problem.

 

The difference is legal, and that is very important.

 

Ask questions.

 

Bill, I get what you are saying about "agencies". However, let's not forget that Alamy uses the term "agency" liberally in its About pages and elsewhere. It's not just the photographer's thinking:

 

"A stock photo agency represents photographers and agencies who want to sell their imagery. Clients buy from stock agencies because they are specialists or aggregators of imagery, with specially designed websites dedicated to providing fast search and a wide choice of fresh stock images. Stock photo agencies are often best placed to negotiate with a range of customers from a range of industries, and provide a trusted and secure way to purchase images." - Alamy

 

Regarding submitting to other agencies/libraries, I don't do much of that these days, simply because it's now so easy -- with all the overlapping networks -- to inadvertently start competing with oneself, often for lower fees.

That was my main concern John. On another library I have over 50 sales which total much less that my first 2 on Alamy. It's nice to see emails every day telling me of another sale but I'm getting over the honeymoon period now and quality is better than quantity.

 

 

I think that competing with yourself is a real concern these days, especially for generalists. Submitting to specialist collections (a more neutral term) certainly makes sense, though, if you have enough images.

 

There are many different opinions about this, though.

 

 

This is exactly my plan. Currently I am reviewing which libraries I could use.

Test 1: do they distribute through Alamy (or other major libraries), if yes then why would I not go direct?

Test 2: do they have a genuine niche (style, market or whatever), if no why would I go with them rather than Alamy or another generalist?

Test 3: does their niche fit my work (my style, subject interest or whatever) or would I enjoy developing my photography in that direction? If yes then I will do more research with a view to using them; it gets me down to a short list.

 

Then I will look at other factors, exclusive or not, commission rate, reputation, international coverage, contributor relationships, scale, submission demands (frequency, technical, quality etc). In the meantime my more general stuff will go through Alamy as it always has.

 

Just working through the BAPLA membership list rapidly reduces the list to one or two or even none!

Edited by Martin P Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

David:

 

I am trying to help, not only you, but other photographers who may be reading the thread. Give me a -1 if you have a problem.

 

The difference is legal, and that is very important.

 

Ask questions.

 

Bill, I get what you are saying about "agencies". However, let's not forget that Alamy uses the term "agency" liberally in its About pages and elsewhere. It's not just the photographer's thinking:

 

"A stock photo agency represents photographers and agencies who want to sell their imagery. Clients buy from stock agencies because they are specialists or aggregators of imagery, with specially designed websites dedicated to providing fast search and a wide choice of fresh stock images. Stock photo agencies are often best placed to negotiate with a range of customers from a range of industries, and provide a trusted and secure way to purchase images." - Alamy

 

Regarding submitting to other agencies/libraries, I don't do much of that these days, simply because it's now so easy -- with all the overlapping networks -- to inadvertently start competing with oneself, often for lower fees.

That was my main concern John. On another library I have over 50 sales which total much less that my first 2 on Alamy. It's nice to see emails every day telling me of another sale but I'm getting over the honeymoon period now and quality is better than quantity.

 

 

I think that competing with yourself is a real concern these days, especially for generalists. Submitting to specialist collections (a more neutral term) certainly makes sense, though, if you have enough images.

 

There are many different opinions about this, though.

 

 

This is exactly my plan. Currently I am reviewing which libraries I could use.

Test 1: do they distribute through Alamy (or other major libraries), if yes then why would I not go direct?

Test 2: do they have a genuine niche (style, market or whatever), if no why would I go with them rather than Alamy or another generalist?

Test 3: does their niche fit my work (my style, subject interest or whatever) or would I enjoy developing my photography in that direction? If yes then I will do more research with a view to using them; it gets me down to a short list.

 

Then I will look at other factors, exclusive or not, commission rate, reputation, international coverage, contributor relationships, scale, submission demands (frequency, technical, quality etc). In the meantime my more general stuff will go through Alamy as it always has.

 

Just working through the BAPLA membership list rapidly reduces the list to one or two or even none!

 

 

Especially for those interested in nature (but that goes for other fields as well)

 

Test 4: are my images a useful addition to their library?

Test 5: can I get in? Not so easy nowadays with a market that is completely over-saturated. Alamy accepts ALL what is submitted, specialist agencies are VERY picky. 

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

Indeed, they were amongst my other factors ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
 

Many photographers approach this in the wrong way. Talking to the owner of one agent/(or portal/archive etc) before I started with them he told me how he receives solicitations from photographers almost weekly who would tell or show him the great equipment they have. Great expensive equipment is nice, but absolutely no value added to him. My approach was to inform him that I had x'000's images which he didn't have, which he could have within a week and would add value to the business. I have used this approach elsewhere since.

 

...

 

It has long been my approach too, and not just to libraries. I use it when seeking representation, accreditation or pitching ideas for articles, books or whatever - I always set out what  is in it for the people I am approaching, not what is in it for me. It is why my query success is higher than most.

 

I used to use it for consultancy work as well.

 

To paraphrase JFK: "ask not what a library (agent, event) can do for you, ask what you can do for your library." Even better show what you can do ...

 

  • 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.