Falling sales values

[Bill Allsopp]

OK I know sales values have been falling but Alamy sell an image for $3.44! Really!! I get a whole pound ........ eventually? This has got to be ridiculous. Why would I bother captioning and key-wording for this?

[regen]

6 hours ago, Bill Allsopp said:

OK I know sales values have been falling but Alamy sell an image for $3.44! Really!! I get a whole pound ........ eventually? This has got to be ridiculous. Why would I bother captioning and key-wording for this?

 

For me it is not worthwhile nor has it been for several years.

 

I guess it is worthwhile if

 

1. You have nothing better to do/like captioning/keywording- i don't so I only send to agencies that will do that for me and still give 50%.

 

2. You have already received a good fee for a commission so anything else is indeed profit.

 

3. You are an amateur so any money you can get back for the money laid out on expensive equipment is a bonus.

 

4. You are an agency and have already done or got the photographer to do the work so you might as well have something -even if it does depress prices by flooding the market.

 

5. You don't have a clue how to sell pictures yourself and need to give away 50% of not very much!

 

Regen

 

 

[Chuck Nacke]

Bill,

 

I've been contributing to Alamy for a bit more time than you and over the years

I've been annoyed by the occasionally low license fees and pleasantly surprised by

the larger ones.  FYI I have seen the fees rising in 2016 and 17, but still not close to

the fees from a decade ago.

 

regen,

 

I do take offence to your post,  I do not take pictures of butterflies or flowers.  I have spent 30 years

working as a photojournalist for the worlds largest magazines and thanks to Alamy some of those

images still appear in many of them.  Alamy has been one of the most honest agencies

I've worked with and I am offended by your post.  So which one of the 5 in your list are you?

 

To all the rest who know me,

 

It is my firm belief that Alamy has attempted to do the best that they can for their contributors.

The stock business has been very difficult and many of the major agencies and libraries are

no longer doing business, many have reduced their contributors percentage to a level that I

would not agree to.  I still contribute to Alamy, nuff said....

[Bill Allsopp]

48 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Bill,

 

I've been contributing to Alamy for a bit more time than you and over the years

I've been annoyed by the occasionally low license fees and pleasantly surprised by

the larger ones.  FYI I have seen the fees rising in 2016 and 17, but still not close to

the fees from a decade ago.

 

....................

It is my firm belief that Alamy has attempted to do the best that they can for their contributors.

The stock business has been very difficult and many of the major agencies and libraries are

no longer doing business, many have reduced their contributors percentage to a level that I

would not agree to.  I still contribute to Alamy, nuff said....

I agree to an extent Chuck - I too have had a few good value sales and believe Alamy is still one of the better ones. I do strongly feel that sales prices should have a de minimis of considerably more than $3. That level is in the micro stock range and Alamy is better than that.

[chris warren]

8 hours ago, Bill Allsopp said:

OK I know sales values have been falling but Alamy sell an image for $3.44! Really!! I get a whole pound ........ eventually? This has got to be ridiculous. Why would I bother captioning and key-wording for this?

I have to agree, Bill, the chances are it could have been apart of a bulk deal, which then makes the individual price very low, - only an idea. Also agree with Chuck, but its is a shame that Alamy still come up with their own very strange low price deals as well, - with my pet hate being Personal Use, why oh why is it set so low.

If we take pride in our work, then it should follow into the pricing.

[Bill Allsopp]

8 minutes ago, chris warren said:

I have to agree, Bill, the chances are it could have been apart of a bulk deal, which then makes the individual price very low, - only an idea. Also agree with Chuck, but its is a shame that Alamy still come up with their own very strange low price deals as well, - with my pet hate being Personal Use, why oh why is it set so low.

If we take pride in our work, then it should follow into the pricing.

I have threatened to remove personal use from my images many times.

[Bill Allsopp]

7 minutes ago, arterra said:

.......

B.t.w. those ridiculous low prices are all distributor sales, so not the work of Alamy's sales department. 

 

Cheers,

Philippe

Yes that would have an effect for sure.

[Foreign Export]

12 hours ago, Bill Allsopp said:

OK I know sales values have been falling but Alamy sell an image for $3.44! Really!! I get a whole pound ........ eventually? This has got to be ridiculous. Why would I bother captioning and key-wording for this?

 

swings and roundabouts

I've had a 3.44 distributor sale this month - but my average for this month is still over $60

some you win some you lose

[Sultanpepa]

I've said this a number of times now and I'll say it again. As there is no way I can trust/verify distributors to report honestly I will remain outside the scheme even if it means losing out on sales. I trust Alamy to be honest but not necessarily others whom I have never heard of, and as Chuck says honesty is everything. Newspaper deals only benefit Alamy and the online newspapers. They do nothing for the tog other than boost ego. 

[John Crellin]

I agree that Alamy are doing the best they can in an increasingly difficult market. 

 

Frankly my main motivation is to get off my back the people who expect freebies from me direct. I support not for profit this way when they ask right - otherwise it's "go to Alamy" if it's a profit-making enterprise. Strange how the latter often have "no budget" for pictures!

 

And I know it is hard to make a living at this - I don't but I can see if you work full time at it the rewards could be there.

 

John Crellin

[Bill Allsopp]

3 hours ago, John Crellin said:

Frankly my main motivation is to get off my back the people who expect freebies from me direct. I support not for profit this way when they ask right - otherwise it's "go to Alamy" if it's a profit-making enterprise. Strange how the latter often have "no budget" for pictures!

"Friends" and councils. Pain aren't they. 

[Lisa]

Two sales today, with the highest $89 and lowest $35. 

[Bill Allsopp]

8 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Delete Changed my mind

It was an interesting post though! Never come across that site. Not going to look for it either 

[spacecadet]

15 hours ago, Bill Allsopp said:

"Friends" and councils. Pain aren't they. 

Interesting that they invariably have a budget for the salary of the person asking for the free pix.

[christian58]

Not so bad actually considering I have had sales from the big G for less then one dollar!  how about that!

[Marb]

This is my issue as I am constantly reminded of the merits of selling here rather than microstock. The pricing isn't that far apart but I get daily sales with microstock. I haven't had a sale since June here.

[Marb]

20 hours ago, GS-Images said:

 

The pricing is hugely different. Read all the thread, not just the first post. Many of us are getting higher licenses than we've had for a while, up in the hundreds of dollars for ONE license.

 

Like we keep saying Marb, you have to be patient and think differently on Alamy. I know it's tough to not see sales for months, and we've all been there, and I had a very bad few months this year myself. It doesn't mean that it's better to use Microstock though. Sales take up to 6 months OR MORE to come through here. I hate that, it's wrong, and I wish Alamy wouldn't be so generous with their payment terms and they shouldn't have the 45 days to gain more interest on our money - But we can't do anything about that, it's the way they work so we have to accept it.....with the odd moan now and then. 

 

Geoff.

Ok, I will try and stay patient if that's how it works. Cheers.

[Marb]

I am curious to know why when images are live they take 6 months or more to sell ? Still nothing and my patience is running out.

[Bill Allsopp]

5 minutes ago, Marb said:

I am curious to now why when images are live they take 6 months or more to sell ? Still nothing and my patience is running out.

It seems they just do, that is my experience anyway. Buyers of views may well want a seasonal image so a winter image will be wanted in winter etc. Calendar images are bought a long way in advance but paid for around publication - can take 18 months. etc. etc. Lots of reasons. I have been advised that mono images don't sell well as a rule so may be worth deleting those and not uploading more.

[M.Chapman]

22 minutes ago, Marb said:

I am curious to know why when images are live they take 6 months or more to sell ? Still nothing and my patience is running out.

 

Imagine somebody writing a book... They select some images, write a chapter, select more images, write another chapter, etc., then they produce a 1st draft which gets reviewed and edited etc. then finally it gets published, at which point they alert Alamy of the usages and invoices get issued. It can take anywhere from months to years for book sales. But when they arrive they are often well worth the wait.

 

Mark

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Marb said:

I am curious to know why when images are live they take 6 months or more to sell ? Still nothing and my patience is running out.

 

I find that images do usually take a few months to "marinate".  However, this isn't always the case, especially if the subject is topical. I uploaded an image last week and it licensed this week (editorial website). I notice that someone zoomed it yesterday as well. This is a pretty rare occurrence for me, though.

[Phil Robinson]

On 8/15/2017 at 06:08, regen said:

 

For me it is not worthwhile nor has it been for several years.

 

I guess it is worthwhile if

 

1. You have nothing better to do/like captioning/keywording- i don't so I only send to agencies that will do that for me and still give 50%.

 

2. You have already received a good fee for a commission so anything else is indeed profit.

 

3. You are an amateur so any money you can get back for the money laid out on expensive equipment is a bonus.

 

4. You are an agency and have already done or got the photographer to do the work so you might as well have something -even if it does depress prices by flooding the market.

 

5. You don't have a clue how to sell pictures yourself and need to give away 50% of not very much!

 

Regen

 

 

 

6. You also get regular 3 figure sales, sometimes from the same images. 

 

I don't like $3 sales any more than you, and if they were all that small I'd stop. But that's the way the business is and I look at my average/total sales to see whether it's worth carrying on and investing in new equipment.

 

I've just bought two new cameras and a new lens.

 

As Chuck hinted at, maybe if you widened your portfolio a little you might see different results. I do photograph butterflies and flowers sometimes (Pjrnature) but they don't sell for me either.

[imageplotter]

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I find that images do usually take a few months to "marinate".  

 

You just made me chuckle, cheers! Made me think of photography doing a 360 and going back to the good old days of darkrooms, I do miss "marinading" my images in developer/fixer.  

[Phil Robinson]

1 minute ago, imageplotter said:

 

You just made me chuckle, cheers! Made me think of photography doing a 360 and going back to the good old days of darkrooms, I do miss "marinading" my images in developer/fixer.  

I don't. I really don't.

[imageplotter]