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?

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?

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

Quote from: ShadySue on December 04, 2018, 09:54

Quote from: SID on December 04, 2018, 09:44

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.

Quote from: Not Today on December 04, 2018, 09:55

Quote from: ShadySue on December 04, 2018, 09:54

Quote from: SID on December 04, 2018, 09:44

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%?

Quote from: ShadySue on December 04, 2018, 09:59

Quote from: Not Today on December 04, 2018, 09:55

Quote from: ShadySue on December 04, 2018, 09:54

Quote from: SID on December 04, 2018, 09:44

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.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 04, 2018, 09:59

Quote from: Not Today on December 04, 2018, 09:55

Quote from: ShadySue on December 04, 2018, 09:54

Quote from: SID on December 04, 2018, 09:44

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.

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%?

Quote from: ShadySue on December 04, 2018, 10:59

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 04, 2018, 10:53

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.

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 04, 2018, 11:02

Quote from: ShadySue on December 04, 2018, 10:59

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 04, 2018, 10:53

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.

Quote from: cthoman on December 04, 2018, 11:27

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 04, 2018, 10:53

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.

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.

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 04, 2018, 11:38

Quote from: cthoman on December 04, 2018, 11:27

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 04, 2018, 10:53

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.

Quote from: cthoman on December 04, 2018, 11:58

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 04, 2018, 11:38

Quote from: cthoman on December 04, 2018, 11:27

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 04, 2018, 10:53

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.

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 04, 2018, 12:23

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.

Quote from: Noedelhap on December 04, 2018, 13:03

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

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on December 04, 2018, 13:23

Quote from: Noedelhap on December 04, 2018, 13:03

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

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

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.

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...

Quote from: ShadySue on December 05, 2018, 06:48

Quote from: cosus on December 05, 2018, 06:22

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".

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

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.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 05, 2018, 07:15

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 05, 2018, 07:04

Quote from: ShadySue on December 05, 2018, 06:48

Quote from: cosus on December 05, 2018, 06:22

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?

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

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, Alamy�s 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, it�s 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 Alamy�s 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).

Quote from: ThomasAndreas on December 06, 2018, 02:35

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, Alamy�s 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, it�s 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 Alamy�s 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".

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 06, 2018, 05:19

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on December 06, 2018, 04:39

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)