Gabbro Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Too late. James read your posts already. You both will be in his dog house (no sale) for a week. No exp[erience with NU. But it probably sux just as bad as newspaper scheme. So, Alamy dropped a pair of balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 It's the "something is better than nothing" mentality killing this business. If you submit to micros, opt in NU and Newspaper scheme, you are not just hurting yourself, you are hurting everybody. But that is your choice. Sorry, you knew what you're getting in, so don't complain the lousy license fees. I for one, rather not selling than insulted by Daily mail for a paltry $5.95. That's OK. I've spent time in numerous doghouses. Woof! Woof! I still haven't dropped out of the newspaper scheme, but I don't think I've ever sold an image thru it either. At least I've never had a $5.95 sale. Tried NU for a year. That was enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 My take on many as i said above - 6 cents or so; I hate to see these even for cell phone pictures or "paste ups" or whatever they are getting away with???? Perhaps they meant "pasties." Come to think of it, that might be a huge, untapped market. Spot use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 $5.95 from the Mail? I had a sale to the Telegraph for $1.00. I still hope to come up with something good I can do with 50 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabbro Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 It's the "something is better than nothing" mentality killing this business. If you submit to micros, opt in NU and Newspaper scheme, you are not just hurting yourself, you are hurting everybody. But that is your choice. Sorry, you knew what you're getting in, so don't complain the lousy license fees. I for one, rather not selling than insulted by Daily mail for a paltry $5.95. That's OK. I've spent time in numerous doghouses. Woof! Woof! I still haven't dropped out of the newspaper scheme, but I don't think I've ever sold an image thru it either. At least I've never had a $5.95 sale. Tried NU for a year. That was enough for me. I opted in last year after I read my photos wouldn't be seen by the newspaper publishers unless I opt in Newspaper Scheme (confirmed recently). Subsequently, I had handful of sales to UK newspaper with fees ranging from $8.xx to $6.xx, posted 3 months or so from the day shows up on their website. I opted out earlier this year, but those sales still keep rolling in - 3 month delay factor I guess. The last one was a grand total of $5.95 (gross). Then it hit me one day. If all I can get are those chicken sh!t from UK papers, what does it matter if they don't see my photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 $5.95 from the Mail? I had a sale to the Telegraph for $1.00. I still hope to come up with something good I can do with 50 cents. Well, you couldn't buy a Daily Mail or a Telegraph !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 LOL. I laugh, but there are tears in my eyes, Alex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I'm not defending the low prices paid by the newspapers by any means - they are insulting. But many newspapers are really struggling because circulation of print papers has dropped so low and they have not adapted fast enough. I never buy a paper anymore and I would guess that most contributors here don't either. Time was I would buy the Guardian several times a week. The Guardian lost something like 50 million last year - I read that on their free website of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smithore Posted September 14, 2013 Share Posted September 14, 2013 Alamy has made a really good job this year: more you add photos, and less you sell.-they have a middle-age keywording system, very painful -they probably changed the search engine so well that i've passed from 3-5 sell a month to zero the last 6 months, except a miserable sell with 75% commison for them, peanuts for me. I've added 2000 pictures in a year only for seeing my sale dropping to zero, it's the only agency on the market performing so bad, congrats! So, what happened here??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semmick Photo Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 "lots of sales but a grand total of about $50" microstock? I have gotten 1.50 here on Alamy !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 How did we photographers allow this to happen? By embracing royalty free and then microstock. But that's only part of the story. The ease of production and distribution brought about by by the digital age changed everything by creating a culture of middlemen and eager suppliers. Now, even those of us who kept our RM flags flying high have been sucked into the downward spiral. The bell has tolled. When farm workers accepted the use of machinery it also started a massive change in the way we farmed. As with photographers, they had no choice really. Technology changes and develops and you either move with it or you're left behind. It seems that some think you either supply RM or Micro and to do both is wrong (not referring to you John). I think what is important is to recognise what Alamy sells (and does well) and what Micro sells (and does equally well) and to give them those images. No, they re not the same images either. To my cost I ignored micro up until July this year and it was only when I completed an analysis package that showed trends and percentages that I seen between a constant 30-80% rise in royalties month on month from the 90 images I had with the micro agencies. Alamy was up and down and all over the place. What I now know is Alamy is a good source of income but at this point, not as consistent as others. As such, I've now changed the percentages of images produced each month for the two business models. I believe Micro will provide a stable income flow each month while Alamy will give it a good boost along with direct sales etc. I'm also seeing good sales from Corbis as well. What does this all mean?!?!? It means look around, change styles and find cheaper subject matter..... and, try to be creative and adapt. Most importantly, keep stats and analysis. SAS, the analytical programme I used to use has a strap line that is very apt, "The Power To Know". That's research and analysis..... don't guess, know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 How did we photographers allow this to happen? By embracing royalty free and then microstock. But that's only part of the story. The ease of production and distribution brought about by by the digital age changed everything by creating a culture of middlemen and eager suppliers. Now, even those of us who kept our RM flags flying high have been sucked into the downward spiral. The bell has tolled. When farm workers accepted the use of machinery it also started a massive change in the way we farmed. As with photographers, they had no choice really. Technology changes and develops and you either move with it or you're left behind. It seems that some think you either supply RM or Micro and to do both is wrong (not referring to you John). I think what is important is to recognise what Alamy sells (and does well) and what Micro sells (and does equally well) and to give them those images. No, they re not the same images either. To my cost I ignored micro up until July this year and it was only when I completed an analysis package that showed trends and percentages that I seen between a constant 30-80% rise in royalties month on month from the 90 images I had with the micro agencies. Alamy was up and down and all over the place. What I now know is Alamy is a good source of income but at this point, not as consistent as others. As such, I've now changed the percentages of images produced each month for the two business models. I believe Micro will provide a stable income flow each month while Alamy will give it a good boost along with direct sales etc. I'm also seeing good sales from Corbis as well. What does this all mean?!?!? It means look around, change styles and find cheaper subject matter..... and, try to be creative and adapt. Most importantly, keep stats and analysis. SAS, the analytical programme I used to use has a strap line that is very apt, "The Power To Know". That's research and analysis..... don't guess, know! It sounds as if you've chosen a good trajectory for yourself, Duncan. Have to admit that statistics and analysis have never been my thing. I've always been a "hit or miss" sort of person, and it's probably too late to change my stripes now. It is encouraging to hear, though, that you've managed to plant your feet in both worlds -- micro and "traditional" -- and are making a go of it. My problem is that when I see publications that I used to sell images to for decent fees now using cheap shots from microstock agencies, I cringe. There are now so many images in microstock agencies that shouldn't have been placed there in the first place, that it is undermining traditional agencies. If photographers put their "snappy" micro images in one pot and editorial/commercial images in another (as I think you are suggesting) then the two models could perhaps coexist peacefully. It's probably too late for that now, however. Cheers, -John M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 How did we photographers allow this to happen? By embracing royalty free and then microstock. But that's only part of the story. The ease of production and distribution brought about by by the digital age changed everything by creating a culture of middlemen and eager suppliers. Now, even those of us who kept our RM flags flying high have been sucked into the downward spiral. The bell has tolled. When farm workers accepted the use of machinery it also started a massive change in the way we farmed. As with photographers, they had no choice really. Technology changes and develops and you either move with it or you're left behind. It seems that some think you either supply RM or Micro and to do both is wrong (not referring to you John). I think what is important is to recognise what Alamy sells (and does well) and what Micro sells (and does equally well) and to give them those images. No, they re not the same images either. To my cost I ignored micro up until July this year and it was only when I completed an analysis package that showed trends and percentages that I seen between a constant 30-80% rise in royalties month on month from the 90 images I had with the micro agencies. Alamy was up and down and all over the place. What I now know is Alamy is a good source of income but at this point, not as consistent as others. As such, I've now changed the percentages of images produced each month for the two business models. I believe Micro will provide a stable income flow each month while Alamy will give it a good boost along with direct sales etc. I'm also seeing good sales from Corbis as well. What does this all mean?!?!? It means look around, change styles and find cheaper subject matter..... and, try to be creative and adapt. Most importantly, keep stats and analysis. SAS, the analytical programme I used to use has a strap line that is very apt, "The Power To Know". That's research and analysis..... don't guess, know! It sounds as if you've chosen a good trajectory for yourself, Duncan. Have to admit that statistics and analysis have never been my thing. I've always been a "hit or miss" sort of person, and it's probably too late to change my stripes now. It is encouraging to hear, though, that you've managed to plant your feet in both worlds -- micro and "traditional" -- and are making a go of it. My problem is that when I see publications that I used to sell images to for decent fees now using cheap shots from microstock agencies, I cringe. There are now so many images in microstock agencies that shouldn't have been placed there in the first place, that it is undermining traditional agencies. If photographers put their "snappy" micro images in one pot and editorial/commercial images in another (as I think you are suggesting) then the two models could perhaps coexist peacefully. It's probably too late for that now, however. Cheers, -John M You got it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidC Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I refer you to the conversation with the Managing Editor of the biggest UK newspaper group when in a 'dealing/negotiating' mode with picture libraries/agencies - he said at the time that the suppliers were so willing to cut each other's throats that he would soon be getting his pictures for a penny a time..... Spoke to his successor recently and he assured me that things were still well on track - why pay a negotiated fee when the image is there for the taking in the micro agencies - they might not be the absolute best, but when reproduced at 150dpi (or 72 for online) what did it matter - cheap enough is good enough, and the savings were reflected in bonuses. The basic trouble with the micro model is that while sales to Mom & Pop websites and blogs for peanuts might be acceptable the bigger boys have got it spotted - and they are really sharp - see the sales where images can be used as often as they like in all titles of the group and in all forms, print and online for a single fee - there are very few standalone single publications - so freebies all round and a boost to the bonuses...... No amount of analysis is going to alter the way that the market actually works, it may tell you what is happening - but then on the other hand my sales bottom line tells me that - and I can see why quite clearly...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I refer you to the conversation with the Managing Editor of the biggest UK newspaper group when in a 'dealing/negotiating' mode with picture libraries/agencies - he said at the time that the suppliers were so willing to cut each other's throats that he would soon be getting his pictures for a penny a time..... Spoke to his successor recently and he assured me that things were still well on track - why pay a negotiated fee when the image is there for the taking in the micro agencies - they might not be the absolute best, but when reproduced at 150dpi (or 72 for online) what did it matter - cheap enough is good enough, and the savings were reflected in bonuses. The basic trouble with the micro model is that while sales to Mom & Pop websites and blogs for peanuts might be acceptable the bigger boys have got it spotted - and they are really sharp - see the sales where images can be used as often as they like in all titles of the group and in all forms, print and online for a single fee - there are very few standalone single publications - so freebies all round and a boost to the bonuses...... No amount of analysis is going to alter the way that the market actually works, it may tell you what is happening - but then on the other hand my sales bottom line tells me that - and I can see why quite clearly...... But burying your head and hoping it will go away won't help either. The problem stems from the invention of micros, now they are here it cannot be rolled back unless you can organise the entire world to stop supplying and remove existing images from them. The last thing I would do is supply images of mountain / editorial scenes to micros, not worth it. That said, who knows what the future will hold. How many images are sold now at Alamy for $7 or less? Unfortunately, Alamy doesn't make up for the low price with high volume. What I'm saying is you could use your skills to produce different goods for a different market. For instance, there is little point selling a pair of Versace jeans at Primark, not cost effective. But you could produce a cheaper pair that gives a return at higher volume. As I've said before, this is not a black and white issue and the one thing we have to keep doing is making decisions, whats right for me is not right for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidC Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 With respect Duncan my head is still above ground level - albeit sometimes only just ! I would however implore you to have a look at what your micros have to offer - you may not supply them with your excellent mountain landscapes (and I did just have a look) but thousands of others will and are in fact already doing so. This surely damages your potential sales. Mr Managing Editor ain't going to allow his picture researchers to buy a reasonably priced shot of Mt Blanc when there are hundreds available in a micro library for a micro price - and believe me - that is the way it works - the researchers are restricted by the desk budget and questions are asked if a cheapo could have filled the space.....and that is the way it works - I know it won't go away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 With respect Duncan my head is still above ground level - albeit sometimes only just ! I would however implore you to have a look at what your micros have to offer - you may not supply them with your excellent mountain landscapes (and I did just have a look) but thousands of others will and are in fact already doing so. This surely damages your potential sales. Mr Managing Editor ain't going to allow his picture researchers to buy a reasonably priced shot of Mt Blanc when there are hundreds available in a micro library for a micro price - and believe me - that is the way it works - the researchers are restricted by the desk budget and questions are asked if a cheapo could have filled the space.....and that is the way it works - I know it won't go away True, all I can do is managed my own work, if others put landscapes on micros I can't control that. I stopped that very early on. That said, here you would get approx. $30 dollars for the cover of the popular mountain / walking mags.... $15 after commission. That is more than $10 less than an extended print licence at SS. I think you could say it is interesting / challenging times..... we just have to keep moving forward, never look back as the past is in the past.... it's been and gone. By the way, I don't think my wording was very good in my last post, I should of had a collective "We" or even "I" when referring to burying ones head.... it was not intended to be a cheap jibe at you. My apologies if it came over as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidC Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Skin, as always intact Duncan - no offense taken ...... Neither of the two pricing models that you mention gives me any inspiration whatever - and neither is an indication of a possible longterm career in this game. At my age one does look back to the years when my annual income always topped six figures (and in today's exchange you can double that) - and worry that I now get excited at a hundred dollar Alamy sale. With your costs for equipment and travel you have to turn over a vast number of sales to break even - looking backwards again - I really don't envy you. Onwards and upwards ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long journey Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 "lots of sales but a grand total of about $50" microstock? yes it's microstock pricing for RM images. Alamy isn't the only one doing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addict Posted September 16, 2013 Author Share Posted September 16, 2013 The agency giving me like 6 cents a shot is (was) not a microstock agency. It is a well known agency i will leave unnamed. Their explanation as to what the sales are for has been sketchy to say the least. Like very short use maybe 30 seconds by Microsoft???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 The agency giving me like 6 cents a shot is (was) not a microstock agency. It is a well known agency i will leave unnamed. Their explanation as to what the sales are for has been sketchy to say the least. Like very short use maybe 30 seconds by Microsoft???? Gee, I wonder which agency it might be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addict Posted September 17, 2013 Author Share Posted September 17, 2013 not this one. Look I feel bad for the ones that spend countless hours putting 10s of 1000s in here to see their income stripped! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 not this one. Look I feel bad for the ones that spend countless hours putting 10s of 1000s in here to see their income stripped! I was thinking of the one whose name begins with Gee. But best not to go there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addict Posted September 18, 2013 Author Share Posted September 18, 2013 actually not the G as i'm not with them and you would be surprised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.