MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Alamy Refunds?  (Read 5846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2018, 01:59 »
+4

A good theory, except I didn't say anything about "numerous returns".  I think I've had maybe 2 over the years.


Good lord, has my reading comprehension gone to pot? I've had considerably more than that. I don't understand what leads you to your theory about them "renting" out images via refunds if you're not suffering from returns yourself.


« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2018, 05:14 »
+3

A good theory, except I didn't say anything about "numerous returns".  I think I've had maybe 2 over the years.


Good lord, has my reading comprehension gone to pot? I've had considerably more than that. I don't understand what leads you to your theory about them "renting" out images via refunds if you're not suffering from returns yourself.

While refunds are annoying, sometimes they pop back a couple of days later at the same price, sometimes for a little more/less. It can be down to the wording of the agreement. If the licence grants a years use from X date but the date changes, they they will cancel, refund and then re-licence again for the same T&C's with the new date.

« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2018, 08:06 »
0

A good theory, except I didn't say anything about "numerous returns".  I think I've had maybe 2 over the years.


Good lord, has my reading comprehension gone to pot? I've had considerably more than that. I don't understand what leads you to your theory about them "renting" out images via refunds if you're not suffering from returns yourself.

While refunds are annoying, sometimes they pop back a couple of days later at the same price, sometimes for a little more/less. It can be down to the wording of the agreement. If the licence grants a years use from X date but the date changes, they they will cancel, refund and then re-licence again for the same T&C's with the new date.

I've never had a Alamy refund that wasn't resold with a different license, the day after the refund.

namussi

« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2018, 21:19 »
0
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties.  The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee"  from which we get nothing.

Perhaps Alamy could learn a thing or two from iStock about micro-RM and paying contributors for when customers use pix for a short time.

But then, I suppose, people would whine about two cent downloads.


« Reply #29 on: May 16, 2018, 01:35 »
0

A good theory, except I didn't say anything about "numerous returns".  I think I've had maybe 2 over the years.


Good lord, has my reading comprehension gone to pot? I've had considerably more than that. I don't understand what leads you to your theory about them "renting" out images via refunds if you're not suffering from returns yourself.

While refunds are annoying, sometimes they pop back a couple of days later at the same price, sometimes for a little more/less. It can be down to the wording of the agreement. If the licence grants a years use from X date but the date changes, they they will cancel, refund and then re-licence again for the same T&C's with the new date.

I've never had a Alamy refund that wasn't resold with a different license, the day after the refund.

I've had a couple but nothing enough to lose sleep over.... mostly, they return with different license conditions.

ShadySue

« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2018, 19:10 »
+4
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties.  The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee"  from which we get nothing.

Perhaps Alamy could learn a thing or two from iStock about micro-RM and paying contributors for when customers use pix for a short time.

But then, I suppose, people would whine about two cent downloads.
Obviously, because some of us don't agree with your view that 2c is better than 0c.

namussi

« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2018, 19:37 »
0
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties.  The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee"  from which we get nothing.

Perhaps Alamy could learn a thing or two from iStock about micro-RM and paying contributors for when customers use pix for a short time.

But then, I suppose, people would whine about two cent downloads.
Obviously, because some of us don't agree with your view that 2c is better than 0c.

But isn't it better to have a way to make money from customers who want to use a picture for a short time, rather than the process of download-and-refund?

It's extra income for photographers, even if it is a small amount.


ShadySue

« Reply #32 on: May 17, 2018, 03:08 »
+3
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties.  The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee"  from which we get nothing.

Perhaps Alamy could learn a thing or two from iStock about micro-RM and paying contributors for when customers use pix for a short time.

But then, I suppose, people would whine about two cent downloads.
Obviously, because some of us don't agree with your view that 2c is better than 0c.

But isn't it better to have a way to make money from customers who want to use a picture for a short time, rather than the process of download-and-refund?
Where is the evidence that download-use for a short time-refund is what's happening?
(That would be theft)
That was just a hypothesis pulled out of the air by someone who admits they've only had 2 refunds.

Quote
It's extra income for photographers, even if it is a small amount.
That's true, but I for one wouldn't be interested.
There are already small use/short term sales there to bulk buyers netting around $1, which is pathetic, but 50x what you're happy to accept.
There's more than one reason why prices are as low as they currently are.

namussi

« Reply #33 on: May 17, 2018, 03:29 »
0
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties.  The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee"  from which we get nothing.

Perhaps Alamy could learn a thing or two from iStock about micro-RM and paying contributors for when customers use pix for a short time.

But then, I suppose, people would whine about two cent downloads.
Obviously, because some of us don't agree with your view that 2c is better than 0c.

But isn't it better to have a way to make money from customers who want to use a picture for a short time, rather than the process of download-and-refund?
Where is the evidence that download-use for a short time-refund is what's happening?
(That would be theft)
That was just a hypothesis pulled out of the air by someone who admits they've only had 2 refunds.

Quote
It's extra income for photographers, even if it is a small amount.
That's true, but I for one wouldn't be interested.
There are already small use/short term sales there to bulk buyers netting around $1, which is pathetic, but 50x what you're happy to accept.
There's more than one reason why prices are as low as they currently are.

It was a hypothesis. But I was suggesting how it might be developed into a product.

Of course you're not interested, because you are far too emotional and irrational and not thinking about maximising income.

ShadySue

« Reply #34 on: May 17, 2018, 12:26 »
+3
Of course you're not interested, because you are far too emotional and irrational and not thinking about maximising income.
1. If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional.

2. Income is vanity, profit is sanity; that much lube here costs more than 2c, and isn't tax-deductible.
YMMV
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 12:47 by ShadySue »

namussi

« Reply #35 on: May 17, 2018, 18:28 »
0
Of course you're not interested, because you are far too emotional and irrational and not thinking about maximising income.
1. If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional.

2. Income is vanity, profit is sanity; that much lube here costs more than 2c, and isn't tax-deductible.
YMMV

You misunderstand.

Renting pictures cheaply for a short time is an additional stream of income, not a price reduction.

It's a way of getting people to spend money who wouldn't have done so before.


See this explanation.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 18:40 by namussi »

ShadySue

« Reply #36 on: May 17, 2018, 18:46 »
0
Of course you're not interested, because you are far too emotional and irrational and not thinking about maximising income.
1. If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional.

2. Income is vanity, profit is sanity; that much lube here costs more than 2c, and isn't tax-deductible.
YMMV

You misunderstand.

Renting pictures cheaply for a short time is an additional stream of income, not a price reduction.

It's a way of getting people to spend money who wouldn't have done so before.


See this explanation.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp
I don't misunderstand.
If you insist on imagining that applies to stock photos, that's up to you.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 18:48 by ShadySue »

namussi

« Reply #37 on: May 17, 2018, 20:19 »
0
Of course you're not interested, because you are far too emotional and irrational and not thinking about maximising income.
1. If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional.

2. Income is vanity, profit is sanity; that much lube here costs more than 2c, and isn't tax-deductible.
YMMV

You misunderstand.

Renting pictures cheaply for a short time is an additional stream of income, not a price reduction.

It's a way of getting people to spend money who wouldn't have done so before.


See this explanation.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp
I don't misunderstand.
If you insist on imagining that applies to stock photos, that's up to you.

I think you do misunderstand.

Otherwise you wouldn't have written "If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional."

Secondly, why shouldn't price discrimination apply stock photos?




ShadySue

« Reply #38 on: May 18, 2018, 04:29 »
+2
Of course you're not interested, because you are far too emotional and irrational and not thinking about maximising income.
1. If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional.

2. Income is vanity, profit is sanity; that much lube here costs more than 2c, and isn't tax-deductible.
YMMV

You misunderstand.

Renting pictures cheaply for a short time is an additional stream of income, not a price reduction.

It's a way of getting people to spend money who wouldn't have done so before.


See this explanation.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp
I don't misunderstand.
If you insist on imagining that applies to stock photos, that's up to you.

I think you do misunderstand.

Otherwise you wouldn't have written "If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional."

Secondly, why shouldn't price discrimination apply stock photos?

1. It hasn't happened in the past. Just because iS / Alamy (the only two I have experience of) reduce prices doesn't mean individual suppliers are earning more. Perhaps the agencies make more in the short term. But (on iStock) I and many others are finding that rpd is well down, but also sales are well down, so a double whammy. No-one who reported said that opting in to 'novel use' at Alamy, which was exactly the sort of 'new buyer' you're talking about said they were getting more sales, and in fact, more and more people opted out of it.

2. Because the sort of buyer who might only want 'the odd image' for 2c would make a loss for an agency. 
2b And would certainly render monitoring adherence to licence conditions uneconomic, so they would soon be misused.
2c Even if it were true that you'd sell so many more (it would need to be more than 50x, more like 1250x, since the average sale price on Alamy is said to be c$25 net (incuding Live News, the higher priced newspaper sales offering), there would be so many more instances of images in the wild to be stolen (I'd far rather sell one image for $10 than 10 images at $1 for that reason and others), and what sort of joke would it be claiming your images have value and couldn't be stolen, when you'd be happy to accept 2c for them.

3. Once a low price is introduced, all buyers want, and seem to get, onto it. When Thinkstock started, iStock claimed the low price was 'for new buyers' - but very soon a lot of their big buyers migrated over there. Alamy has a newish 'personal use' option, but many reports, including my own, show files are being bought which are extremely unlikely to be used for any of the 'personal use' licence points.

However,  go ahead - open up your own agency selling for 2c and you can laugh at me next year.
I'm out of this conversation, it's just going round in circles.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 18:23 by ShadySue »

namussi

« Reply #39 on: May 19, 2018, 06:00 »
0

I'm out of this conversation, it's just going round in circles.

Blimey. You gave up. Gave in. Caved. Folded. Threw in the towel.

I suppose that capitulation means I won the argument.

Victory is mine!

Wooohahahahhhaahahh!

« Reply #40 on: May 20, 2018, 03:12 »
+2

I'm out of this conversation, it's just going round in circles.

Blimey. You gave up. Gave in. Caved. Folded. Threw in the towel.

I suppose that capitulation means I won the argument.

Victory is mine!

Wooohahahahhhaahahh!

No it just means you are childish


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
4780 Views
Last post January 19, 2012, 23:11
by pancaketom
2 Replies
1992 Views
Last post October 09, 2012, 18:41
by ShadySue
Refunds on Alamy

Started by tab62 Alamy.com

2 Replies
1177 Views
Last post April 22, 2013, 12:52
by tab62
16 refunds !

Started by Ron 123RF

3 Replies
1574 Views
Last post April 11, 2014, 10:46
by 08stock08
3 Replies
2183 Views
Last post February 23, 2015, 01:59
by Stockmaan

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors