That's the most recent change - distributor sales are now 30% for the photographer - so you get 50% of what Alamy gets instead of 60%. Still better than the micros but I miss the old days when sales and commission % were both higher.

That has been around for a year or so. It it the latest change, but not recent.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 10, 2014, 11:06

I consider it truly insane to pay someone who does nothing 40%

In the internet age, I cannot see how the partner deals - which effectively increase the take for everyone but the person who created the content - still exist.

Don't underestimate the power of local agents to work very hard and make deals with customers in that territory. Language barrier aside, these distributors often have exclusive deals with publishers in those territories meaning that certain buyers will ONLY buy from them and not look elsewhere. Sales made by distributors are sales which would not have been made via Alamy.com otherwise.

Of course it's your decision if you want to opt in or not, but our honest advice is to opt in. On average it will mean a 20% increase in your yearly revenue.

But why so much of a cut? The person producing the work is the loser in this deal.

Quote from: Alamy on September 11, 2014, 04:19

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 10, 2014, 11:06

I consider it truly insane to pay someone who does nothing 40%

In the internet age, I cannot see how the partner deals - which effectively increase the take for everyone but the person who created the content - still exist.

Don't underestimate the power of local agents to work very hard and make deals with customers in that territory. Language barrier aside, these distributors often have exclusive deals with publishers in those territories meaning that certain buyers will ONLY buy from them and not look elsewhere. Sales made by distributors are sales which would not have been made via Alamy.com otherwise.

Of course it's your decision if you want to opt in or not, but our honest advice is to opt in. On average it will mean a 20% increase in your yearly revenue.

But why so much of a cut? The person producing the work is the loser in this deal.

Great question, now watch James come in again and see a true spin doctor at work. 

Is it likely that Alamy would forego 20% (they also go down to 30% on a distributor sale) if they thought these buyers would come to them directly?

How many sites do you think buyers search on? Of course making deals with distributors makes sense - most buyers look at one site or a handful at most. Searching for the right image takes time - something many buyers don't want to waste too much of - which is why we all want our images on page one. If your stuff is on more sites, you have a better chance of it being seen and a better chance of licensing it. Otherwise, we'd all just sell our stuff off our own sites or via one agency.

I have to agree with ShadySue's analysis and Alamy's decision that 30% of something is better than no sale at all.

Quote from: wordplanet on September 12, 2014, 18:26

...30% of something is better than no sale at all.

And that is exactly how we got to the point that we're at today.

Exactly.

Quote from: stockastic on September 12, 2014, 20:52

Quote from: wordplanet on September 12, 2014, 18:26

...30% of something is better than no sale at all.

And that is exactly how we got to the point that we're at today.

Point taken. But that is where we're at. They've given us the choice to opt out of the distribution program, so we are each free to decide if 30% is worth it.

That is not the point, the point is why does a distributor who literally has to do  nothing, get 40%? More than the issuing agency and more than the image creator. The party who does the least, gets the most.

Quote from: Valo on September 13, 2014, 01:52

Quote from: wordplanet on September 12, 2014, 21:20

Quote from: stockastic on September 12, 2014, 20:52

Quote from: wordplanet on September 12, 2014, 18:26

...30% of something is better than no sale at all.

And that is exactly how we got to the point that we're at today.

Point taken. But that is where we're at. They've given us the choice to opt out of the distribution program, so we are each free to decide if 30% is worth it.

That is not the point, the point is why does a distributor who literally has to do  nothing, get 40%? More than the issuing agency and more than the image creator. The party who does the least, gets the most.

If you don't believe what Alamy posted above, you have to question why you're in business with liars at worst (mind you, that would rule out a LOT of agencies), clueless business people at best. But at least you can opt out. I don't think there's any possible empircal way we can know whether opting out has lost us sales, or if people did buy our files anyway.
Personally, I'm actually more concerned (as I've said before) that the cut our Alamy commission from 60% to 50% 'to help set up a US office', and yet now that they have said officially that the US office is doing very well, our percentage hasn't been restored, not even by 5% as a halfway measure.

Right. The ONLY thing I personally have received is fewer sales and smaller sales since the official opening of the US office. Anyway all agencies use this logic to appease most contributors knowing darn well this is just a way to play for something through their contributors.  And mix in two of the biggest factors: collection growth and pricing pressures and it's really hard accept that a move to the USA would actually yield any benefit for the contributor as a whole. Maybe Alamy needed to do it to stay above water. Maybe they did see good revenue lift, but that was spread over more contributors, more images and at lower prices against lower commissions. The net return for contributors is down, while the net gain for Alamy may be up slightly or kept neutral by the move.

The party who does the least, gets the most.

'Twere ever thus.
Ask food growers.

In the past year my sales on Alamy were so dismal that I stopped uploading any new content there!!  And the rates seemed to drop pretty dramatically as well.  This site is just not worth uploading for me as a  contributor.   

Quote from: ShadySue on September 13, 2014, 07:47

If you don't believe what Alamy posted above, you have to question why you're in business with liars at worst (mind you, that would rule out a LOT of agencies), clueless business people at best. But at least you can opt out. I don't think there's any possible empircal way we can know whether opting out has lost us sales, or if people did buy our files anyway.
Personally, I'm actually more concerned (as I've said before) that the cut our Alamy commission from 60% to 50% 'to help set up a US office', and yet now that they have said officially that the US office is doing very well, our percentage hasn't been restored, not even by 5% as a halfway measure.

What did Alamy say then? That a distributor has to work hard? For what? They market their own site, they have a sales team that sell their product. Wont they be doing that anyway without Alamy images? Alamy does the reviews, the images are just send to the partner through API. The partner does nothing extra to sell these images. They get 40% for that. You complain a lot about istock, but why is it you defend Alamy for cutting you 70%?

Where did I defend them?
Did you read all of this thread or just my last post?
I repeat:
Either one believes what they said above, in this thread, or one doesn't, viz:
 "Don't underestimate the power of local agents to work very hard and make deals with customers in that territory. Language barrier aside, these distributors often have exclusive deals with publishers in those territories meaning that certain buyers will ONLY buy from them and not look elsewhere. Sales made by distributors are sales which would not have been made via Alamy.com otherwise."
If one doesn't believe it, one has the right to opt out, though that right can only be exercised each April IIRC.

You complain a lot about istock, but why is it you defend Alamy for cutting you 70%?

Actually, my complaints about iStock generally refer to their broken promises and arrangements. One of my complaints is that according to the deal I signed up to I should be earning 35% now, not 30% as I get.
When I signed up to Alamy, the deal was 60% for Alamy sales, 40% for distributor sales and one could opt out of the latter.
Now these have been reduced by 10% each, so my Alamy complaint is exactly the same as my iStock percentage complaint: moving the goalposts.

Also, dont assume anything about my business, you know nothing about that. 

I should have said 'one' not 'you' - I wasn't addressing my remarks to you alone but to people in general - but that tends to look pretentious (like my paragraph above) and I forget most of the time. It's general use here to use a generic 'you' (which can be plural as well as singular) instead of 'one', but it can be ambiguous, granted.