MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Alamy "good news"!  (Read 4187 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 04, 2018, 08:39 »
+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.


RAW

« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2018, 08:42 »
+2
That's awesome.

« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2018, 08:49 »
0
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 just read this ,,great,, news

« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2018, 08:56 »
+1
Just wait till after Brexit, they'll probably disappear.

« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2018, 08:58 »
+1
Greedy. What do they need the extra 10% for? So they can hire some QC staff to finally start letting any old crap onto the site?



« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2018, 09:06 »
+6
Sitting through the You Tube presentation the CEO is not about to become a media star zzzzzzzz

Fair play for fronting up and trying to justify it.

I don't think cutting commissions to improve sales by investing in shiny IT baubles has ever worked.

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2018, 09:10 »
+5
To be fair, they didn't actually herald it as 'good', 'great' or 'exciting' news.

Still,  >:( :( :'(

« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2018, 09:14 »
+2
Kind of a rambling explanation of hopefully this works again.

« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2018, 09:19 »
+18
So, if I understand this correctly, they lowered the commission rates and eventually they made more money, so if they lower commission rates again, they'll make more money. Pure, unadulterated greed by a company that doesn't supply its own material.

« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2018, 09:22 »
+14
Whole industry is going to the pisser.

Maybe they are planning to sell the business and this is the way to plump up the company numbers. Get a big fat payday, and adios muchacho

« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2018, 09:22 »
+17
They make a super long video of drivel, who will actually watch this?? This is totally unacceptable. They give students 100% commissions so we are now paying for them. They do charity, we pay. Sure charity is lovely but don't do it at our expense.
Who would do charity for abused photographers??
I am really sick with this. Does anyone know email for James West?

« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2018, 09:27 »
+4
They make a super long video of drivel, who will actually watch this?? This is totally unacceptable. They give students 100% commissions so we are now paying for them. They do charity, we pay. Sure charity is lovely but don't do it at our expense.
Who would do charity for abused photographers??
I am really sick with this. Does anyone know email for James West?

That's a good point, time we all register for a course and all get 100% comms for 2 years :D

« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2018, 09:29 »
+3
They make a super long video of drivel, who will actually watch this?? This is totally unacceptable. They give students 100% commissions so we are now paying for them. They do charity, we pay. Sure charity is lovely but don't do it at our expense.
Who would do charity for abused photographers??
I am really sick with this. Does anyone know email for James West?

Charity structured so that they dont pay, or pay minimum income taxes on profits.
They are a smart bunch, not like us poor sods who put our time/money into new equipment and courses to improve.
Jokes on us.

« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2018, 09:30 »
0
They make a super long video of drivel, who will actually watch this?? This is totally unacceptable. They give students 100% commissions so we are now paying for them. They do charity, we pay. Sure charity is lovely but don't do it at our expense.
Who would do charity for abused photographers??
I am really sick with this. Does anyone know email for James West?

He gave his email at the end of the video.

Me


« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2018, 09:31 »
+13
Since cutting rates to 50% they have seen revenue growth, therefore cut rates again and see further revenue growth. Shame they are a private company, it would be good to see their profits and projections during these time periods.

Looking at current revenue, this will generate them approximately 3m pa pre-tax. No mention of marketing spend increasing, so how are they going to increase revenue? Cross their fingers? Hope that revenue magically increases because they have cut commission rates? Profits will - if they don't spend any of the additional 3m, but contributors profits won't!

They place themselves in their own designated Tier 2, well below Tier 1 agencies, this move will not put them any closer to the Tier 1 they have specified themselves, it is purely a money grab. The big difference, as we all know, is that the Tier 1 agencies provide the volume, Alamy do not, and an additional 3m on their bottom line will not provide the necessary volume either. Another agency which says they are confident this will result in an increase in sales for contributors, whilst asking those same contributors to bend over and take it with a smile on their faces, and bear with them through this hard and trying time - of four consecutive years of growth?

Alamy, for me, is at best a low earner - circa $1000 this year, now if sales levels remain static, that will be circa $800 whilst I continue to upload and increase the size of my library with them? Whilst their library gets bigger overall, giving me a smaller slice of the pie I helped to make?

Thanks Alamy.

From a ten year contributor. Nice to know you have my back.


« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2018, 09:36 »
+5
Lazy, idiotic QC. Antiquated and stubborn management. And now this. If there was ever any reason to stick with these guys, there isn't now. End of the road. Goodbye Alamy.

SID

« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2018, 09:44 »
+5
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.
But finally the sales have decreased more and more.
Have you ever tried to find pictures there? You have to rummage through tons of badly keyworded files, in addition there are many pictures with unbelievably bad quality.
This reminds me of a customer to whom I told that some of my pictures were listed at Alamy. "What are you at this chaotic agency? You won't find anything there. I haven't bought there for a long time" - so to speak.
Well well, then I don't sell any more there either.

Greedy Alamy - byebye

ShadySue

« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2018, 09:54 »
+6
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?

« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2018, 09:55 »
+1
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.

edit: wait what they do? https://stock.adobe.com/editorial

ShadySue

« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2018, 09:59 »
+3
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%?

« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2018, 10:08 »
+1
Using contributors cut to chase market share on it's own won't put him up there in the top tier.  I think he just missed out on a chance to restructure and compete with Tier One agencies. If he wants to emulate them he will need to stratify his content, contributors and buyers.  Tier One agencies pay different rates to contributors, have premium content offerings form top contributors for buyers and Enterprise teams to keep valuable clients and top earners happy.  He has addressed none of this, just skimmed the cream off everybody.  Expect more good news when he realises his mistakes.

« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2018, 10:21 »
0
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.

« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2018, 10:28 »
+3
Same story everywhere yet we still continue to pay their wages.

« 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.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #50 on: December 04, 2018, 13:03 »
+6
And yet another one of the agencies going the corporate greed way.

As if taking 10% of our cut is going to propel them into tier 1, what a shameless cash grab.

Their way of thinking is: the 2010 cut worked so well after a few years, contributors noticed the difference 3 years later, maybe it works if we do that again.
"Sorry guys, we just feel this is another one of those 'phases', surely you don't mind a cut now things are going crappy already and wait another 3-5 years to see improvement? What was that? No? Too late, it's done. Merry Christmas!"

« Reply #51 on: December 04, 2018, 13:05 »
+6
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

Its not really a 10% drop in royalty. Its a 20% drop

I.e. if you sell a license now for $100 your cut is $50 (50%)
If you sell that same $100 licence your cut is going to be $40 a difference of $10

$10 of $50 is 20%

« Reply #52 on: December 04, 2018, 13:23 »
+2
And yet another one of the agencies going the corporate greed way.

As if taking 10% of our cut is going to propel them into tier 1, what a shameless cash grab.

Their way of thinking is: the 2010 cut worked so well after a few years, contributors noticed the difference 3 years later, maybe it works if we do that again.
"Sorry guys, we just feel this is another one of those 'phases', surely you don't mind a cut now things are going crappy already and wait another 3-5 years to see improvement? What was that? No? Too late, it's done. Merry Christmas!"

It's a 20% cut not 10%  :(  50% down to 40% is a 20% reduction

Sorry Noodle beat me to it :D

« Reply #53 on: December 04, 2018, 13:28 »
+2
And yet another one of the agencies going the corporate greed way.

As if taking 10% of our cut is going to propel them into tier 1, what a shameless cash grab.

Their way of thinking is: the 2010 cut worked so well after a few years, contributors noticed the difference 3 years later, maybe it works if we do that again.
"Sorry guys, we just feel this is another one of those 'phases', surely you don't mind a cut now things are going crappy already and wait another 3-5 years to see improvement? What was that? No? Too late, it's done. Merry Christmas!"

It's a 20% cut not 10%  :(  50% down to 40% is a 20% reduction

Sorry Noodle beat me to it :D

Which means you will have to increase turnover by 25% to stay still.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #54 on: December 04, 2018, 13:39 »
+2
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

Right: Sell $1,000 in licenses, we got $500, next year sell $1,000 we get $400. We will have to sell $1250 in licenses in 2019 to make that same $500

In other words, yes we will need to increase sales 25% to make the same as we did in the past.

Contrary to twisted math logic, a 10% cut is a 10% cut. Earnings may drop at a different rate, but 40% is still 10 less than 50%.  :)


Which means you will have to increase turnover by 25% to stay still.

Right again

« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2018, 13:39 »
0
And yet another one of the agencies going the corporate greed way.

As if taking 10% of our cut is going to propel them into tier 1, what a shameless cash grab.

Their way of thinking is: the 2010 cut worked so well after a few years, contributors noticed the difference 3 years later, maybe it works if we do that again.
"Sorry guys, we just feel this is another one of those 'phases', surely you don't mind a cut now things are going crappy already and wait another 3-5 years to see improvement? What was that? No? Too late, it's done. Merry Christmas!"

It's a 20% cut not 10%  :(  50% down to 40% is a 20% reduction

Sorry Noodle beat me to it :D

Which means you will have to increase turnover by 25% to stay still.

Math is horrible :D

« Reply #56 on: December 04, 2018, 15:25 »
+5
No twisted math logic that I can see. It's a 10 percentage point drop vs a 20 percent decrease in what is actually being measured. Everyone is correct, and we all lose.


« Reply #57 on: December 04, 2018, 20:38 »
0
CALM DOWN....CALM DOWN everyone. We will make it up in volume! ;)

« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2018, 00:59 »
0
No twisted math logic that I can see. It's a 10 percentage point drop vs a 20 percent decrease in what is actually being measured. Everyone is correct, and we all lose.

So 10% + 20% = 30% loss in happiness?  ;D

« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2018, 03:12 »
0
No twisted math logic that I can see. It's a 10 percentage point drop vs a 20 percent decrease in what is actually being measured. Everyone is correct, and we all lose.
A 20% drop in income is the most meaningful way to look at in my opinion as that is the direct impact on contributors.

« Reply #60 on: December 05, 2018, 03:24 »
+2
Read James West comments on the Alamy forum! He associates Alamy with SS and Getty. It won't stop here. The race to the bottom has started on Alamy. Biiig commission cuts on the horizon.

« Reply #61 on: December 05, 2018, 05:29 »
+3
James West looked like a different person in that video.  This ends my love of Alamy.  I wont upload more there, I'll look at other options.

« Reply #62 on: December 05, 2018, 05:43 »
+4
James West looked like a different person in that video.  This ends my love of Alamy.  I wont upload more there, I'll look at other options.

This, more than anything. I used to actively recommend Alamy to everyone, buyer or seller. I truly liked them as a fair company. No longer.

« Reply #63 on: December 05, 2018, 06:22 »
0
The best thing is, that they take our money to get bigger share of the market. But as we all sell on different places, not only on Alamy, they in fact use our money to lower our income from other sites. They don't rise our share, for us its not difference (yes, that still pay a little more than some others, obviously until next crisis) , but we lost the money for ever...

« Reply #64 on: December 05, 2018, 06:42 »
+2
No twisted math logic that I can see. It's a 10 percentage point drop vs a 20 percent decrease in what is actually being measured. Everyone is correct, and we all lose.

So 10% + 20% = 30% loss in happiness?  ;D

Let me put it this way,

Where c=Commission and h=Happiness then,

c-(.2c)=0(h)

ShadySue

« Reply #65 on: December 05, 2018, 06:48 »
+1
The best thing is, that they take our money to get bigger share of the market. But as we all sell on different places, not only on Alamy, they in fact use our money to lower our income from other sites. They don't rise our share, for us its not difference (yes, that still pay a little more than some others, obviously until next crisis) , but we lost the money for ever...
Which sites are you on where you'll get a better rpd, even with the 20% cut?
How will they "lower your income from other sites"?
On the contrary, it's the low subs sites which have made customer expectation of unsustainably low prices, which is knocking on to Alamy.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 06:55 by ShadySue »

« Reply #66 on: December 05, 2018, 07:04 »
0
The best thing is, that they take our money to get bigger share of the market. But as we all sell on different places, not only on Alamy, they in fact use our money to lower our income from other sites. They don't rise our share, for us its not difference (yes, that still pay a little more than some others, obviously until next crisis) , but we lost the money for ever...
Which sites are you on where you'll get a better rpd, even with the 20% cut?
How will they "lower your income from other sites"?
On the contrary, it's the low subs sites which have made customer expectation of unsustainably low prices, which is knocking on to Alamy.
If they take market share from other microstock sites then yes that lowers income from those sites but as you say that is likely to still result in a net gain even at the new rates. If they take it from other high cost  "premium" sites then those people with content there could lose out but it would be a gain for me. Given they are typically more expensive than the microstock sites their main target will be "mid stock" I think. Unfortunately current prices are not "unsustainable".
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 07:10 by Pauws99 »


ShadySue

« Reply #67 on: December 05, 2018, 07:15 »
0
The best thing is, that they take our money to get bigger share of the market. But as we all sell on different places, not only on Alamy, they in fact use our money to lower our income from other sites. They don't rise our share, for us its not difference (yes, that still pay a little more than some others, obviously until next crisis) , but we lost the money for ever...
Which sites are you on where you'll get a better rpd, even with the 20% cut?
How will they "lower your income from other sites"?
On the contrary, it's the low subs sites which have made customer expectation of unsustainably low prices, which is knocking on to Alamy.
If they take market share from other microstock sites then yes that lowers income from those sites but as you say that is likely to still result in a net gain even at the new rates. If they take it from other high cost  "premium" sites then those people with content there could lose out but it would be a gain for me. Given they are typically more expensive than the microstock sites their main target will be "mid stock" I think. Unfortunately current prices are not "unsustainable".
But even if you take it that cosus was concerned about their income from premium sites being hit (but this is a microstock site), surely the micros are eating more into that market than Alamy is?

Unfortunately, I think current prices are indeed unsustainable for us.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #68 on: December 05, 2018, 07:26 »
+2
No twisted math logic that I can see. It's a 10 percentage point drop vs a 20 percent decrease in what is actually being measured. Everyone is correct, and we all lose.

Yes of course, we are all correct. It's just that calling a 10% cut in commission something else, isn't right. Yes of course, we will be taking a 20% cut in earnings as a result. One is not the other, but they are both true.

This just makes me less interested in the $11.25 I will get for an average download, instead of the average $15 in 2018. They dropped prices and now dropped our cut. I will therefore drop my enthusiasm.  ;D

I should explain. Years ago I made some good money, per download on Alamy. Roughly $88! But in 2012 I started uploading the same work to Shutterstock, and discovered that even with subs and OD and all that Microstock payment, I was making more from the same photos, on Shutterstock. If they are going to cut me down even more, I'm not going to care much about uploading to them. I'll submit to SS and AS before I spend any time on Alamy.

I'll work where the returns are best, bottom line, earned income, not where the percentages are best.

James West looked like a different person in that video.  This ends my love of Alamy.  I wont upload more there, I'll look at other options.

This, more than anything. I used to actively recommend Alamy to everyone, buyer or seller. I truly liked them as a fair company. No longer.

Yes and yes
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 07:30 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #69 on: December 05, 2018, 07:37 »
0


Unfortunately, I think current prices are indeed unsustainable for us.
They may be but that doesn't make prices unsustainable in the market. I see no evidence of supply drying up or any sign of suppliers increasing prices.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #70 on: December 05, 2018, 07:48 »
+1
The problem isn't so much the 10% (or 20% however you look at it) cut, since that's still quite a bit above the industry average of around 30% and much much higher than iStock at 15% on non-exclusive. The issue is that Alamy veterans are experiencing year on year declines on average $ per download. So it's effectively a double-whammy that is being dealt to contributors. This isn't immune to Alamy though...look at earnings on SS for 10+ year contributors.

I think they could have framed their communication to contributors much better. If they need money to invest in the business, why not take out business loans, interest rates are super low in the UK.

« Reply #71 on: December 05, 2018, 08:01 »
+2
The problem isn't so much the 10% (or 20% however you look at it) cut, since that's still quite a bit above the industry average of around 30% and much much higher than iStock at 15% on non-exclusive. The issue is that Alamy veterans are experiencing year on year declines on average $ per download. So it's effectively a double-whammy that is being dealt to contributors. This isn't immune to Alamy though...look at earnings on SS for 10+ year contributors.

I think they could have framed their communication to contributors much better. If they need money to invest in the business, why not take out business loans, interest rates are super low in the UK.
I'd love to see the business case for a loan...would any of us lend them money based on their proposal? Once they are in debt then you can be sure our commissions would plummet....look at Getty.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 08:03 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #72 on: December 05, 2018, 08:52 »
0
The best thing is, that they take our money to get bigger share of the market. But as we all sell on different places, not only on Alamy, they in fact use our money to lower our income from other sites. They don't rise our share, for us its not difference (yes, that still pay a little more than some others, obviously until next crisis) , but we lost the money for ever...
Which sites are you on where you'll get a better rpd, even with the 20% cut?
How will they "lower your income from other sites"?
On the contrary, it's the low subs sites which have made customer expectation of unsustainably low prices, which is knocking on to Alamy.
If they take market share from other microstock sites then yes that lowers income from those sites but as you say that is likely to still result in a net gain even at the new rates. If they take it from other high cost  "premium" sites then those people with content there could lose out but it would be a gain for me. Given they are typically more expensive than the microstock sites their main target will be "mid stock" I think. Unfortunately current prices are not "unsustainable".
But even if you take it that cosus was concerned about their income from premium sites being hit (but this is a microstock site), surely the micros are eating more into that market than Alamy is?

Unfortunately, I think current prices are indeed unsustainable for us.

Well, they are not creating new market I guess, so they just want to take bigger share of existing market. So you will pay 20% of your money for moving part of your sells from another site to Alamy. And I really don't think that the another site will be iStock (unfortunately).

Btw. I'm curious -  is there any active contributor from some really rich and expensive country like Norway or Switzerland?

« Reply #73 on: December 05, 2018, 09:07 »
0
The best thing is, that they take our money to get bigger share of the market. But as we all sell on different places, not only on Alamy, they in fact use our money to lower our income from other sites. They don't rise our share, for us its not difference (yes, that still pay a little more than some others, obviously until next crisis) , but we lost the money for ever...
Which sites are you on where you'll get a better rpd, even with the 20% cut?
How will they "lower your income from other sites"?
On the contrary, it's the low subs sites which have made customer expectation of unsustainably low prices, which is knocking on to Alamy.
If they take market share from other microstock sites then yes that lowers income from those sites but as you say that is likely to still result in a net gain even at the new rates. If they take it from other high cost  "premium" sites then those people with content there could lose out but it would be a gain for me. Given they are typically more expensive than the microstock sites their main target will be "mid stock" I think. Unfortunately current prices are not "unsustainable".
But even if you take it that cosus was concerned about their income from premium sites being hit (but this is a microstock site), surely the micros are eating more into that market than Alamy is?

Unfortunately, I think current prices are indeed unsustainable for us.

Well, they are not creating new market I guess, so they just want to take bigger share of existing market. So you will pay 20% of your money for moving part of your sells from another site to Alamy. And I really don't think that the another site will be iStock (unfortunately).

Btw. I'm curious -  is there any active contributor from some really rich and expensive country like Norway or Switzerland?
That depends if they are moving sales from a site you sell on....there's quite a few editorial sites that many of us don't have access to. Rex images owned by shutterstock for example.

« Reply #74 on: December 05, 2018, 09:19 »
0
The best thing is, that they take our money to get bigger share of the market. But as we all sell on different places, not only on Alamy, they in fact use our money to lower our income from other sites. They don't rise our share, for us its not difference (yes, that still pay a little more than some others, obviously until next crisis) , but we lost the money for ever...
Which sites are you on where you'll get a better rpd, even with the 20% cut?
How will they "lower your income from other sites"?
On the contrary, it's the low subs sites which have made customer expectation of unsustainably low prices, which is knocking on to Alamy.
If they take market share from other microstock sites then yes that lowers income from those sites but as you say that is likely to still result in a net gain even at the new rates. If they take it from other high cost  "premium" sites then those people with content there could lose out but it would be a gain for me. Given they are typically more expensive than the microstock sites their main target will be "mid stock" I think. Unfortunately current prices are not "unsustainable".
But even if you take it that cosus was concerned about their income from premium sites being hit (but this is a microstock site), surely the micros are eating more into that market than Alamy is?

Unfortunately, I think current prices are indeed unsustainable for us.

Well, they are not creating new market I guess, so they just want to take bigger share of existing market. So you will pay 20% of your money for moving part of your sells from another site to Alamy. And I really don't think that the another site will be iStock (unfortunately).

Btw. I'm curious -  is there any active contributor from some really rich and expensive country like Norway or Switzerland?
That depends if they are moving sales from a site you sell on....there's quite a few editorial sites that many of us don't have access to. Rex images owned by shutterstock for example.

Yes, for someone it can be better than for someone else, but in general its like I wrote.


« Reply #75 on: December 05, 2018, 10:08 »
+1

...Btw. I'm curious -  is there any active contributor from some really rich and expensive country like Norway or Switzerland?

Tyler Olson, who runs MSG, is from Norway (and I think still lives and works from there)

« Reply #76 on: December 05, 2018, 11:10 »
+2


« Reply #77 on: December 05, 2018, 14:21 »
0
Reading through forums I noticed some positive comments about Alamy, so I thought I would give Alamy a try. I started uploading to them about a year ago, and so far I have a portfolio of about 650 of my best commercial images on that site, and keep uploading selected images on a regular basis. So far I have zero sales. Not even 1 small sale. I will give Alamy three more months hoping I will see my first sale on that agency. If the $$ balance is still zero then, I will delete my portfolio and my account with them. Too much effort for no income. 

« Reply #78 on: December 05, 2018, 15:05 »
+2
In any case I feel pity whoever uploads to an agency that pays contributors a 15%. 40% is already much lower than the 65% they started. I have to say that the arguments of CEO for tye cut are quite poor. Alamy is not a high earner and to lower even more income for contributors might backfire hard. We will see......

The problem isn't so much the 10% (or 20% however you look at it) cut, since that's still quite a bit above the industry average of around 30% and much much higher than iStock at 15% on non-exclusive. The issue is that Alamy veterans are experiencing year on year declines on average $ per download. So it's effectively a double-whammy that is being dealt to contributors. This isn't immune to Alamy though...look at earnings on SS for 10+ year contributors.

I think they could have framed their communication to contributors much better. If they need money to invest in the business, why not take out business loans, interest rates are super low in the UK.

« Reply #79 on: December 05, 2018, 16:05 »
+8
Alamy is a privately owned company
Look at how many shares the directors have and they huge profits they end up with each year, and growing btw.
Now they are going to screw all their contributors, and in another few years will screw they again.
They will do this indefinitely or as long as contributors are willing to upload or leave their images there.
This was one of a couple agencies I thought stood apart in treating their contributors fairly.
They have taken the piss

« Reply #80 on: December 05, 2018, 17:11 »
0
Alamy is a privately owned company
Look at how many shares the directors have and they huge profits they end up with each year, and growing btw.
Now they are going to screw all their contributors, and in another few years will screw they again.
They will do this indefinitely or as long as contributors are willing to upload or leave their images there.
This was one of a couple agencies I thought stood apart in treating their contributors fairly.
They have taken the piss

Yep. He even waffled in his video on that note.

« Reply #81 on: December 06, 2018, 02:35 »
+2
I added a financial analysis of Alamy inside my TSPE article yesterday.

http://thestockphotoeditor.com/index.php/2018/12/04/alamy-announces-reduction-of-royalty/


Quote
Alamy is oblidged by the law to provide public statement reports. Finding this online and looking at their cash flow, one can see the contributor payout clearly in the cost of sales.  But also very high are, the administrative costs and distribution costs. After taxes, their profit margins were 6.4% for 2016 and it was 3.2% in 2016. From a management perspective, Alamys expenses are too high and they do not allow enough profit for the company to secure enough growth. A healthy growing tech company should not be working under 10% and in order to stay in the game, its oblidged to constantly invest. Alamy could have been passing on investment opportunities for years.

If we apply the royalty payout reduction from 50% to 40% to the current statement, the final profits would turn up higher, at 14%. The ideal profit margin for a healthy growing tech company of Alamys size would be 15-20%. Alamy with this move is only trying to secure company health and growth. Growth means to have an ability to invest and expand and find more customers. Shutterstock in 2017 resulted on a 3% profit margin, undergoing a heavy on investment year (but they are 20 times bigger than Alamy).



« Reply #82 on: December 06, 2018, 02:56 »
0
Alamy is a privately owned company
Look at how many shares the directors have and they huge profits they end up with each year, and growing btw.
Now they are going to screw all their contributors, and in another few years will screw they again.
They will do this indefinitely or as long as contributors are willing to upload or leave their images there.
This was one of a couple agencies I thought stood apart in treating their contributors fairly.
They have taken the piss
The profits aren't really huge though. If you decided to leave Alamy on the basis of %age payout which agencies would you keep based on the same criteria?

« Reply #83 on: December 06, 2018, 03:44 »
0
Obviously not happy with the cut, no other cuts have resulted in more sales for me and increase earning.
For the record fotolia have also cut royalities before, pay less percentage than alamy and had the dollar photo club before.

I my opinion the biggest heist the agencies pull on us is the 5 photo "subscription" models etc converting credit sales into small amount of subscription sales.  (I'm sure there's lots of other heists)

Are there any readily accessible agencies still with 50% ?







« Reply #84 on: December 06, 2018, 04:39 »
0
I added a financial analysis of Alamy inside my TSPE article yesterday.

http://thestockphotoeditor.com/index.php/2018/12/04/alamy-announces-reduction-of-royalty/


Quote
Alamy is oblidged by the law to provide public statement reports. Finding this online and looking at their cash flow, one can see the contributor payout clearly in the cost of sales.  But also very high are, the administrative costs and distribution costs. After taxes, their profit margins were 6.4% for 2016 and it was 3.2% in 2016. From a management perspective, Alamys expenses are too high and they do not allow enough profit for the company to secure enough growth. A healthy growing tech company should not be working under 10% and in order to stay in the game, its oblidged to constantly invest. Alamy could have been passing on investment opportunities for years.

If we apply the royalty payout reduction from 50% to 40% to the current statement, the final profits would turn up higher, at 14%. The ideal profit margin for a healthy growing tech company of Alamys size would be 15-20%. Alamy with this move is only trying to secure company health and growth. Growth means to have an ability to invest and expand and find more customers. Shutterstock in 2017 resulted on a 3% profit margin, undergoing a heavy on investment year (but they are 20 times bigger than Alamy).



Interesting, but profits are what's left over after costs and expenses, including investments for growth (for example Amazon doesn't have much profit because they reinvest in growth). This doesn't tell us anything about "enough profit for the company to secure enough growth".

« Reply #85 on: December 06, 2018, 05:19 »
0
I added a financial analysis of Alamy inside my TSPE article yesterday.

http://thestockphotoeditor.com/index.php/2018/12/04/alamy-announces-reduction-of-royalty/


Quote
Alamy is oblidged by the law to provide public statement reports. Finding this online and looking at their cash flow, one can see the contributor payout clearly in the cost of sales.  But also very high are, the administrative costs and distribution costs. After taxes, their profit margins were 6.4% for 2016 and it was 3.2% in 2016. From a management perspective, Alamys expenses are too high and they do not allow enough profit for the company to secure enough growth. A healthy growing tech company should not be working under 10% and in order to stay in the game, its oblidged to constantly invest. Alamy could have been passing on investment opportunities for years.

If we apply the royalty payout reduction from 50% to 40% to the current statement, the final profits would turn up higher, at 14%. The ideal profit margin for a healthy growing tech company of Alamys size would be 15-20%. Alamy with this move is only trying to secure company health and growth. Growth means to have an ability to invest and expand and find more customers. Shutterstock in 2017 resulted on a 3% profit margin, undergoing a heavy on investment year (but they are 20 times bigger than Alamy).



Interesting, but profits are what's left over after costs and expenses, including investments for growth (for example Amazon doesn't have much profit because they reinvest in growth). This doesn't tell us anything about "enough profit for the company to secure enough growth".
That was true in the past when Amazon was an immature company in its early stages no so much now. https://yourstory.com/2018/04/amazon-q1-2018-report/. They don't necessarily pay out these profits to investors though choosing to reinvest in the business if they consider they will achieve better returns.

« Reply #86 on: December 06, 2018, 05:31 »
0


Interesting, but profits are what's left over after costs and expenses, including investments for growth (for example Amazon doesn't have much profit because they reinvest in growth). This doesn't tell us anything about "enough profit for the company to secure enough growth".
That was true in the past when Amazon was an immature company in its early stages no so much now. https://yourstory.com/2018/04/amazon-q1-2018-report/. They don't necessarily pay out these profits to investors though choosing to reinvest in the business if they consider they will achieve better returns.

Thanks I haven't been keeping up. I was just using it as an example of how profit works in relation to investing for growth (i.e. that investment doesn't show as profit because it is subtracted from revenue before profit is calculated)


« Reply #87 on: December 06, 2018, 05:52 »
0


Interesting, but profits are what's left over after costs and expenses, including investments for growth (for example Amazon doesn't have much profit because they reinvest in growth). This doesn't tell us anything about "enough profit for the company to secure enough growth".
That was true in the past when Amazon was an immature company in its early stages no so much now. https://yourstory.com/2018/04/amazon-q1-2018-report/. They don't necessarily pay out these profits to investors though choosing to reinvest in the business if they consider they will achieve better returns.

Thanks I haven't been keeping up. I was just using it as an example of how profit works in relation to investing for growth (i.e. that investment doesn't show as profit because it is subtracted from revenue before profit is calculated)
Yes in the early days the likes of amazon traded at a loss while building infrastructure now they can reinvest operating profit. I believe its only recently that SS actually gave money to shareholders.

« Reply #88 on: December 06, 2018, 09:21 »
0
Salaries for ~200 people in the UK and managing the 2PB of contributed content could be as expensive as their administrative costs (aka running expenses).


« Reply #89 on: December 07, 2018, 02:37 »
+4
Alamy is not a microstock site and it should never be transformed into one. Yes James West should not think in terms of cheap and "customer experience" either . There are many Alamy contributors who have been along for decades, selling only via Alamy, and licensing their work as Rights Managed. To this group slashing the iconic 50-50 cut is a massacre. It destroys their work and income. For a microstock contributor who submits to 20 agencies, this is probably not that big deal. If you haven't already, email James and tell him  what you think!


 

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