Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know this is early days, but we’ve had discussions about whether listing images as RF would make a difference.

I just checked my last 19 images sold...period of 3 months. I know, pitiful, isn’t it.

4 of the 19 are RF. Top amount, $250. One was listed RF when I uploaded it several years ago, the other 3 I’ve changed to RF this year. Actually, just the past couple of months.

So 15 of these are RM.

 

I have 5490 images on sale.  1380 are RF.

I’ll let those of you who are better at it than I am do the math. I’ll check the top amount for the RM sales.

Betty

 

Ok,  best RM sale, $187, for that 3 month period.

I think I’m seeing positive results, but I will need to re-evaluate about 9 months from now since the largest amount of my RF have been converted in the past 3-4 months.

Edited by Betty LaRue
Add text
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give it a go.

 

5490 images in total, 1380 RF (25%) and 4110 RM (75%). 19 images sold, 4 RF and 15 RM. Can't work out the RPI as the total amounts for RM/RF aren't given. So crudely, putting $ and all other considerations to the side, RF should have generated 25% of the sales i.e. 19 x 0.25 = 4.75 sales and RM 14.25 sales - so pretty much spot on based on the mix alone. The interesting part is how much $ did RF generate in total compared to RM, then we could've done RPI and see whether financially RF or RM performed better.

 

3 month RPI

Total RF $ net sales / 1380 = RF net RPI

Total RM $ net sales / 4110 = RM net RPI 

Whichever is higher offers the highest return for the same period and one could say makes most financial sense (without taking anything else into consideration).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting and shows I still don't really have a grasp on RM vs RF!  I've about 3 or 4 RF, the rest of my pics are RM.  Betty and Martin, apart from the obvious (people and property), for you, what determines which of your images are RM and RF?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have one RF the rest is RM. 

In terms of selecting, I go by the following rules

If not an (over)saturated subject -> RM

For the others I check the split of current pictures on Alamy on the same subject and select the license type that has the lower number of pictures associated with it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Colblimp said:

This is interesting and shows I still don't really have a grasp on RM vs RF!  I've about 3 or 4 RF, the rest of my pics are RM.  Betty and Martin, apart from the obvious (people and property), for you, what determines which of your images are RM and RF?

 

I can't say that I have proper "reasoning" as of yet, despite years of doing both. However, I can say that RF always have gained me considerably higher net RPI (about 5-6x higher than RM) and higher average per sale prices, but I don't like RF...but reluctantly I go more and more in that direction, I think one kind of has to or at least I feel I have to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Martin Carlsson said:

 

I can't say that I have proper "reasoning" as of yet, despite years of doing both. However, I can say that RF always have gained me considerably higher net RPI (about 5-6x higher than RM) and higher average per sale prices, but I don't like RF...but reluctantly I go more and more in that direction, I think one kind of has to or at least I feel I have to.

 

Thanks Martin, I must take a look at my pics and see what can be changed to RF - can't argue with earning more money!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

 

Thanks Martin, I must take a look at my pics and see what can be changed to RF - can't argue with earning more money!

 

It is an internal struggle. The "artist" prefers RM, the "business mind" prefers RF... Good luck!

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Colblimp said:

 

Thanks Martin, I must take a look at my pics and see what can be changed to RF - can't argue with earning more money!

 

You can change any image to RF now, but images that would require releases would have to be RF editorial only.

 

Jill

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Colblimp said:

 

Thanks Martin, I must take a look at my pics and see what can be changed to RF - can't argue with earning more money!

 

But you will only earn more money if the RM image is never sold again to the same customer. Once the customer has the RF image it can be reused indefinitely.  If the licence is RM, there is always the possibility of repeat sales to the same customer. For RF to make sense financially it needs to make a lot more money that the RM licence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

But you will only earn more money if the RM image is never sold again to the same customer. Once the customer has the RF image it can be reused indefinitely.  If the licence is RM, there is always the possibility of repeat sales to the same customer. For RF to make sense financially it needs to make a lot more money that the RM licence.

 

Virtually all of mine are RM but I suppose there is always a way for customers to get around that these days. Here's a rights managed sale from last month that went for slightly more than usual but it might as well be RF........check out the "1000 year" license details......

 

Start: 28 September 2017
End: 28 September 3017
All rights, all media, worldwide, in perpetuity, including in context promos

 

Steve

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

You can change any image to RF now, but images that would require releases would have to be RF editorial only.

 

Jill

 

The AIM does not require you to designate RF images without releases as RF editorial only. You can answer 1 person and containing property no releases and still leave it straight RF. You do not even have to answer the questions.

If you believe that a RF image without releases should be designated RF editorial only because of its content, then the same image were it RM should also be “RM editorial only” as well.
 

2 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

But you will only earn more money if the RM image is never sold again to the same customer. Once the customer has the RF image it can be reused indefinitely.  If the licence is RM, there is always the possibility of repeat sales to the same customer. For RF to make sense financially it needs to make a lot more money that the RM licence.

 

A customer that wants to reuse will probably choose a RF licensed  image and forego a RM licensed image in the first place. So RM may make no sale at all, and therefore no ongoing sales. Alamy says that customers who prefer RF are in the majority.

 

Curated none Alamy collections are using their acceptance function to twist photographers arms into submitting RF only. They are telling photographers, we will only take these images, that you submitted as RM, if you resubmit them as RF, because our customers prefer RF.

 

In 1996, because of a scarcity of good RF, photographers and agencies had the power to force customers to buy RM. With crowdsourcing (you lot) and every conceivable subject available online as high quality RF, they lost that ability. They cannot force the customer to buy RM if the customer wants RF, and the customer wants RF. The trend has been to RF ever since. RM has been on life support since 2006.

 

I wish it were different because I once made a good living as a full time RM stock photographer. Times change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Martin Carlsson said:

I'll give it a go.

 

5490 images in total, 1380 RF (25%) and 4110 RM (75%). 19 images sold, 4 RF and 15 RM. Can't work out the RPI as the total amounts for RM/RF aren't given. So crudely, putting $ and all other considerations to the side, RF should have generated 25% of the sales i.e. 19 x 0.25 = 4.75 sales and RM 14.25 sales - so pretty much spot on based on the mix alone. The interesting part is how much $ did RF generate in total compared to RM, then we could've done RPI and see whether financially RF or RM performed better.

 

3 month RPI

Total RF $ net sales / 1380 = RF net RPI

Total RM $ net sales / 4110 = RM net RPI 

Whichever is higher offers the highest return for the same period and one could say makes most financial sense (without taking anything else into consideration).

Here are the numbers. Those 15 RM brought $1341.39

The 4 RF brought $315.92.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

A customer that wants to reuse will probably choose a RF licensed  image and forego a RM licensed image in the first place. So RM may make no sale at all, and therefore no ongoing sales. Alamy says that customers who prefer RF are in the majority.

 

 

 

Probably true, but Alamy does a very good job of designing customized RM licenses that allow for multiple uses. Don't you think?

 

Also, I wonder what type of  Alamy customers prefer RF, commercial or editorial. My guess is that it's the former.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot mostly editorial and I still upload as RM, with only the occasional exception. My impression is that the average editorial buyer is not normally interested in multiple use. If you're a newspaper or magazine editor and you regularly publish stories on the same subject, would you want to use the same image every time? Didn't think so ... I wouldn't either. In which case surely the editorial buyer would prefer RM because it works out cheaper.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I agree with @Martin Carlsson and @Bill Brooks on this topic.  IMHO, it takes two things to sell images here on a consistent basis; content that fits exactly what the client needs (assuming the image is properly exposed etc), and effective keywording so the client will see your image.

 

I don't think it really matters too much whether one has marked the image RF or RM, editorial or not.  The buyer is king and as others have said, is able to make the terms now.  That is why we are all seeing 1000 year licenses or in my case in perpetuity with unlimited use for an RM image.  In essence Alamy turned my RM image into a RF image for this client.  

 

Its pretty clear to me after reviewing many threads on this Forum in the last few months, that buyers are increasingly moving toward RF.  Personally, I think there is a seminal change going on in our industry about media content.  I don't like it but I can't stop it.  That is an entirely different topic, and should perhaps be discussed in a separate thread.

 

Personally, if Alamy is recommending the images be sold at RF then maybe I should be listening.  Remember, Alamy is only successful as a business if they continue to license images, our images, so perhaps we should listen to their advice.  We make money only if Alamy is making money.

 

Just my 2¢ worth,

Rick

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kukkudrill said:

My impression is that the average editorial buyer is not normally interested in multiple use. If you're a newspaper or magazine editor and you regularly publish stories on the same subject, would you want to use the same image every time?

Apparently some do, which is why I prefer to sell RM (I've had some multiple repeat sales to the same buyer).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rick Lewis said:

I have to say I agree with @Martin Carlsson and @Bill Brooks on this topic.  IMHO, it takes two things to sell images here on a consistent basis; content that fits exactly what the client needs (assuming the image is properly exposed etc), and effective keywording so the client will see your image.

 

I don't think it really matters too much whether one has marked the image RF or RM, editorial or not.  The buyer is king and as others have said, is able to make the terms now.  That is why we are all seeing 1000 year licenses or in my case in perpetuity with unlimited use for an RM image.  In essence Alamy turned my RM image into a RF image for this client.  

 

Its pretty clear to me after reviewing many threads on this Forum in the last few months, that buyers are increasingly moving toward RF.  Personally, I think there is a seminal change going on in our industry about media content.  I don't like it but I can't stop it.  That is an entirely different topic, and should perhaps be discussed in a separate thread.

 

Personally, if Alamy is recommending the images be sold at RF then maybe I should be listening.  Remember, Alamy is only successful as a business if they continue to license images, our images, so perhaps we should listen to their advice.  We make money only if Alamy is making money.

 

Just my 2¢ worth,

Rick

I tend to agree. Alamy says RF is most in demand.  So when a customer can’t find what they want in RF but there is an RM that fits, well...that’s where these 30 year plus licenses come in. By then, some of us will be dead or asking, “Eh? Who are you and why are you blathering on about RM?”:P

 In most cases when a search happens, the subject the client wants can be found RF or RM. So the client purchases the RF.  We never know which of our RM images missed out because it was RM!

In the case where the image the client wants is not available in RF, but the perfect one is RM, then we see these v e r y extended licenses. 

If a client wants an image of an eagle eating a fish, and two perfect ones are found, one RM, the other RF, which do you think he/she will buy? RF license is straightforward and easy. If they want to use it again, they can at no extra cost.

 

Resales of RM images to the same client will be balanced out by other sales of your RF that was chosen over the similar RM of someone else’s.

Betty

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 @Betty LaRue

 

Thanks for the numbers! 

 

3 month RPI

Total RF net sales $315.92 / 1380 =$0.23 (extrapolated to yearly $0.92) 

Total RM net sales $1341.39 / 4110 = $0.33 (extrapolated to yearly $1.32)

 

As I said "Whichever is higher offers the highest return for the same period and one could say makes most financial sense (without taking anything else into consideration).". In your case based on this limited period of time and casting all those other "considerations"to the side, RM is still performing better than RF. We all see different realities, so many factors that influence this - subject matter, style, release status, age of imagery, the selection of what goes RF/RM, available competition for a specific sale etc. My numbers look different, RF outperforming RM with about 5-7x (it was before the summer I ran the numbers) and a much healthier RPI, compared to the somewhat anemic looking one for RM (if one has been doing this for while and reminisce).

 

AFAIK, IMHO and based on the industry reports that I've read RM is no longer mainstream, the trend being that it is getting pushed out further further and eventually will become a niche at best. Customers and agencies alike want RF - easier to admin, fast and loose, just easier all around (time is money). I'm not a moaner so I adapt, at my own pace, in a way that I'm comfortable with haha. If solely focussing on Alamy, the hybrid license with its' disguised RM like RF licenses smoothes out a lot of the issues (at the moment).

 

My personal experience, not just here on Alamy, is that choosing RM for the opportunity of exclusive sales or for re-use sales doesn't amount to enough to warrant RM over RF - so slowly and reluctantly I work with my control freak and attachment issues and offer more and more as RF, it's a process :) and I loathed myself for it, but at the end of the day money talks awfully loud.

 

There has always been some drama/issues going on in the industry since I got involved properly in stock around 2003 (but I don't do stock exclusively, but still tickled pink by the fact when an image of cat litter can sell for good money!), fact is that bar a blip 2007-2008 (?) every year has been better than the one before, despite reported sinking average license prices (don't think that is true for this year) and despite cancelling my contract with G***y a few years ago. If I'm not mistaken the total $ billion "imagery" market has increased at a healthy level, but there is just a whole lot of new channels (video, web, decline of physical print but an upshot in paid online newspapers). At least it is never boring!

 

For the record - I don't like RF and I do not advocate it, but facts are facts and families are expensive to run ;)

Edited by Martin Carlsson
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kukkudrill said:

I shoot mostly editorial and I still upload as RM, with only the occasional exception. My impression is that the average editorial buyer is not normally interested in multiple use. If you're a newspaper or magazine editor and you regularly publish stories on the same subject, would you want to use the same image every time? Didn't think so ... I wouldn't either. In which case surely the editorial buyer would prefer RM because it works out cheaper.  

 

My second best seller, in terms of numbers, has been a repeat RM seller, all used in the Sun newspaper.

 

John.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we didn’t have something to wring our hands over, life would be dull, wouldn’t it? It keeps the cobwebs from gathering in our brains.

Thanks for the math, Martin. I used to be good in math but never had to use anything but simple addition, subtraction and division in my jobs or life since school. The rust is definitely there.

Betty

Edited by Betty LaRue
  • 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.