pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Alamy "good news"!  (Read 4185 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2018, 10:40 »
+2
They're crazy! Then I will just delete my account with them.
Too bad about the work, have uploaded in the years about 10000 pictures.
...
Well well, then I don't sell any more there either.

Greedy Alamy - byebye
Where will you be sellling which is less greedy?

Wish AS would start editorial, they're fair and they'd probably have volume also.
They're fair? What's their commission rate? Is it more than 40%?

33% as a start, or up to 46% depending on your former FT rank. Also, they've introduced minimum royalties for subs starting at 0.33 USD. It's not amazing, but it feels like it's going in our direction for a change.

Not sure how long you've been at Fotolia. They have a pretty bad history with contributors. The Adobe purchase definitely helped with their poor reputation.


« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2018, 10:47 »
+3
This IS actually good news! For the CEO. Now he doesn't have to take a pay cut! I'm so happy for him!

« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2018, 10:53 »
0
While it would obviously be better if there wasn't a cut they are really no worse than the rest of the industry. Which successful agency pays 50%?

« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2018, 10:56 »
+3
Seen so many of these threads, figured I may as well start one :)

Apparently some "good news" from Alamy everyone should be happy about! Commissions going from 50% to 40%! YAY!

Comment below.

I also got the notification, but I can't see anywhere the "good news" expression you quoted.

"We're making some changes


In February 2019 the Alamy contract will be changing to reflect a new commission structure. The commission contributors receive for direct sales will change from 50% to 40%.
This email is to give you advanced warning of this upcoming contract change. You will receive another email in January 2019 signalling the beginning of the standard 45 day notice period before the new contract comes into effect in February 2019.
Our CEO James West has explained the reasons behind the commission change in a video which you can view, and leave comments on below."

ShadySue

« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2018, 10:58 »
+4
They're crazy! Then I will just delete my account with them.
Too bad about the work, have uploaded in the years about 10000 pictures.
...
Well well, then I don't sell any more there either.

Greedy Alamy - byebye
Where will you be sellling which is less greedy?

Wish AS would start editorial, they're fair and they'd probably have volume also.
They're fair? What's their commission rate? Is it more than 40%?

33% as a start, or up to 46% depending on your former FT rank. Also, they've introduced minimum royalties for subs starting at 0.33 USD. It's not amazing, but it feels like it's going in our direction for a change.
How is earning 33c for a sale to a commercial company 'fair'?
On Alamy my rpd is c$10, going down to $8. Admittedly far fewer sales than on iS, but it's a fairer price.
I'm not defending Alamy; it's just that most of the opposition is much worse in many ways.
I can't see me knowingly signing up for 33c a sale (and lower for some other sales).

But as I've said repeatedly, we all have to draw our own lines as to what is and isn't acceptable.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2018, 11:12 by ShadySue »

« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2018, 10:58 »
+3
Another Christmas Miracle!

ShadySue

« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2018, 10:59 »
0
While it would obviously be better if there wasn't a cut they are really no worse than the rest of the industry. Which successful agency pays 50%?
Some of the specialists, but they generally require a high submission per month/quarter.

« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2018, 11:02 »
+1
While it would obviously be better if there wasn't a cut they are really no worse than the rest of the industry. Which successful agency pays 50%?
Some of the specialists, but they generally require a high submission per month/quarter.
Fair point but for those agencies pitching themselves in the microstock market with which Alamy pretty much does I don't think there are any.

ShadySue

« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2018, 11:06 »
0
While it would obviously be better if there wasn't a cut they are really no worse than the rest of the industry. Which successful agency pays 50%?
Some of the specialists, but they generally require a high submission per month/quarter.
Fair point but for those agencies pitching themselves in the microstock market with which Alamy pretty much does I don't think there are any.
Indeed no. I don't count Alamy as micro quite yet, though.

« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2018, 11:20 »
+10
I find the utterly unpolished and apparently unscripted video a little bit charming - it clearly hopes to suggest honesty and trustworthiness in contrast to the slickly-produced PR stuff. That's offset by Mr. West's inability to speak clearly that they are cutting/reducing contributor royalties - he's talking about it as a change, as if it were neutral. It's also a bad idea not to prepare some notes about what you're going to say so that you're wasting our time while you're staring off into a corner trying to remember what to say next.

I originally had one of the 60% contracts and I seem to remember the rationale for the cut to 50% was that they were going to open a New York office and grow sales in the US market that way.

Mr. West clearly connects Alamy's rising total revenue to the 2010 "investment" based on cutting contributor royalties, but there could be many other reasons for that growth. I didn't hear much in the way of specifics on the future investment or on how cuts in future royalties on future sales really helps if you have a project in the here and now you want money for.

I'm not hung up on any particular royalty rate - I don't see any specific number as "fair" as it depends on what the agency is doing for their share of the buyer's money and how much business the agency can bring in. Back when iStock paid 20% to independents and made more per month for a given portfolio than any other agency did, I was OK with that. Earnings as an exclusive - and that lovely 40% rate with a great sales volume - was a *very* good deal for contributors. Very sad that they, with lots of Getty help, demolished that business.

Alamy just doesn't bring in the business, for me, that other agencies do. My beef with them is lack of sales volume - and I didn't see any rise as a result of their 2010 "investment" with 10% more of the buyers' money than earlier. I'm not holding my breath for anything magical to happen this time either.

I await a pleasant surprise should Alamy mange to do something useful - for contributors - with the extra cash :)

« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2018, 11:22 »
0
While it would obviously be better if there wasn't a cut they are really no worse than the rest of the industry. Which successful agency pays 50%?
Some of the specialists, but they generally require a high submission per month/quarter.
Fair point but for those agencies pitching themselves in the microstock market with which Alamy pretty much does I don't think there are any.
Indeed no. I don't count Alamy as micro quite yet, though.
Alamy are a bit of a oddity which is why I said "pretty much". If you can keep awake through the CEOs video thats where he puts them...but they have their own way of doing things ;-).

« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2018, 11:27 »
0
While it would obviously be better if there wasn't a cut they are really no worse than the rest of the industry. Which successful agency pays 50%?

Whose success are we talking about? I suppose the same ones that used to pay 50%, but lowered their commissions were. They all talk a good game, but they are usually just as successful at 50% as they are at 40% or less from the contributors perspective. I'm sure they make more on the deal, but it doesn't elevate our individual earnings.

« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2018, 11:28 »
+1
Well it pisses me off that I can still end up waiting months for a sale to clear and I often spot images being used in magazines and newspapers which never appear as sales until I have to point it out to Alamy.

When you get TV and newspaper networks getting three month payment terms its just ridiculous.

Eitherway Alamy will make themselves appear more profitable and then sell themselves out to Shutterstock or Getty.

Zoonar's CEO warned me a year ago this would happen (that Alamy will sell themselves), I thought he was just being snarky but now it doesn't seem implausible.

« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2018, 11:32 »
+2
Mr. West clearly connects Alamy's rising total revenue to the 2010 "investment" based on cutting contributor royalties, but there could be many other reasons for that growth. I didn't hear much in the way of specifics on the future investment or on how cuts in future royalties on future sales really helps if you have a project in the here and now you want money for.

Yeah, there were a lot of changes. They started selling vectors and the upload process is leaps and bounds better. If I was going to guess, I'd think that their catalog grew significantly being a big reason for growth. I too was curious what the plan for growth was other than keeping more of the revenue. Not that they owe us an explanation for their plans, but why bother with a not very well thought out explanation at all?

« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2018, 11:34 »
+6
This is just f*cking unbelievable. Started with 65% and now I'll receive 40%.

We've paid for the NY office which is established for years with a commission cut, and after all this time we did not see our commission restored to what was before. And now this.

This year, the sales have been up about 7% compared to 2017, but the average commission I've earned (net) has fallen about 25%, which in the end makes for an insignificant raise in the total amount I've earned for the year. With the cut to 40%, even if I sell even more I'll be earning even less!

There's a huge problem with alamy which is, they are lowering the prices and cutting commissions but they do not have the volume other micro agencies have. And when that happens, the road for failure is paved as we have seen countless times in the past decade with other agencies.

And what will happen to the distribution sales? The distributor gets 40% and alamy and us 30% each? Will there be a cut there also?

I'm extremely disappointed with alamy. I can honestly say that with this move I've placed them on par with the micro agencies in terms of support. No more defense from me for alamy in any discussion. They've become like the rest.

« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2018, 11:38 »
0
While it would obviously be better if there wasn't a cut they are really no worse than the rest of the industry. Which successful agency pays 50%?

Whose success are we talking about? I suppose the same ones that used to pay 50%, but lowered their commissions were. They all talk a good game, but they are usually just as successful at 50% as they are at 40% or less from the contributors perspective. I'm sure they make more on the deal, but it doesn't elevate our individual earnings.
The microstock agencies who generate the most income for contributors pay between 15-33% from  the statistics I've seen. An unsuccessful agency isn't going to generate income for contributors for very long.

« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2018, 11:58 »
+1
While it would obviously be better if there wasn't a cut they are really no worse than the rest of the industry. Which successful agency pays 50%?

Whose success are we talking about? I suppose the same ones that used to pay 50%, but lowered their commissions were. They all talk a good game, but they are usually just as successful at 50% as they are at 40% or less from the contributors perspective. I'm sure they make more on the deal, but it doesn't elevate our individual earnings.
The microstock agencies who generate the most income for contributors pay between 15-33% from  the statistics I've seen. An unsuccessful agency isn't going to generate income for contributors for very long.

I don't know. I did pretty well for a while on the agencies that paid more. It's pretty clear a large volume business isn't coming back, so reducing roaylties per sale isn't going to help any of us. Dreamstime used to pay 50%, and they are probably lower on the list than they used to be. iStock was a better agency at 20% with no subs. Like I said, they make a lot of excuses about how they need the money and reduce our commissions, but it won't make us any richer.


« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2018, 12:03 »
+7
I am always amazed at the stones these sites have at making these kinds of bad news announcements right before Christmas. For gosh sakes, no time is a good time, but couldnt they at least wait until January to announce? Ba$tards.

« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2018, 12:05 »
+2
Well it pisses me off that I can still end up waiting months for a sale to clear and I often spot images being used in magazines and newspapers which never appear as sales until I have to point it out to Alamy.

When you get TV and newspaper networks getting three month payment terms its just ridiculous.

Eitherway Alamy will make themselves appear more profitable and then sell themselves out to Shutterstock or Getty.

Zoonar's CEO warned me a year ago this would happen (that Alamy will sell themselves), I thought he was just being snarky but now it doesn't seem implausible.
H'mmm or maybe adobe will buy them up giving them a route into Editorial ;-)

« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2018, 12:08 »
+1
Well it pisses me off that I can still end up waiting months for a sale to clear and I often spot images being used in magazines and newspapers which never appear as sales until I have to point it out to Alamy.

When you get TV and newspaper networks getting three month payment terms its just ridiculous.

Eitherway Alamy will make themselves appear more profitable and then sell themselves out to Shutterstock or Getty.

Zoonar's CEO warned me a year ago this would happen (that Alamy will sell themselves), I thought he was just being snarky but now it doesn't seem implausible.
H'mmm or maybe adobe will buy them up giving them a route into Editorial ;-)

You are probably right Getty is flat broke and SS don't have the spare cash floating round either :(

« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2018, 12:17 »
+1
Et tu Alamy.  Sigh.

In their defense when they went from 60 to 50% and started pushing sales in the US my income went up a lot. I don't really see any plan like that here except the idea that if they take a bigger percent they will have more money. Perhaps it is time to be a student. I'm sure there is something I need to learn - like how to make some money when sites keep taking a bigger percent.

It didn't make me more money from Getty, 123RF, Dreamstime, or anywhere else I can think of.

« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2018, 12:18 »
0
Well it pisses me off that I can still end up waiting months for a sale to clear and I often spot images being used in magazines and newspapers which never appear as sales until I have to point it out to Alamy.

When you get TV and newspaper networks getting three month payment terms its just ridiculous.

Eitherway Alamy will make themselves appear more profitable and then sell themselves out to Shutterstock or Getty.

Zoonar's CEO warned me a year ago this would happen (that Alamy will sell themselves), I thought he was just being snarky but now it doesn't seem implausible.
H'mmm or maybe adobe will buy them up giving them a route into Editorial ;-)

You are probably right Getty is flat broke and SS don't have the spare cash floating round either :(
I thought SS were still sitting on a cash mountain

« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2018, 12:23 »
0
While it would obviously be better if there wasn't a cut they are really no worse than the rest of the industry. Which successful agency pays 50%?

Whose success are we talking about? I suppose the same ones that used to pay 50%, but lowered their commissions were. They all talk a good game, but they are usually just as successful at 50% as they are at 40% or less from the contributors perspective. I'm sure they make more on the deal, but it doesn't elevate our individual earnings.
The microstock agencies who generate the most income for contributors pay between 15-33% from  the statistics I've seen. An unsuccessful agency isn't going to generate income for contributors for very long.

I don't know. I did pretty well for a while on the agencies that paid more. It's pretty clear a large volume business isn't coming back, so reducing roaylties per sale isn't going to help any of us. Dreamstime used to pay 50%, and they are probably lower on the list than they used to be. iStock was a better agency at 20% with no subs. Like I said, they make a lot of excuses about how they need the money and reduce our commissions, but it won't make us any richer.
I don't disagree really I just never thought agencies were here to make us richer that's just a by product. Income reducing overall is simply a function of over supply.

« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2018, 12:57 »
+1
I don't disagree really I just never thought agencies were here to make us richer that's just a by product. Income reducing overall is simply a function of over supply.

Yeah, it's not all that big of a deal because the trend in microstock hasn't been good regardless of what Alamy does. It's just kind of funny when I did the math that  it seems like the 10% royalty drop means I have to sell roughly 25% more to make the same amount of money. Seems like a lot of pressure for success on my end. I'm not necessarily expecting big things, but I'm probably jaded anyway. :D

RAW

« Reply #49 on: December 04, 2018, 12:59 »
+1
While it would obviously be better if there wasn't a cut they are really no worse than the rest of the industry. Which successful agency pays 50%?

Whose success are we talking about? I suppose the same ones that used to pay 50%, but lowered their commissions were. They all talk a good game, but they are usually just as successful at 50% as they are at 40% or less from the contributors perspective. I'm sure they make more on the deal, but it doesn't elevate our individual earnings.
The microstock agencies who generate the most income for contributors pay between 15-33% from  the statistics I've seen. An unsuccessful agency isn't going to generate income for contributors for very long.

I don't know. I did pretty well for a while on the agencies that paid more. It's pretty clear a large volume business isn't coming back, so reducing roaylties per sale isn't going to help any of us. Dreamstime used to pay 50%, and they are probably lower on the list than they used to be. iStock was a better agency at 20% with no subs. Like I said, they make a lot of excuses about how they need the money and reduce our commissions, but it won't make us any richer.
I don't disagree really I just never thought agencies were here to make us richer that's just a by product. Income reducing overall is simply a function of over supply.

No, 'income reducing' is a sign of greed.

Agencies could easily curate and tier better. They just don't want to.
It's short term greed not long term growth for everyone.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
7383 Views
Last post December 03, 2010, 13:06
by lisafx
52 Replies
14221 Views
Last post November 16, 2014, 20:14
by Maximilian
15 Replies
2091 Views
Last post June 05, 2018, 12:02
by pancaketom
8 Replies
817 Views
Last post November 07, 2018, 05:08
by amabu
56 Replies
3084 Views
Last post November 27, 2018, 05:22
by Pauws99

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors