RF vs RM

[John Richmond]

1 hour ago, seanlockephotography said:

 

Value for image licensing is derived from the image content, not the meta associated with it.  Your meta work may be a good reference, but I don't see how that makes it more valuable.  You can write a book about a dandelion, but the image is still going to be very common and priced appropriately.

I have a background which includes writing for UK gardening magazines in the 80's, 90's and early 2000's.  At the time my photography skills were not up to the requirements needed to both write and illustrate the 100's of articles bought and paid for but the legacy to me is that I understand what editors are looking for.  One way to keep the readers interest is to include new content, including new, rare or obscure varieties of plants. These have to be accurately labeled to be found.  That's what I specialise in.  I don't feel that those images are suitable for RF.  I may be wrong - but sales are certainly indicating that I may be right.

[Pearl]

13 hours ago, Brasilnut said:

Just out of curiosity, why would an image of a flower ever be RM? I can understand if it's a super rare flower in the middle of the Amazon, but a relatively common flower....?  

 

I'm not a botanist so don't know how rare this one is, for example (it's very pretty though):

 

 

I sold an image of a flower a couple of years ago. It was shot in a studio setting and licensed as RM on Alamy through another agency.  Working the sums backwards, based on what I received, it sold for about £7000.00 and was used on a beauty product.  I would never have got that amount for an RF image.

 

Pearl

[Betty LaRue]

11 hours ago, funkyworm said:

 

To go a bit off subject. With a bit of research or extra knowledge, a photo of a flower in the local park could be an Alamynopoly,

[Betty LaRue]

7 hours ago, John Richmond said:

All my flower photos are RM.  The reason is very simple.  As an ecologist with a strong interest in gardens and gardening I can generally tag and describe garden plants down to species, sub species, variety or cultivar level.  That level of knowledge is valuable.  It generates me a large number of views where I'm either the only or one of two or three contributors on Alamy.  The market for accurately labelled plant images is good (gardening is big business worldwide) but images can often be used infrequently over their lifetime.  In my opinion, making them RM maximises my yield.

 

(Betty, if you're reading this, I'd add Intermediate Bearded to your keywords for the Iris shot.  The editorial buyers do look for Iris types as well as specific cultivars.  Tall Bearded Iris for the TBIs as well.)

Thank you, John! ❤️ 

[KODAKovic]

What i notice from other well known agencies, each of them has at least 2 channels.

One totally RF (Editorial or Commercial, doesn't matter too much) and the other one totally RM (or a sort of curated RF collections).

Looking at their respective forums actually the situation is: the "RF"photographers complain a lot and often. "RM" photographers rarely join the forums and when they do they report very huge sales and they're very happy.

I don't think RF-way is the way, not for Alamy at least.

[Phil]

So - those who are selling their images as RF are OK with having no Personal Use restriction with it's potential abuse?  Seems possibly counter-productive if higher RF pricing is hoped for.

 

   

[Betty LaRue]

I don’t have PU restriction on anything anyway. They’d just buy Presentation.

And 2/3 - 3/4 of my port is RM. nothing to get in a flap about.  I’m not trying to turn anyone. I’m not advocating one over the other.

 

I’m experimenting, and reporting on it. If that upsets anyone, I can always just not share my results.  The last thing on earth I want to do is threaten the status quo. Personally, the strictly RM people, I would think, would be happy some folks are trying RF.  All that money RM brings and less RM competition! Or does one think they’ll lose a RM sale to RF? Trying to understand.

Betty

[Betty LaRue]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I  have my images as RM because that is what I decided to do from the outset and I have stuck with it because it makes sense to me.  

 

That decision has nothing to do with what other people are doing. 

That makes sense. Actually, that’s how I felt until this year.  Old dogs, new tricks!  Although I do feel that the stock business today isn’t the business of even 5 years ago. I’m trying to not have my feet stuck in cement but have an open mind to moving in new directions if/when I feel it’s warranted.  I guess that’s called being flexible. Does that make sense?

 

I’m not so sure the ‘RM only’ model will withstand the changing landscape. Alamy is by necessity adapting to those changes and that’s why a RM license does not always look like a RM license these days. If we suddenly saw these licenses even 5 years ago, we’d have been shocked. We’re almost getting used to them, now. Not liking them, but more accepting of them. And that is because we don’t think, but know, that the stock business is in flux.

Betty

[andremichel]

RM is by far the best model for the long term sustainability of the stock industry. It benefits us photographers but it is obvious why buyers prefer RF. 

[Southpole]

Something else crossed my mind if a buyer wants a RF images lifetime use. He has to store the image and then find it. And as cameras advance and quality of images improve will he still want to use a old image when there maybe better newer images available?

[Brasilnut]

Quote

   Why not? RM doesn't indicate any rareness, it's just a way of licensing.

 

The reason I chose that flower (really random selection) and asked why it would ever be RM is that flowers are one of the first subjects that amateur photographers shoot and upload to agencies, along with beaches, flags, pets, etc 

 

Therefore, the market is flooded with mainly pretty yet generic images. Being a keyword expert certainly helps to stand out and as mentioned above "the market for accurately labeled plants is good". What about the rest of us mere mortals who don't know A from B? Or don't have knowledge of rare species (such a pity because I'm in Brazil and visited a rainforest yesterday).

 

I was near Keukenhof in the Netherlands last year to shoot some tulips. They're pretty yet generic shots so I chosen RF. Those images most likely won't go on a botanist publication, but probably in a few months to illustrate a travel article on visiting the Netherlands in the spring. Or at best the cover of a book, which would be an one off hybrid RM anyway.

 

However, deep down the real real reason is that I have to eat and can't wait forever for sales on here and I'll make more money duplicating such (non-editorial) images on Micros. There's really no concrete evidence that most buyers search elsewhere and even if a small % do, you would lose some here you gain some there (lower priced but higher volume). We have to maximize our income and look out for our best interests and that of our families.

 

The above tulip reasoning also applies to why all my Eiffel Tower, Big Ben type shots are RF since they're not spectacular/unique enough to warrant being RM, especially in a flooded market of the same.

 

That's why skeptical of RM for the more run of he mill images but I think Alamy is adapting well to this "changing landscape". 

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, Brasilnut said:

Being a keyword expert certainly helps to stand out and as mentioned above "the market for accurately labeled plants is good". What about the rest of us mere mortals who don't know A from B? Or don't have knowledge of rare species (such a pity because I'm in Brazil and visited a rainforest yesterday).

There are plenty of resources available, but it does help to know where to start, and always to cross-check.

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, Brasilnut said:

 

The reason I chose that flower (really random selection) and asked why it would ever be RM is that flowers are one of the first subjects that amateur photographers shoot and upload to agencies, along with beaches, flags, pets, etc 

 

Therefore, the market is flooded with mainly pretty yet generic images.

The photo you chose is clearly described by species and cultivar down to the actual breeder, so not 'generic'.

[Betty LaRue]

“I really hope that these discussion soon become redundant and that there is just one unified licence for all Alamy images.”

 

That would be so fine.

No more gnashing of teeth wondering if we’re doing it wrong.

 

That said, 3 of my 7 sales this month are RF. Nearly 50%. What, 40-45%?

The % of RF in my port is far less than that. But that doesn’t tell me if the buyer happened to find the perfect image and bought it no matter the license, or if he/she actually chose RF deliberately.

The great unknown.

 

Betty

[andremichel]

2 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

 

That said, 3 of my 7 sales this month are RF. Nearly 50%. What, 40-45%?

.

The great unknown.

 

Betty

But is such a small sample over just a single month statistically significant?

[Betty LaRue]

6 hours ago, andremichel said:

But is such a small sample over just a single month statistically significant?

No it isn’t. But I am seeing a very slight trend over several months.  I will know more in 6-12 months, hopefully.

 

Probably around spring, I began converting some to RF. 100 or so. As time went on, I’ve added more, through conversion and new work. I’m at over 1400 RF now, but still am using RM for the most of my work over the past year. 

If there are unreleased people or property, I’m still loyal to RM over RF editorial.  But that’s not to say it is written in stone. 

 

I do believe that if one wants to try RF, they need to offer good work, not just go through their portfolio and put the dogs as RF then claim it’s not working.

Betty

[Brian Yarvin]

On 12/23/2017 at 13:14, geogphotos said:

There was also a huge sense of betrayal that I for one felt when it turned out that quite a few SAA stalwarts were producing all this pro-RM literature while secretly selling RF! It did feel like joining ( I did join, paid the membership fee etc for the SAA) a vegetarian society where people were handing around bacon sandwiches when nobody was looking!

 

Ian, this was a devastating discovery for me too. 

 

Strangely enough, whenever I see a thread called "RF vs RM," I get a warm feeling of nostalgia for the days when when every stock photography thread turned into a all-out knockdown. I still chuckle at the time Peter Dean wrote me such a nasty email that his wife sent me another to apologize shortly afterwards.

 

Are we like old soldiers who miss the fog of war?

 

 

[John Mitchell]

On 12/23/2017 at 19:13, Betty LaRue said:

 

I do believe that if one wants to try RF, they need to offer good work, not just go through their portfolio and put the dogs as RF then claim it’s not working.

Betty

 

Good point. Personally, I don't feel that the images I've made RF are "dogs" (with exceptions, for sure) but rather ones that are traditionally more likely to be offered as RF.  No doubt, though, my logic is out-of-date at this juncture. That said, I'm not surprised that my RF images haven't been selling given all the competition here and on micro sites.

 

P.S. My apologies to dogs.

 

 

[Betty LaRue]

5 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Good point. Personally, I don't feel that the images I've made RF are "dogs" (with exceptions, for sure) but rather ones that are traditionally more likely to be offered as RF.  No doubt, though, my logic is out-of-date at this juncture. That said, I'm not surprised that my RF images haven't been selling given all the competition here and on micro sites.

 

P.S. My apologies to dogs.

 

 

I’m doing the same, John. Most likely RF subjects. So yes, the competition will be stiff. I’m wondering about offering a few traditional RM as RF editorial to test those waters, where there would be less competition for buyers seeking RF. Maybe 50 wouldn’t be enough to offer a significant test, but what do I know? 

[Bill Brooks]

6 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Ian, this was a devastating discovery for me too. 

 

Strangely enough, whenever I see a thread called "RF vs RM," I get a warm feeling of nostalgia for the days when when every stock photography thread turned into a all-out knockdown. I still chuckle at the time Peter Dean wrote me such a nasty email that his wife sent me another to apologize shortly afterwards.

 

Are we like old soldiers who miss the fog of war?

 

 

 

I never joined the SAA because I intended to put some images in RF. I was also well aware that many photographers, that did join SAA, were also planning on selling RF.

 

Around SAA time there was a husband and wife team that for a number of years had openly run a 15 person studio shooting excellent still lifes for RF. They ignored the usual “you are stupid to sell great images for RF” and eventually sold their RF image collection to a large agency for $12 million.

 

There was another RM lifestyle photographer, Ron Chapple. Chapple went into RF big time and then sold his RF collection for $4 million. A few years later he said that he had invested part of the sale proceeds in microstock and expected to get his $2 million microstock investment back, but not likely to profit. He then reappeared as an aerial cinema photographer.

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/ron-chapple-and-microstock

 

The three photographers above benefited from RF because they had the ability to free themselves from past knowledge, and habitual ways of thinking, in order to imagine new possibilities.

[Reimar]

I have tended to favor RF over RM, where releases are not an issue.  It is hard to do a fair comparison on RF/RM performance because of this.  Ideally, one would want to have a set of similar image collections divided by license type and then to monitor performance.  As I say, my RF stuff is either released or not needing release.  My RM stuff is everything else that got automatically set to "L" by Alamy.  With that in mind here is what I have seen over the past three years:

 

RF images in collection: 72%

RM images in collection: 27%

 

2017 

RF  Avg net fee: $23   Sales numbers: 70%   Net income: 71%

RM Avg net fee: $22   Sales numbers: 30%   Net income: 29%

 

2016

RF  Avg net fee: $29   Sales numbers: 70%   Net income: 76%

RM Avg net fee: $22   Sales numbers: 30%   Net income: 24%

 

2015

RF  Avg net fee: $27   Sales numbers: 71%   Net income: 73%

RM Avg net fee: $26   Sales numbers: 29%   Net income: 27%

 

So for me, on average, RF images sell for a few dollars more each, and in the past have generated slightly more income.  But not a big difference.

[AlbertSnapper]

RM v RF .............. step back in time.... .............Remember when Alamy published statistics like this !

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20080820232745/http://alamy.com/contributors/statements/default.asp

 

(You can even get to the old Alamy Forum too:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081230130151/http://www.alamy.com:80/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=3933

familiar faces from here, ...discussing lower prices !)

 

I guess publishing stats now is too commercially sensitive.

 

 

[AlbertSnapper]

12 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Thanks so much for that blast from the past. Moaning about falling fees but compare them with now 

 

Yes, it's a bit depressing isn't it.

 

For those that don't click on the link....in Q3 year 2007, average gross fee for images (when licenced by Alamy) was:

credit card customers RM $272 (RF $257)  and account customers RM $152 (RF $214).

 

How times have changed !

 

For me the way to go is RM  Exclusive. Working very well elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

[Brasilnut]

Quote

As I have mentioned before, you only have to look at the credits in publications to see that buyers do search elsewhere, and that elsewhere has been a migration often dictated by price... the next step which already being taken by many is to commons. Which will be the next challenge.

 

(Added as I thought of it whilst washing up.) In addition I often see searches and briefs across different sales channels which are obviously from the same user. With the final choice being the cheapest.

 

With regard your examples of what is generic or not. It is highly dependent on knowledge, and it is not hard to find that knowledge, sometimes it is a question of asking, sometimes it is given to you on a plate. I supply a plant specialist library, and whilst I cannot tell most tulip hybrids from each other, I can read.

 

Thanks for your insight. This is a topic that interests me and super relevant. To deny how the market is being disrupted by a lower-pricing model is dangerous, imo. 

 

I've conducted a brief audit to see if I could detect any patterns between zooms on here and downloads on micros on duplicated images, either downloaded there on the same day or a few days later. I could not see any patterns (just randomness). Another contributor did the same searches with the same inconclusive results. I'll try again soon to gather a bigger and more up to date sample. Granted there are some clients on here that don't register zooms so the above isn't the most scientific of methods, but it's the only method I have to work with at the moment.

 

To really dig deeper I would be interested to know more about "I often see searches and briefs across different sales channels which are obviously from the same user". Would you be able to elaborate on this either here on privately? As for briefs, I know what you mean since there are some notable agencies using the "Image on Demand Specs" model. 

 

Let me see if there's some logic behind this scenario: Supposing that a client on here will search and license an image elsewhere and cheaper. Simple usage and RF on here for $25 and on micros for $1 (keeping it simple). That would result in a potential "lost revenue" of $24, obviously. However, the question is whether the $24 would be offset by other high-volume low-payout downloads at micros. I'll throw a number out there - perhaps only 25% of clients search elsewhere, which means that 75% would still go for a higher price on here, either because of ignorance that there's cheaper prices out there, it's what they're used to, have a corporate account on here or prefer the customer service. Do you think it's higher than 25%? This is all speculative but I would think that in the end there may be a +EV (poker term for positive expected value) on duplicating SOME images. 

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate. Outside the ethics if it's right or wrong or bad for the industry, I'm interested to know what would make us more money in the end from a practical point of view. Personally, I want to educate myself to earn enough to keep me out of the pointless rat race corporate world, of which I've not enjoyed the experience. Interesting discussion.

 

-------------

 

Point taken about the generic vs non-generic. The other thread is proof that even over-saturated subjects can result in healthy sales. I do need to up my game on the specialist type fauna/flora. I've just visited Imhotin Open-Air Museum near Belo Horizonte, Brazil and shot 100s of tropical plants and some animals. Now I'll have to do my research!

 

If anybody visits Minas Gerais and is interested in this type of stuff (I know you are Funkyworm), I highly recommended (as well as art lovers).

[Betty LaRue]

When you go to a botanical garden where the plants are labeled, take a picture of the plant, then a picture of the label, then a 2nd shot of the plant. Maybe a vertical and a horizontal. If you sandwich the label, there is no doubt what plant the label belongs to.

Betty