RM vs RF usage...again!

[geogphotos 831]

RM images are quite likely less expensive that RF.  It depends on the intended use.

 

Traditionally RF is priced by file size, and RM by the actual use ie) small use=  low fee

 

Most editorial users only want one-use. 

 

Again, traditionally RF has been popular with Creative users who intend to use an image over and over, especially because RF came with model and property releases.

 

These days the whole thing is much more blurred. You see so-called RM licences with perpetuity, and so-called RF images price for use not file size,

 

That is why I think the whole RM/RF licence thing needs to be scrapped and redesigned.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by geogphotos

[geogphotos 831]

Graham,

 

I very much doubt that any buyer wants just any image of the museum/carnival subject matter you mentioned. They will more likely want the  right one to match their purpose.

 

Images are not widgets, they are each unique in some way.

 

I'm tempted to suggest that if an image is so generic that thousands of near identical ones already exist that the question arises whether it is worth producing eyt another one?

Edited October 21, 2017 by geogphotos

[Graham Hardy 4]

yeahh sorry Kodak if I'm repeating what others have said, I usually have to work through things and put them in my own words to fully grasp what the rest of you are  talking about. 😕

I guess I am just expressing the realisation that we are in an absolute buyers market and for any given image there are likely to be hundreds of alternatives for the buyer to choose, and if any are RF then all of them might as well be.  I'm assuming of course that RF is always cheaper than RM. 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Graham Hardy
Typo

[Graham Hardy 4]

Sorry I'm a bit slow in answering so I'm just now reading, absorbing geogs replies. 

[geogphotos 831]

1 minute ago, Graham Hardy said:

yeahh sorry Kodak if I'm repeating what others have said, I usually have to work through things and put them in my own words to fully grasp what the ray of you are  talking about. 😕

I guess I am just expressing the realisation that we are in an absolute buyers market and for any given image there are likely to be hundreds of alternatives for the buyer to choose, and if any are RF then all of them might as well be.  I'm assuming of course that RF is always cheaper than RM. 

 

Wrong assumption. 

[Graham Hardy 4]

Oh my - my ignorance/lack of understanding yet again shines through!

[Graham Hardy 4]

So if we cannot second guess the buyers intentsions, whether they might want exclusive one off use, or repeated use or a particular file size, then why do we have to opt for either RF or RM?  Which ever one we choose we are limiting the sales opportunities.  

[KODAKovic 41]

16 minutes ago, Graham Hardy said:

yeahh sorry Kodak if I'm repeating what others have said, I usually have to work through things and put them in my own words to fully grasp what the ray of you are  talking about. 😕

I guess I am just expressing the realisation that we are in an absolute buyers market and for any given image there are likely to be hundreds of alternatives for the buyer to choose, and if any are RF then all of them might as well be.  I'm assuming of course that RF is always cheaper than RM. 

 

For me it should be:

niche market --> higher prices , let's say >50$

high/medium popularity and first 5 pages in search results --> 5-50$

high popularity and 5-10 pages in search results --> 2-5$

High popularity and >10 page in search results --> micro pricing

 

Latest case suggests a contributor didn't pay too much care in which contents there were already in the market and his/her ranking is low so micro-price is fine.

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by KODAKovic

[Brasilnut 181]

Quote

So if we cannot second guess the buyers intentsions, whether they might want exclusive one off use, or repeated use or a particular file size, then why do we have to opt for either RF or RM?  Which ever one we choose we are limiting the sales opportunities.  

 

On here, a buyer can license an RF image as RM on a one-time use basis. So, making it RF gives the buyers more options / flexibility. Going RF instead of RM can be detrimental though as others have pointed out above.  

 

For better or worse, I foresee the stock photography industry moving towards predominately RF usage, even for editorials. The client is king!

[Graham Hardy 4]

'I'm tempted to suggest that if an image is so generic that thousands of near identical ones already exist that the question arises whether it is worth producing eyt another one?'

 

Agreed, but then this is where your ranking comes into play, there may well be thousands of images available, but realistically how many pages will a buyer scroll through ?  For me it's a moot point since my CTR is now at rock bottom.

[Graham Hardy 4]

What!  A buyer can license an RF image as RM?????

i give up. 

[Brasilnut 181]

Quote

What!  A buyer can license an RF image as RM?????

i give up. 

 

Yes, but not vice versa. 

[Graham Hardy 4]

So there is no underlying principle to be found

RF can be RM

RF is cheaper than RM, except when it's not. 

RM might as well be RF cos why would you limit your buyer to one time use.  

Edited October 21, 2017 by Graham Hardy
Clarification

[Cryptoprocta 365]

32 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

 

Yes, but not vice versa. 

On the other hand, some RM licences are so wide as to be virtually RF.

[Cryptoprocta 365]

30 minutes ago, Graham Hardy said:

So there is no underlying principle to be found

RF can be RM

RF is cheaper than RM, except when it's not. 

RM might as well be RF cos why would you limit your buyer to one time use.  

Just find any RF file on Alamy and look at the pricing, then it will all become clear.

[Keith Douglas 343]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Just find any RF file on Alamy and look at the pricing, then it will all become clear.

 

That assumes that the amount actually paid bears some resemblance to the pricing! 

[funkyworm 823]

4 hours ago, Graham Hardy said:

So - 

1) any one off event that you happen to be in the middle of and not many others will be suits the RM option.

2) any generic image might as well be RF.

3) An absolutely 'unique to me' image should only ever be RM.

4) a recurring news event, e.g. Notting Hill carnival, is probably best RF 

 

Are these workable principles?

 

 

All my images are RM. My repeat sellers which I presume to be the same customers, are not necessarily the most unique. My best selling image this year (6 sales all over $100) I took in my living room of a fairly simple subject.

[Betty LaRue 1,336]

This month, my best sale amount is $250. RF.  So, not necessarily cheaper than RM. And the search was for RF, so all of the RM images of this subject would not have been viewed.

A lot, if not most, searches don’t specify, so RM and RF are competing.

Betty

[Graham Hardy 4]

Prompted by this discussion I just did a quick summation of my sales over the last year.  52% of my images are RM, 48% are RF.

% of Sales

RM   69%

RF    27%

RFE   4%

 

Average sale value

RM - $28.67

RF -  $32.74

 

Highest Sales

RM -  $  94.70

RF   - $130.00

 

Lowest

RM -  $1.40

RF  -  $5.91

 

So I sell more than twice as many RM as RF, but for an average lower price, although my most valuable seller was RF, and I received least for RM. 

I've no idea what implications  this has for using RM or RF in the future, or for adjusting previous uploads.  I am, as ever, confused, but will muddle on I guess, trying to make the best judgement I can, but I cant help thinking that the final decision should be a negotiation between the buyer and Alamy.  How on earth can we second guess what a buyer is looking for and what licence they may want? (Except for certain obvious unique events/situations). Perhaps we need a third option, one that leaves the license open for discussion?  Maybe, in practice that is what happens?

[geogphotos 831]

13 minutes ago, Graham Hardy said:

Prompted by this discussion I just did a quick summation of my sales over the last year.  52% of my images are RM, 48% are RF.

% of Sales

RM   69%

RF    27%

RFE   4%

 

Average sale value

RM - $28.67

RF -  $32.74

 

Highest Sales

RM -  $  94.70

RF   - $130.00

 

Lowest

RM -  $1.40

RF  -  $5.91

 

So I sell more than twice as many RM as RF, but for an average lower price, although my most valuable seller was RF, and I received least for RM. 

I've no idea what implications  this has for using RM or RF in the future, or for adjusting previous uploads.  I am, as ever, confused, but will muddle on I guess, trying to make the best judgement I can, but I cant help thinking that the final decision should be a negotiation between the buyer and Alamy.  How on earth can we second guess what a buyer is looking for and what licence they may want? (Except for certain obvious unique events/situations). Perhaps we need a third option, one that leaves the license open for discussion?  Maybe, in practice that is what happens?

 

That is my view. We need a new combination licence that meets the needs of buyers and gets rid of this outdated legacy RF/RM nonsense.

 

It already exists on the world's major stock site when it comes to their Editorial section. Pics are simply referred to as Editorial and the buyer has an option of the Standard Licence or a Custom one.

Edited October 21, 2017 by geogphotos

[Brasilnut 181]

Quote

That is my view. We need a new combination licence that meets the needs of buyers and gets rid of this outdated legacy RF/RM nonsense.

 

It already exists on the world's major stock site when it comes to their Editorial section. Pics are simply referred to as Editorial and the buyer has an option of the Standard Licence or a Custom one.

 

One agency I work with has come up with a "good to go" license. I don't want to mention it on here due to the t&cs but you can google that phrase + stock agency.

 

They describe it as a "new customer licensing experience for buying images and video is a much simpler, more streamlined process, adapted to the needs and capacities of our clients with fast moving deadlines." 

 

Perhaps just marketing-speak and I'm curious how it works in practice. 

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Brasilnut

[Bill Brooks 747]

11 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

Not only the faith of the recent convert but also the miracle cures.

 

You are misleading yourself, but no one else. Bill Brooks is not a recent convert to RF.

For the record Bill Brooks has been selling RF since the year 2000. Bill Brooks first came to Alamy in 2004 as exclusively RF. The old image manager forced Bill Brooks to declare images with no releases, and with people or property, as RM. Bill Brooks always wanted these images to be RF.

The new image manager allows for RF editorial only. That is when Bill Brooks converted his forced Alamy RM to Alamy RF editorial only.

[Cryptoprocta 365]

7 hours ago, Keith Douglas said:

 

That assumes that the amount actually paid bears some resemblance to the pricing! 

 

I wasn't thinking about the pricing. I was really thinking about Graham saying:

"So there is no underlying principle to be found

RF can be RM

RF is cheaper than RM, except when it's not. 

RM might as well be RF cos why would you limit your buyer to one time use. "

I only understood this when I looked at the RF page to see the hybrid licence, then it became clear.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Cryptoprocta

[geogphotos 831]

1 hour ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

You are misleading yourself, but no one else. Bill Brooks is not a recent convert to RF.

For the record Bill Brooks has been selling RF since the year 2000. Bill Brooks first came to Alamy in 2004 as exclusively RF. The old image manager forced Bill Brooks to declare images with no releases, and with people or property, as RM. Bill Brooks always wanted these images to be RF.

The new image manager allows for RF editorial only. That is when Bill Brooks converted his forced Alamy RM to Alamy RF editorial only.

 

Bill you should have provided Alamy with released images if you wanted them to be RF.

 

 RF means that images are available for all Creative and Editorial Uses. That was the case until one of the micros invented Editorial RF and that was long after 2004.

 

Surely if you wanted to shoot for RF you knew that releases were needed?

 

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by geogphotos

[Patrick Cooper 2]

There's a particular photo of mine that I'm planning to license as RM. Not because the subject matter is rare (it isn't) and there certainly wasn't anything difficult or challenging about the shooting conditions. It's a photo of a landmark in my home city. I'm deciding to go with RM in this case because it was one of the top 27 photos in a photography competition that were selected for an exhibition and sold for over $700 in that exhibition. So that's my justification for choosing RM. Not sure if I'm right or wrong.