MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Alamy.com => Topic started by: ShadySue on November 20, 2012, 06:40
-
http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2012/11/20/5275.aspx (http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2012/11/20/5275.aspx)
-
I joined alamy.
I even uploaded 3 pictures.
But found it not worthwhile to upsize and go through their procedure.
Now it seems that I was spared a good amount of frustration.
-
Alamy!
Big Welcome on the Dark side! :'(
-
Dear Alamy, you say "We understand that reducing your share by ten percentage points cannot be seen as great news in the short term."
Well, I couldn't care less about "short term". The problem is the long term: the two other major sites that did cut our shares only got a lot of bad publicity in return, and a reduction in sales, not an increase.
You are still in time to withdraw your decision, and we will forgive you: we have little power, but we are many.
-
I wonder why expansion costs always come at the expense of contributors. If revenue is increasing, and the company is profitable, then there should be more profits to spend on expansion.
While I appreciate agencies and the fact that they provide income, it's pretty clear that there is no stopping the continual downward push of commissions. Where will it stop? 10%? 5%?
-
Thats quite in order and will probably benefit us long term. :)
-
Alamy commission change. A Q+A with Alamy CEO, James West. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2MtFLcDaBk#ws)
-
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! :'(
-
1:07 - "We have to modify our commission split to bring us in line with the competition"
In other words, everyone else is taking a grotesque amount from the photographer, if we are going to compete, we need to as well.
50% is still good and what I'd call fair but it is still a big disappointment seeing them pressed to do this. Interestingly he corrects the interviewer when she says that alamy is getting 10% more.. he corrects her saying "10 more percentage points".. really Alamy is getting a 25% increase in the share of a sale which is a seriously big amount. All I have to say is hopefully they do something smart with it.
-
Haha, at least they're honest about it.
Alamy never did much for me, so I'll be dropping them.
-
1:07 - "We have to modify our commission split to bring us in line with the competition"
In other words, everyone else is taking a grotesque amount from the photographer, if we are going to compete, we need to as well.
50% is still good and what I'd call fair but it is still a big disappointment seeing them pressed to do this. Interestingly he corrects the interviewer when she says that alamy is getting 10% more.. he corrects her saying "10 more percentage points".. really Alamy is getting a 25% increase in the share of a sale which is a seriously big amount. All I have to say is hopefully they do something smart with it.
50% is not just good in comparison to others, its very good! and if they are pressed to do it, well not much one can do, is it.
-
Agencies are in war for existing customers with our money...
Probably they are struggling for new buyers, but there is no new market field for that, photo stock is an old business...
Also, they can not bring new customers for us without our loss on other agencies...
So, this will be profitable only for marketing companies...
-
Gee thanks Alamy. Another commission cut with the promise of sales growth. Can anyone recall another company like "123 saying that we're cutting your pay but we will be growing your sales". Yes they cut our pay (or will be in January) but they definitely haven't grown my revenue. Just another * rhetorical blather thinking we will buy it, when it is nothing more than a money grab like IS and 123. This isn't the end either, I suspect. 40% is next, then 30% and so on.
-
and for the record, here's the email...
Dear INSERT-NAME-HERE,
We’ve posted some important information on our blog and there is an accompanying video from James West Alamy CEO to explain some changes at Alamy.
In summary;
Your royalty percentage will be decreasing by 10 percentage points in early 2013 for direct and distributor image sales.
The change applies to all images from all our contributors, regardless of which commission structure you are on. For example, Alamy Blue contributors will move from receiving 60% of each sale to receiving 50%. Video royalties will remain unchanged at 50%.
Why are we doing this? Alamy is a profitable business, however we are at a stage in our development where we have reached the limits of our expansion under our current set-up.
Alamy has developed significantly over the past 18 months. We introduced a News Sport and Entertainment division and we are now selling video. We’ve started curating the collection for creative picture buyers and continue to bring innovation and high quality service to the editorial market. We have ambitious plans to gain market share from our competitors and grow the business.
We’ve increased our sales staff in our core UK and US offices and also in key growth markets such as Germany, India and Australia. We’re also simplifying the buying process for our customers by introducing sales focused initiatives such as Alamy iQ.
In early 2013 we’ll unveil our new look website. Alamy is transforming into a Sales and Marketing led business with the ultimate goal of growing sales.
All of this is designed to drive sales and this will be accompanied by further initiatives planned for 2013 to improve the contributor experience.
We understand that reducing your share by ten percentage points cannot be seen as great news in the short term. However, this investment will provide Alamy with the foundation to greatly improve our presence and penetration and so increase sales.
When we made a change like this back in 2008 it was to fund expansion into the US. We’ve been true to our word. Our US office sales performance is growing at the rate of 30% year on year. The US is now our largest direct sales operation and we are currently recruiting staff to expand it further. Our experience shows that investing in the right things does pay off.
All contributors will receive a formal notification via email of the changes to the contract.
Thank you for your time.
-
Why don't they just lower or remove the amount they are so proud of giving to charity, and leave the charity giving up to the suppliers if they so wish?
There won't be any increase in sales because of reducing royalties. Don't be delusional.
-
They are very open and honest compare to other agencies.
They have said what they are doing and why, now we just need to think if the new deal is good enough to justify staying with them.
For me it is.
No point getting worked up about this when we've got the likes of Fotolia to worry about.
-
Thats quite in order and will probably benefit us long term. :)
The last cut, to fund the US offices, didn't.
-
Thats quite in order and will probably benefit us long term. :)
The last cut, to fund the US offices, didn't.
I know! but one can hope. Only thing to do.
-
Wonderful >:(
-
If cutting our commissions means more sales and more money in our pocket, I think we should just cut to the chase and cut 'em all the way down to zero so we can get rich! :P
-
I don't know much about this place so I would like to hear how people are doing on Alamy. Their video pricing is spot on for a good return, If you only get one sale a month then its a waste of time. Agencieis that are paying 50/50 should get our support as a community!!! It's at least fair so I don't know why people complain so much about an agency like this! Keep in mind if you are non exclusive at iStock then you are earning 15% if you are lucky. If all great artist helped sites that pay 50/50 we would all be in better shape!
-
If they would make their upload process faster and easier, I'd send them my whole portfolio tomorrow.
I really like the honesty and integrity that comes through from James West. I see no reason to doubt that they'll do all they can to make this work for contributors. It seems very clear that they want to be around for a long time. There's no whitewash here. He seems to understand the contributor's perspective perfectly and is unafraid to be honest about that.
I'm so sick of robotic sales-speak and 'down with the kids' lingo. I find him really refreshing.
-
1:07 - "We have to modify our commission split to bring us in line with the competition"
In other words, everyone else is taking a grotesque amount from the photographer, if we are going to compete, we need to as well.
50% is still good and what I'd call fair but it is still a big disappointment seeing them pressed to do this. Interestingly he corrects the interviewer when she says that alamy is getting 10% more.. he corrects her saying "10 more percentage points".. really Alamy is getting a 25% increase in the share of a sale which is a seriously big amount. All I have to say is hopefully they do something smart with it.
This - it's not a 10% cut, it's a 16.66% cut
-
I don't know much about this place so I would like to hear how people are doing on Alamy.
not many sales, but some at a very good price, make Alamy worthwhile
Agencieis that are paying 50/50 should get our support as a community!!! It's at least fair so I don't know why people complain so much about an agency like this! Keep in mind if you are non exclusive at iStock then you are earning 15% if you are lucky. If all great artist helped sites that pay 50/50 we would all be in better shape!
50% is good in itself compared to others, but the trend (cutting commissions) is not
furthermore, Alamy is funding medical research, which is commendable; but cutting our percentage to give away to others is not
after all, if they are so confident that they are acting to "grow the business", then they could easily reduce funds to their charity now (they say they give away 89% of profits), in order give away even more lately of course
-
If cutting our commissions means more sales and more money in our pocket, I think we should just cut to the chase and cut 'em all the way down to zero so we can get rich! :P
I think you have summarized the entire situation, Alamy and everyone else, perfectly!
I don't mind getting 50% when other places I dropped were down to 12-15% and making no sales. I'd still rather have 50% of something. Alamy takes files that the others won't, so I'm fine with that part too. Just sitting on my hard drive, I haven't every made a sale yet.
The claim that US sales are up 30% has had no effect on me at all. I have had no increase and in fact sold less last year, than any previous year. So much for a perceived gain. Someone may have made more, but I'm in the US, selling images that target the US and I had no increase.
-
I don't know much about this place so I would like to hear how people are doing on Alamy.
not many sales, but some at a very good price, make Alamy worthwhile
Agencieis that are paying 50/50 should get our support as a community!!! It's at least fair so I don't know why people complain so much about an agency like this! Keep in mind if you are non exclusive at iStock then you are earning 15% if you are lucky. If all great artist helped sites that pay 50/50 we would all be in better shape!
50% is good in itself compared to others, but the trend (cutting commissions) is not
furthermore, Alamy is funding medical research, which is commendable; but cutting our percentage to give away to others is not
after all, if they are so confident that they are acting to "grow the business", then they could easily reduce funds to their charity now (they say they give away 89% of profits), in order give away even more lately of course
but how big are the profits. If the company profits are only 2% of gross income.. cutting all their charity which is 89% of profits or 1.78% of their gross wouldn't really add much money to anyone's pockets. What their charity is essentially saying is.. instead of lining the pockets of our investors with giving 100% of the profits to them, we are giving 89% of the profits to charity and only 11% to investors.
I like companies like that.
-
Thats quite in order and will probably benefit us long term. :)
The last cut, to fund the US offices, didn't.
Exactly, Liz. It didn't change a thing, for me anyway, but less income.
-
If revenue is increasing, and the company is profitable, then there should be more profits to spend on expansion.
at least they are honest and admit that it is profitable, unlike the jackasses who claimed it became "unsustainable" while getting %80 so they needed more!
-
Guess it is time to order the 2013 Photographers Market book. This does not look good. The old slippery slope argument.
If they need more money.. do like regular people and cut back on Charitable Contributions and use that money elsewhere.
-
Another thought - if some other agencies reduced our commission by 10 percent points it would leave us with a commission in the single digits :o
To see that Alamy still pays us 50% AFTER the commission cut is not a total disaster...
-
Why don't they just lower or remove the amount they are so proud of giving to charity, and leave the charity giving up to the suppliers if they so wish?
That is analogous to asking the other agencies to reduce the amount which they give to the greedy corporate entities which own them. ie the greater part of their profits.
Whilst Alamy seems to be run very differently from the majority of other agencies and is much more "photographer friendly" it is still ultimately run as a business. It is not run for the ultimate benefit of the photographers. It is not a co-op.
What the owners choose to do with the profits is an after-business, up-to-them issue. But they still have to aim to maintain or increase the profits.
I like them and I trust them ultimately.
-
still looks fair but its certainly a disappointment to get a cut, only the 1st is/will be hard for them..
-
for those that submit to Fotolia (like me) I cannot complain about a company that only pays 50%...
-
If revenue is increasing, and the company is profitable, then there should be more profits to spend on expansion.
at least they are honest and admit that it is profitable, unlike the jackasses who claimed it became "unsustainable" while getting %80 so they needed more!
Yes, they are honest. They are cutting commissions to bring it down closer to competitors. And competitors keep lowering commissions so all agencies will continue to reduce commissions until contributors go away. Then they will stop cutting. Apparantly not enough of us have left yet.
-
If I were looking for something from Alamy it would be increased sales volume and immediate - as opposed to "this year, next year, sometime, never" payments. If I thought that taking 10% to fund growth - without having to get money from the short-term-oriented venture captialists - I could live with that. Alamy's occasional large sales don't make up for the lack of volume and the payment process seems antique if you've been selling via micro.
I'm very willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because (a) they seem unusually straightforward compared to the rest of the agencies and (b) I don't currently make much from them. I have more to gain than I do to lose, looking at it from the perspective of a relative newbie (and I don't really count the handful of RM images I put there in 2007). I'm sure people with a big current income stream which is steady and which will be cut in the short term will have a very different view of this.
-
To me is crystal clear.
Agencies cut commissions when they foresee a drop in sales to maintain their revenue despite the drop or just to have a bigger cut of the pie.
All agencies say they do it to increase sales and it is a lie. Maybe if they did it after increasing sales it would make sense but they simply cut commissions now with a promise of better sales in the future.
Lies, lies and more lies. Infinite greed and false promises.
-
I might have to go eat a hostess twinkie now after hearing the lies :-\
-
60% seemed about right. Alamy need to pay a big percentage commission because they have relatively low sales volume and have been cutting prices. I also wonder if this is the last cut or are they going to end up finding another excuse to cut again in the future?
If they increased sales first and then cut commissions it wouldn't hurt so much but sites don't seem to do that.
Having put a lot of time in to alamy in the past year, I'm not happy with them and will have to consider my plans for next year again.
-
I haven't sold on Alamy yet. If it increases sales the I can accept that. I wait to be convinced. 50% is still good compared to rest of the market. My issue with the site is the the key wording/submission process which makes it the longest site for me to complete. Why have 3 categories? A simpler process would be a nice way to spend some of the money. I like the 123RF process.
-
You can delete 3000 images in 10 minutes. Just made!
-
I haven't sold on Alamy yet. If it increases sales the I can accept that. I wait to be convinced. 50% is still good compared to rest of the market. My issue with the site is the the key wording/submission process which makes it the longest site for me to complete. Why have 3 categories? A simpler process would be a nice way to spend some of the money. I like the 123RF process.
I think we as a whole need to get away from the "it's okay to take stuff away from us" mentality. For the effort we put in we should be getting increases, not reductions.
This "it's okay as long as it's disguised as yet another false benefit" sets a tone for the entire industry that it's okay. We've taken enough cuts. Once commission is cut it's not going back up.
-
I don't disagree with your arguments.
-
http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=14414 (http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=14414)
-
Dear Alamy, you say "We understand that reducing your share by ten percentage points cannot be seen as great news in the short term."
Well, I couldn't care less about "short term". The problem is the long term: the two other major sites that did cut our shares only got a lot of bad publicity in return, and a reduction in sales, not an increase.
You are still in time to withdraw your decision, and we will forgive you: we have little power, but we are many.
Yeah, it doesn't really seem changes like this have ever brought in the additional customers. In theory it makes sense to spend it on marketing, but the reality just hasn't backed it up so far.
-
I haven't sold on Alamy yet. If it increases sales the I can accept that. I wait to be convinced. 50% is still good compared to rest of the market. My issue with the site is the the key wording/submission process which makes it the longest site for me to complete. Why have 3 categories? A simpler process would be a nice way to spend some of the money. I like the 123RF process.
I think we as a whole need to get away from the "it's okay to take stuff away from us" mentality. For the effort we put in we should be getting increases, not reductions.
This "it's okay as long as it's disguised as yet another false benefit" sets a tone for the entire industry that it's okay. We've taken enough cuts. Once commission is cut it's not going back up.
Agencies which lower commissions are not worth talking about..
Instead of going mad over the crap they are pulling I am concentrating on my own websites..
-
"I think we as a whole need to get away from the "it's okay to take stuff away from us" mentality. For the effort we put in we should be getting increases, not reductions.
This "it's okay as long as it's disguised as yet another false benefit" sets a tone for the entire industry that it's okay. We've taken enough cuts. Once commission is cut it's not going back up."
Absolutely. This 'well they said it really nicely' attitude is just bizarre.
-
Yes, well, maybe I should be more mortified... but having been hammered by others so badly, maintaining a 50% cut somehow doesn't seem so bad.
Of course we'd all prefer no cuts anywhere.
-
Agencies which lower commissions are not worth talking about..
Instead of going mad over the crap they are pulling I am concentrating on my own websites..
I made the same decision about two years ago, and I haven't regretted at all.
-
Keeping up with the competition - does that mean I don't have to wait 3 month for my payout anymore?
-
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
-
You can delete 3000 images in 10 minutes. Just made!
are you leaving stock?
-
I joined alamy.
I even uploaded 3 pictures.
But found it not worthwhile to upsize and go through their procedure.
Now it seems that I was spared a good amount of frustration.
that is so 2010, it changed a loooong time ago
-
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Uh no. Exclusives can submit RM to other outlets including Alamy.
And besides, when were you appointed the gatekeeper for responses?
-
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Uh no. Exclusives can submit RM to other outlets including Alamy.
And besides, when were you appointed the gatekeeper for responses?
you can submit whatever you want where you want (I really don't care), my point is that iStock wasn't and isn't a very fair company, what arguments can you guys add here?
-
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Ouch... talk about freedom of speech.
Besides of that, don't forget that many of us have RM stuff at alamy, so, I don't understand what are you trying to say.
-
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Uh no. Exclusives can submit RM to other outlets including Alamy.
And besides, when were you appointed the gatekeeper for responses?
you can submit whatever you want where you want (I really don't care), my point is that iStock wasn't and isn't a very fair company, what arguments can you guys add here?
Oh, ok, I get it. You're just an exclusive hater.
And if we're going to be excluding people from responding who submit to unfair companies than this post should have zero responses.
-
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Uh no. Exclusives can submit RM to other outlets including Alamy.
And besides, when were you appointed the gatekeeper for responses?
you can submit whatever you want where you want (I really don't care), my point is that iStock wasn't and isn't a very fair company, what arguments can you guys add here?
Oh, ok, I get it. You're just an exclusive hater.
And if we're going to be excluding people from responding who submit to unfair companies than this post should have zero responses.
has nothing to do with that, if you and other have opted to be exclusive its certainly because you have a better deal, what bothers me is people complaining about Alamy when all other are paying less, stock is about obedience and I have always behaved well ;D
-
...And if we're going to be excluding people from responding who submit to unfair companies than this post should have zero responses.
Unfortunately true.
Exclusives have a stake in this - even if they don't submit to Alamy - because they participate in a business where the behaviors of one agency have effects on things at other agencies. Not to mention that some portion of exclusives are keeping an eye out for what might be available to them should they decide to become independent.
I feel free to comment on aspects of exclusivity, FT's cr*p treatment of contributors and the whacked out marketing ideas of new agencies - I don't participate in any of them, either.
I don't think it's about James West being nice, but just being straightforward. None of the puke-inducing "this is really good for you" that we've seen elsewhere when agencies have picked our pockets.
Businesses require investment. If an agency like Alamy that started out taking only 35% of the gross (unlike iStock which started taking 80% of it) wants to try and build the business and can convince contributors to fund it through a smaller percentage of the total, that seems perfectly reasonable as a proposition. If they fail to grow the businesses, we're hosed anyway, 60% or 50%. If they succeed and use their increased take to fund business growth and development - unlike all Getty's moves where the extra has been to pay off financial speculators - I can live with that. Some contributors can't and that's a reasonable choice too.
There is no magic "fair" percentage. It depends on what the agent is doing with their percentage of the money. What s*cks is when the agency is taking a lot of the gross and buying yachts. It likewise s*cks when these new agencies think that "70% for contributors!" is a good deal. If they don't spend money on marketing, direct sales or features for buyers, then the business won't get off the ground. If I heard stories of James West partying in expensive suites and entertaining lavishly, I'd take a very different view of what Alamy's up to.
-
We're nothing but modern day slaves to these people—all of the sites, except those that give us waaay more than half (sorry, but our talent is what drives sales, not staff or profits).
My illustrations sell on Alamy. But the total revenue is low. I'll keep submitting (really easy with just uploading JPGs through FTP and submission). However, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that is hard to forget. It sucks, but it's a reality. Crank out tons of art, folks. That's the only way to stay afloat in this game. :o
I feel like cursing them out, but it's life. Might as well strive to be happy.
-
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Uh no. Exclusives can submit RM to other outlets including Alamy.
And besides, when were you appointed the gatekeeper for responses?
you can submit whatever you want where you want (I really don't care), my point is that iStock wasn't and isn't a very fair company, what arguments can you guys add here?
Oh, ok, I get it. You're just an exclusive hater.
And if we're going to be excluding people from responding who submit to unfair companies than this post should have zero responses.
has nothing to do with that, if you and other have opted to be exclusive its certainly because you have a better deal, what bothers me is people complaining about Alamy when all other are paying less, stock is about obedience and I have always behaved well ;D
The problem is they're all cutting commissions which isn't good for us individually and as a whole regardless of where we submit. When one gets away with a commission cut the others watch the outcome and do the same thing.
And this whole exclusive vs independent mentality isn't helping. It's bad enough that it's Us vs Them. Us vs Us only helps them.
-
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Uh no. Exclusives can submit RM to other outlets including Alamy.
And besides, when were you appointed the gatekeeper for responses?
you can submit whatever you want where you want (I really don't care), my point is that iStock wasn't and isn't a very fair company, what arguments can you guys add here?
Oh, ok, I get it. You're just an exclusive hater.
And if we're going to be excluding people from responding who submit to unfair companies than this post should have zero responses.
has nothing to do with that, if you and other have opted to be exclusive its certainly because you have a better deal, what bothers me is people complaining about Alamy when all other are paying less, stock is about obedience and I have always behaved well ;D
The problem is they're all cutting commissions which isn't good for us individually and as a whole regardless of where we submit. When one gets away with a commission cut the others watch the outcome and do the same thing.
And this whole exclusive vs independent mentality isn't helping. It's bad enough that it's Us vs Them. Us vs Us only helps them.
thats beautiful and I wish it was that way but it isn't as you know and its actually impossible, we all know that we care about our own pockets and it does make sense, or are you going to pay my bills if my income drops?
-
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Uh no. Exclusives can submit RM to other outlets including Alamy.
And besides, when were you appointed the gatekeeper for responses?
you can submit whatever you want where you want (I really don't care), my point is that iStock wasn't and isn't a very fair company, what arguments can you guys add here?
Oh, ok, I get it. You're just an exclusive hater.
And if we're going to be excluding people from responding who submit to unfair companies than this post should have zero responses.
has nothing to do with that, if you and other have opted to be exclusive its certainly because you have a better deal, what bothers me is people complaining about Alamy when all other are paying less, stock is about obedience and I have always behaved well ;D
The problem is they're all cutting commissions which isn't good for us individually and as a whole regardless of where we submit. When one gets away with a commission cut the others watch the outcome and do the same thing.
And this whole exclusive vs independent mentality isn't helping. It's bad enough that it's Us vs Them. Us vs Us only helps them.
thats beautiful and I wish it was that way but it isn't as you know and its actually impossible, we all know that we care about our own pockets and it does make sense, or are you going to pay my bills if my income drops?
So you're saying it's impossible for you to be civil to fellow submitters and especially IS exclusives. Time for me to get back to editing photos. Best of luck to you.
-
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Uh no. Exclusives can submit RM to other outlets including Alamy.
And besides, when were you appointed the gatekeeper for responses?
you can submit whatever you want where you want (I really don't care), my point is that iStock wasn't and isn't a very fair company, what arguments can you guys add here?
Oh, ok, I get it. You're just an exclusive hater.
And if we're going to be excluding people from responding who submit to unfair companies than this post should have zero responses.
has nothing to do with that, if you and other have opted to be exclusive its certainly because you have a better deal, what bothers me is people complaining about Alamy when all other are paying less, stock is about obedience and I have always behaved well ;D
The problem is they're all cutting commissions which isn't good for us individually and as a whole regardless of where we submit. When one gets away with a commission cut the others watch the outcome and do the same thing.
And this whole exclusive vs independent mentality isn't helping. It's bad enough that it's Us vs Them. Us vs Us only helps them.
thats beautiful and I wish it was that way but it isn't as you know and its actually impossible, we all know that we care about our own pockets and it does make sense, or are you going to pay my bills if my income drops?
So you're saying it's impossible for you to be civil to fellow submitters and especially IS exclusives. Time for me to get back to editing photos. Best of luck to you.
sorry but you haven't understood my statement, best of luck to you too
-
50:50 is still good deal, but definitely is not move in the right way...
-
1:07 - "We have to modify our commission split to bring us in line with the competition"
In other words, everyone else is taking a grotesque amount from the photographer, if we are going to compete, we need to as well.
50% is still good and what I'd call fair but it is still a big disappointment seeing them pressed to do this. Interestingly he corrects the interviewer when she says that alamy is getting 10% more.. he corrects her saying "10 more percentage points".. really Alamy is getting a 25% increase in the share of a sale which is a seriously big amount. All I have to say is hopefully they do something smart with it.
I didnt quite get the comparison to other sites, think he named shutterstock and some others and compared alamy commission to them. That argument doesnt work for me because shutterstock (as an example) sells tons more content for me than alamy, so the turnover makes up the numbers. Alamy in comparison sellls much less.. its only worthwhile being in there because of the much better contributor cut. Not happy they're reducing it :(
-
Maybe Alamy is just not the kind of saint some thought they were!
I can live with the 50% split, but find the slow reporting and payment troubling. Does any agency delay payment for as long?
-
SS will be next. New investors want one thing: "growth", defined as a a rapid increase in short-term profits. Typically, any constructive ways to increase profits were already used in the run-up to the IPO. To feed new investors anxious to sell their shares at a nice profit, new management has to cut costs.
-
SS will be next. New investors want one thing: "growth", defined as a a rapid increase in short-term profits. Typically, any constructive ways to increase profits were already used in the run-up to the IPO. To feed new investors anxious to sell their shares at a nice profit, new management has to cut costs.
Ofcourse! spot on! its unavoidable and for us its hardly going to be in a positive direction. The question isnt, if its going to hit us but rather when its going to hit us and how hard.
Its a complete fallacy to imagine anything else. Just look at the track record of other agencies.
-
The probability is, although Alamy sales are up, their revenue is down because they have drastically reduced prices. Most of my sales used to be way above $100/dl, now most are below $100.
They didn't say it was unsustainable, but that might be the truth, in order to stay profitable, for the owner, of course.
-
Thats quite in order and will probably benefit us long term. :)
The last cut, to fund the US offices, didn't.
Yes. Exactly. It isn't the fact that we will now be getting 50% that bothers me. It is the fact that this is the SECOND royalty cut in the last couple of years for them. I doubt it will be the last.
And the 30% part of the distributor sales is a problem. The distributor, who is a non-entity 3rd party, is getting more than the author of the images. And Alamy takes a cut on top of that.
Alamy sales are few and far between compared to the micros, and most of them aren't for the high prices they were a few years ago. They do NOT make it up in volume.
-
Seams like I'm blocked or you cant see my posts lately or you don't want to respond cause you have no rebuttal or defence in what i have been saying. but i way it anyway.
When are you people going to put on your big boy (and girl) pants on and stand up for yourselves!
And finally stop the incessant whining all the time.
How many times do you need to get slapped in the face by the very same company's that you insist on defending.
Did yo not learn the lesson Istock gave you, or RF123, or Fotolia or Dreamstime.
And now Alamy and in the very near future Sutterstock.
Don't you realise they would in a heart beat pay us NOTHING if they could.
-
a couple posts from a petty quarrel were removed.
Let's keep this discussion civil.
-
SS will be next. New investors want one thing: "growth", defined as a a rapid increase in short-term profits. Typically, any constructive ways to increase profits were already used in the run-up to the IPO. To feed new investors anxious to sell their shares at a nice profit, new management has to cut costs.
Ofcourse! spot on! its unavoidable and for us its hardly going to be in a positive direction. The question isnt, if its going to hit us but rather when its going to hit us and how hard.
Its a complete fallacy to imagine anything else. Just look at the track record of other agencies.
There you go again, the pair of you, always talking SS and the industry down without any basis of fact. Have you even bothered to read the latest report from SS? They've already projected revenues until the end of 2013, operating the business for steady growth, just as they have done for the last few years. SS didn't do anything to pump profits before the IPO; in fact they did the opposite by massively increasing R&D and marketing. Oh, and by the way, SSTK shares hit $28 for the first time yesterday so investors are evidently happy.
As far as "the track record of other agencies" goes I'd say what they've done is a good example of how to destroy a business. SS won't make the same mistakes.
-
Another thought - if some other agencies reduced our commission by 10 percent points it would leave us with a commission in the single digits :o
To see that Alamy still pays us 50% AFTER the commission cut is not a total disaster...
It used to be 70% then 65% then 60% now 50%. Next up???
-
Another thought - if some other agencies reduced our commission by 10 percent points it would leave us with a commission in the single digits :o
To see that Alamy still pays us 50% AFTER the commission cut is not a total disaster...
It used to be 70% then 65% then 60% now 50%. Next up???
Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 50% commission?
Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on.
Do we all seriously believe that while (nearly) all agencies cut our royalties that Alamy HAS TO stay the same - forever - and ever - to all eternity?
The last IS commission reduction took away also 25% of my (pre-commission-change IS) income, leaving most of us with a commission of less than 20%.
I'm not that naive to praise Alamy for their future 50% cut due to the relatively low quantity of sales but I think a few here should get their facts straight as for example many were oh-so-grateful when Stockfresh came out of the bushes announcing the same deal like Stockxpert used to have (50/50).
So for a microstock agency it's a blessing to pay us 50% but how dare Alamy pay us 50% ?
Come on. I think we really have to worry a lot more about other issues than get getting paid 50% from a macro agency.
-
Really looking forward to the full launch of Picturengine!
-
Another thought - if some other agencies reduced our commission by 10 percent points it would leave us with a commission in the single digits :o
To see that Alamy still pays us 50% AFTER the commission cut is not a total disaster...
It used to be 70% then 65% then 60% now 50%. Next up???
Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 50% commission?
Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on.
Do we all seriously believe that while (nearly) all agencies cut our royalties that Alamy HAS TO stay the same - forever - and ever - to all eternity?
The last IS commission reduction took away also 25% of my (pre-commission-change IS) income, leaving most of us with a commission of less than 20%.
I'm not that naive to praise Alamy for their future 50% cut due to the relatively low quantity of sales but I think a few here should get their facts straight as for example many were oh-so-grateful when Stockfresh came out of the bushes announcing the same deal like Stockxpert used to have (50/50).
So for a microstock agency it's a blessing to pay us 50% but how dare Alamy pay us 50% ?
Come on. I think we really have to worry a lot more about other issues than get getting paid 50% from a macro agency.
Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 70% commission?
Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on.
Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 40% commission?
Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on.
Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 30% commission?
Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on.
Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 20% commission?
Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on.
Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 10% commission?
Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on.
Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 1% commission?
Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on.
---------------------------
You can't be serious right? See a pattern? Yes, times are moving on to where we will be making 1% of almost nothing.
Anybody who wants to work for nothing please contact me. I have a company I would like to start up and having employees work for free will get me a yacht and oceanfront home a lot more quickly.
-
It's certainly no news to be happy about.
But the only right reaction would be to withdraw from those agencies that pay lower percentages (the majority of the micros...).
I know it will not happen (and I plead guilty as well, the only one I left due to commission cuts is IS - the next will be 123RF).
It is like PaulieWalnuts has said earlier in this thread: We (as in the combined masses of contributors) did not walk away on previous commission cuts by other agencies. That only proves that we will take another one without much reaction.
-
"You can't be serious right? See a pattern? Yes, times are moving on to where we will be making 1% of almost nothing. "
Wait until SS sees how happy everyone is here to take less...
-
are you leaving stock?
No, only Alamy.
-
Thats quite in order and will probably benefit us long term. :)
The last cut, to fund the US offices, didn't.
Yes. Exactly. It isn't the fact that we will now be getting 50% that bothers me. It is the fact that this is the SECOND royalty cut in the last couple of years for them. I doubt it will be the last.
And the 30% part of the distributor sales is a problem. The distributor, who is a non-entity 3rd party, is getting more than the author of the images. And Alamy takes a cut on top of that.
Alamy sales are few and far between compared to the micros, and most of them aren't for the high prices they were a few years ago. They do NOT make it up in volume.
I don't understand the need of having re-distributors in these "acces for everybody" internet days. It was more undesrteable ten or twenty years ago, when customers had to be reached through more pedestrian means.
-
"You can't be serious right? See a pattern? Yes, times are moving on to where we will be making 1% of almost nothing. "
Wait until SS sees how happy everyone is here to take less...
Yep, and they also are now a public company with a gazillion investors who will be putting enormous pressure on them to squeeze every penny out of it.
We'll see how long it takes for the changes to start happening.
-
Thats quite in order and will probably benefit us long term. :)
The last cut, to fund the US offices, didn't.
Yes. Exactly. It isn't the fact that we will now be getting 50% that bothers me. It is the fact that this is the SECOND royalty cut in the last couple of years for them. I doubt it will be the last.
And the 30% part of the distributor sales is a problem. The distributor, who is a non-entity 3rd party, is getting more than the author of the images. And Alamy takes a cut on top of that.
Alamy sales are few and far between compared to the micros, and most of them aren't for the high prices they were a few years ago. They do NOT make it up in volume.
I don't understand the need of having re-distributors in these "access for everybody" internet days. It was more undesrteable ten or twenty years ago, when customers had to be reached through more pedestrian means.
-
Really looking forward to the full launch of Picturengine!
Really looking forward to some new disruptive model that gives us other options than being financially squashed by agencies.
-
Not much we can do except vent our frustrations here, and look for other applications and outlets for our skills. The micros will only continue to cut commissions. What really fries my bacon is how they're cutting in even more middlemen like themselves - excuse me 'partners' - and endlessly complicating their pricing schemes. This tells me the sales and marketing guys are driving the bus. In the long run this complexity discourages buyers from using stock imagery at all, regardless of price.
-
... Anybody who wants to work for nothing please contact me...
(http://www.gifgifgifgifgif.com/gif/835.gif)
You seriously consider a 50% commission working for nothing? Did I miss something?
-
... Anybody who wants to work for nothing please contact me...
You seriously consider a 50% commission working for nothing? Did I miss something?
Oh, okay. Let me try this again.
Anyone who wants to work for me where I start off paying you a decent wage and then I reward your hard work by regularly dropping your wage until it's next to nothing, please contact me.
-
Well I won't apply - sorry.
I'm trying to make a living and 50% commission is still a good deal in my books.
No idea whether you are happy with the 45% commission you get from IS (assuming you are selling 1.2 Million credits per year) or not but 50% is still more than 45%.
So why complain about a company that gives you 50% when you are perfectly fine selling EXCLUSIVELY your RF stuff for 45%?
This kind of doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
-
...and then I reward your hard work by regularly dropping your wage ...
And what could possibly be more demotivating?
The people running these agencies have all sorts of numbers and statistics which they analyze endlessly. But there is one question they can't answer: are they getting more high-quality images over time, or less? Unanswerable, because there's no consistent, objective way to measure quality in this context, except for superficial aspects like digital noise. But over time, the quality of stock imagery has to be declining in meaningful ways, as skilled and creative contributors submit less material, or drop out completely.
-
..No idea whether you are happy with the 45% commission you get from IS (assuming you are selling 1.2 Million credits per year) or not but 50% is still more than 45%....
Just to keep the facts straight, IS exclusives do not make the rate they should on Agency or Vetta collection files sold on IS - IS cut those rates back when they jacked up Vetta prices and introduced Agency on IS. Those collections sold via Getty's site net them a whopping 20%
-
"So why complain about a company that gives you 50% when you are perfectly fine selling EXCLUSIVELY your RF stuff for 45%?"
A: because, as said, next time it will be 40% for a new HQ somewhere, and then %35 for a pool table, etc
B: they earn their cut by selling a large amount of my content
Sales at Alamy are pretty lame from what I read on their forum.
-
Well I won't apply - sorry.
I'm trying to make a living and 50% commission is still a good deal in my books.
No idea whether you are happy with the 45% commission you get from IS (assuming you are selling 1.2 Million credits per year) or not but 50% is still more than 45%.
So why complain about a company that gives you 50% when you are perfectly fine selling EXCLUSIVELY your RF stuff for 45%?
This kind of doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
While it's never good to have your rates cut, I tend to agree with you. I think people should have a standard across every agency of what they get paid. And, they should organize their priorities or affiliations with agencies according to those standards. I know I do, but that doesn't seem to be the case with most contributors.
-
Sales at Alamy are pretty lame from what I read on their forum.
I think most people posting on the forum are there to complain rather than brag about how well they are doing. Alamy is my second best earner after Shutterstock.
-
Well I won't apply - sorry.
I'm trying to make a living and 50% commission is still a good deal in my books.
No idea whether you are happy with the 45% commission you get from IS (assuming you are selling 1.2 Million credits per year) or not but 50% is still more than 45%.
So why complain about a company that gives you 50% when you are perfectly fine selling EXCLUSIVELY your RF stuff for 45%?
This kind of doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
And here we go with the exclusivity BS again.
I can sell RM anywhere including Alamy. So a cut at Alamy or any RM can affect me.
And again, when one site gets away with cutting commission it shows the other sites they can do the same so this affect us all.
Not sure what's so hard to understand. Seems like common sense to me.
-
"So why complain about a company that gives you 50% when you are perfectly fine selling EXCLUSIVELY your RF stuff for 45%?"
A: because, as said, next time it will be 40% for a new HQ somewhere, and then %35 for a pool table, etc
B: they earn their cut by selling a large amount of my content
Sales at Alamy are pretty lame from what I read on their forum.
Lame sales or not. The discussion topic is not about the sales volume but rather about the drop from 60% to 50% commission for contributors.
There are still people on Alamy that rake in 100K+ a year with their non-exclusive content. I think, as always it matters what type of imagery you are uploading.
Again, just to put things in perspective, nearly everyone almost fainted when IS reduced commissions the last time for both exclusives and non-exclusives. You know that Sean.
You also know that IS is running their operations far below 50% contributor commissions.
It hasn't been the first time and it won't be the last time that IS has lowered commissions for contributors - I try to stay realistic regarding this issue.
Some of you who are actively reading the forums remember the discussions about commission on new and old agencies debating what is fair and what isn't.
So if I try to sum it up:
SS pays less than 50%
IS pays less than 50%
FT pays less than 50%
DT pays less than 50%
oops - are those already the TOP 4 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
So now people are having a problem with an agency actually paying 50%
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RWagY3lPAGQ/T7R8gEEas6I/AAAAAAAABfE/-WVsSozFPHI/s1600/what.gif)
Are you guys serious?
-
And here we go with the exclusivity BS again.
I can sell RM anywhere including Alamy. So a cut at Alamy or any RM can affect me.
And again, when one site gets away with cutting commission it shows the other sites they can do the same so this affect us all.
Not sure what's so hard to understand. Seems like common sense to me.
PaulieWalnuts, I only used the exclusivity commission of 45% in order to make a point that as the most successful contributor at IS you couldn't possibly make more than 45% period.
I have no clue whether you are in fact exclusive (if you have mentioned this before, well then I missed it, bummer). I don't care whether you are exclusive or not, I don't care how many credits you accumulate each year at IS I just wanted to illustrate that highest possible commission you could get with IS.
I try hard to refrain from producing "BS" on this forum.
I have never claimed that it is NOT affecting Alamy contributors. I don't understand why people put words in my mouth.
I said that 50% commission at Alamy is still fair. I very well understand that 50% commission is worse than 60% commission. I also know that commissions used to be even higher than that.
I assume your argument is that since one agency which shall remain nameless started reducing commissions causing a number of agencies do the same that we all will be not making any money anymore by the end of what? Next year?
I can picture your train of thought - but it doesn't change the fact the Alamy remains as one of the highest paying agencies in the world. No matter you look at it.
-
"Lame sales or not. The discussion topic is not about the sales volume but rather about the drop from 60% to 50% commission for contributors."
But it's linked. I have felt that the amount I pay IS is more ir less acceptable for the amount of business they are bringing me. I don't see giving Alsmy another 10% is going to result in much, and if it is for a new 'growth project', they should be able to return the 10% when it is finished. But they won't, of course.
-
It's really a psychological thing. The absolute percentages don't matter as much as the knowledge that they're only going to continue to decrease, year after year.
-
60:40 as a split was the norm 20 years ago with RM. For Alamy to reduce to 50% only now is good business sense - they have 33million images gained from a 60:40 split - question is are their sales keeping all the contributors happy? Probably not given the price reductions they have had to implement.
It's win or bust time - aggressive marketing for 5 years to see if they can oust Getty as the number 1 go to agency. If not they are going to struggle keeping owners of 60 million and increasing images happy with their current market share of sales in years to come.
Something would have to give. I think they are genuinely reducing our commission to take on the giant. It's irrelevant if we like it or not - we can always leave. Me, I'd love to see Getty knocked off their perch.
10 points reduction is Alamys fighting fund taking the company forward. This is an aggressive statement of intent by them, a shot across the bows....
-
"Lame sales or not. The discussion topic is not about the sales volume but rather about the drop from 60% to 50% commission for contributors."
But it's linked. I have felt that the amount I pay IS is more ir less acceptable for the amount of business they are bringing me. I don't see giving Alsmy another 10% is going to result in much, and if it is for a new 'growth project', they should be able to return the 10% when it is finished. But they won't, of course.
I agree with Sean, although I am not going to defend IS in this thread.
Alamy has cut not just the percentage to us, it has greatly reduced the prices of our images therefore my revenue has been constantly declining even though I have added more images. It usually takes 4 months or more to get a sale cleared and another month of two to get contributor paid. It used to send out a cheque so we receive the payment in the first week of the month. Now with Paypal, it takes two weeks to get the money.
Apparently Alamy is not doing great in the past few years with increased competition. I think Alamy should focus on improving their marketing and niche, instead of squeezing the contributors harder for their loss in the market place. If they don't improve their marketing and stop losing market shares, they will cut more, any doubt about that?
-
Our cut is -16,66%!
-
When istock cut royalties I added Alamy and Veer to offset the loss of income. When Fotolia cut royalties I added Envato and Deposit. I'm feeling a sudden inspiration to migrate my port some more.
-
When istock cut royalties I added Alamy and Veer to offset the loss of income. When Fotolia cut royalties I added Envato and Deposit. I'm feeling a sudden inspiration to migrate my port some more.
That'll show 'em! Maybe you can find some new agencies with even worse rates or throw in a couple free sites. ;)
-
Seams like I'm blocked or you cant see my posts lately or you don't want to respond cause you have no rebuttal or defence in what i have been saying. but i way it anyway.
When are you people going to put on your big boy (and girl) pants on and stand up for yourselves!
I am not sure who this is directed to, but it's never a good sign when someone quotes Sarah Palin to try and win an argument. Not to mention being unable to master spelling of basic words and sentence structures. Sarah, I did not know you were doing microstock. How are pictures of Alaska selling?
If you notice, we are not all delighted with these changes.
I'll make you a deal. You send me a check for $60k to cover my daughter's last two years of college, and I will quit all the unfair sites right now. PM me if you need the name and address where to send the check. :)
-
Anybody who wants to work for nothing please contact me. I have a company I would like to start up and having employees work for free will get me a yacht and oceanfront home a lot more quickly.
Contact some recent grads through your local college and tell them you are looking for "interns". :)
-
And again, when one site gets away with cutting commission it shows the other sites they can do the same so this affect us all.
Not sure what's so hard to understand. Seems like common sense to me.
Very true. Fotolia's first commission cut came quickly on the heels of Alamy's cut from 70% to 60%.
-
Seams like I'm blocked or you cant see my posts lately or you don't want to respond cause you have no rebuttal or defence in what i have been saying. but i way it anyway.
When are you people going to put on your big boy (and girl) pants on and stand up for yourselves!
I am not sure who this is directed to, but it's never a good sign when someone quotes Sarah Palin to try and win an argument. Not to mention being unable to master spelling of basic words and sentence structures. Sarah, I did not know you were doing microstock. How are pictures of Alaska selling?
KAPOW! Great answer.
-
I couldn't care less about what alamy is planning to pay me :)
I am having sales on my own site(s) where I keep %100 of the sale.. Stop moaning people :)
just do something and you too "won't give a frog" when the agencies do their thing..
-
I couldn't care less about what alamy is planning to pay me :)
I am having sales on my own site(s) where I keep %100 of the sale.. Stop moaning people :)
just do something and you too "won't give a frog" when the agencies do their thing..
Yaaaay you!!! You are so awesome!!!
Having sales on your own site must be just great (none of the rest of us would know). I assume you are supporting yourself with them completely, since you are fine with agencies cutting your commissions. What an amazing success, really. Hats off!
With all of your personal success, constructively used time, and your general disinterest in the subject, I am curious why you even bothered to read this long thread about something you don't care about, much less to comment???
-
Lisa - I haven't posted much here lately, but I read all the time and your last two posts are wicked funny. like the new acerbic tone.
I'm still in my first year contributing to Alamy. I think their rate of 50% is still good, but that they're reducing royalties like other agencies is disappointing. I did appreciate the candor of the email sent. no reading between the lines. plain and simple, they acknowledged that contributors wouldn't be happy. I don't believe any royalty decrease at any agency is designed to increase contributor income, but they get points for good communication.
-
Fuck off alamy !
They deleted twice my messages in their useless forum, what a bunch of scumbags.
For anything else, sorry but the whole stock industry is slowly going down the drain, alamy once again shown her real colors not to mention they keep talking BS about their so called charity which is just an accounting trick to avoid paying taxes ! i wouldn't even buy a second hand photo from a sack of crap like her CEO James West, guess he was sellig toilet brushes door to door before joining alamy !
And now they clearly stated their goal now is to becoming a semi-edited creative collection, the whole editorial stuff is already downplayed and despite the fiasco with news, video, and creative they keep pushing in that direction while slashing photographers fees.
-
"You can't be serious right? See a pattern? Yes, times are moving on to where we will be making 1% of almost nothing. "
Wait until SS sees how happy everyone is here to take less...
Actually I think you might have a big point here! once the shareholders start tightening the loop, screaming for more money, etc. I think the majority might be in for a bit of a shock.
-
Can't we just enjoy what's good while it's good, rather than have to live in a constant state of gloom over what might come in the future?
It's one thing to be prepared for all eventualities, but to keep willing rain on a sunny day is just going to make every day a thoroughly miserable experience. Life's too short for all this bleedin' misery.
Cheer up! *.
-
I couldn't care less about what alamy is planning to pay me :)
I am having sales on my own site(s) where I keep %100 of the sale.. Stop moaning people :)
just do something and you too "won't give a frog" when the agencies do their thing..
Yaaaay you!!! You are so awesome!!!
Having sales on your own site must be just great (none of the rest of us would know). I assume you are supporting yourself with them completely, since you are fine with agencies cutting your commissions. What an amazing success, really. Hats off!
With all of your personal success, constructively used time, and your general disinterest in the subject, I am curious why you even bothered to read this long thread about something you don't care about, much less to comment???
I didn't see this coming.. I have no intention to counter strike :)
will just translate my previous post which wasn't in english apparently..
non of us are completely supporting ourselves with personal sites but it is something we should all have.. it is a step in the right direction.. what's wrong with advising people to start their own websites? :)
eventually (if you put your time to it) you are bound to increase sales on your site.. and at some point you(all of us) should reach to a level where we can support ourselves..
of course it is not a great thing that agencies are cutting commissions.. but if people don't like commission cuts, they should do something about it, not just complain in the forums..
- We had union talks! That didn't work..
- We talked about having a central search engine! That's not happening either..
I can see that the best anyone can do is "start a site" and work hard to increase sales, so when an agency says "less money for you", we can be ready to say "then no images for you"!
Otherwise, no matter what we write on the forums, they will keep cutting commissions..
I might have worded it badly in my previous post but bragging (as you misunderstood) was the last thing in my mind.. My motive was more like "why don't we all do something" instead of just talking?
-
I didn't see this coming.. I have no intention to counter strike :)
will just translate my previous post which wasn't in english apparently..
non of us are completely supporting ourselves with personal sites but it is something we should all have.. it is a step in the right direction.. what's wrong with advising people to start their own websites? :)
eventually (if you put your time to it) you are bound to increase sales on your site.. and at some point you(all of us) should reach to a level where we can support ourselves..
of course it is not a great thing that agencies are cutting commissions.. but if people don't like commission cuts, they should do something about it, not just complain in the forums..
- We had union talks! That didn't work..
- We talked about having a central search engine! That's not happening either..
I can see that the best anyone can do is "start a site" and work hard to increase sales, so when an agency says "less money for you", we can be ready to say "then no images for you"!
Otherwise, no matter what we write on the forums, they will keep cutting commissions..
I might have worded it badly in my previous post but bragging (as you misunderstood) was the last thing in my mind.. My motive was more like "why don't we all do something" instead of just talking?
I definitely agree. Having your own site isn't going to work out for everyone, but having an escape plan isn't a bad idea.
-
When istock cut royalties I added Alamy and Veer to offset the loss of income. When Fotolia cut royalties I added Envato and Deposit. I'm feeling a sudden inspiration to migrate my port some more.
That'll show 'em! Maybe you can find some new agencies with even worse rates or throw in a couple free sites. ;)
I want to apologize to trek for being a sarcastic jerk. There seems to be enough of that around without me pitching in.
Happy Turkey Day everyone or just happy Thursday!
-
Seams like I'm blocked or you cant see my posts lately or you don't want to respond cause you have no rebuttal or defence in what i have been saying. but i way it anyway.
When are you people going to put on your big boy (and girl) pants on and stand up for yourselves!
I am not sure who this is directed to, but it's never a good sign when someone quotes Sarah Palin to try and win an argument. Not to mention being unable to master spelling of basic words and sentence structures. Sarah, I did not know you were doing microstock. How are pictures of Alaska selling?
If you notice, we are not all delighted with these changes.
I'll make you a deal. You send me a check for $60k to cover my daughter's last two years of college, and I will quit all the unfair sites right now. PM me if you need the name and address where to send the check. :)
Lets see if this makes it on line and does not get blocked, again.
@ lisafx,
wow thanks for your nice words, great to see this response on Thanksgiving morning.
It was not directed towards you, it was for everyone on this forum. don’t be so pompous to think everything is abt you!
Sarah Palin: I don’t think she was the one who coined that phrase? And the furthest thing from my mind was her?!
Wow, lisafx you are full of vile today. And I liked you. I think you were put up to this response. I have never seen you this mean, ever!
My my my, I must have touched a nerve or said something that you absolutely can not defend against. So you attack someones, spelling and sentence srtucture. Your back must be up against a wall. Very sad.
Why would I pay for your daughters college? Who are you to me?
I don’t need your address or name. I know your name and where you live, the next town over from me.
Then I guess I should have expected that kind of response from a Floridian.
So other then attacking me did you have a point to be made with this response???
My main point is: Just because some company’s dish it out does not mean you have to sit down to dinner WITH then. Acting as if they are family who care for you and your circumstance.
If you do that’s a choice YOU made!
We all have created these company’s by accepting there terms, over and over again.
I say it again they will pay us nothing if they could!
Did you not notice how nervous and weasely Mr. Alamy is in that video?
He is nervous cause he is afraid we will all unite and say that’s it that’s the last straw, im pulling out!
that’s why I have been suggesting we ALL put on our big boy pants on and not stand idly by while we are repeatedly abused by these company’s.
AND worst of all is that you defend them!!!!!!!
-
I can see that the best anyone can do is "start a site" and work hard to increase sales, so when an agency says "less money for you", we can be ready to say "then no images for you"!
Otherwise, no matter what we write on the forums, they will keep cutting commissions..
I might have worded it badly in my previous post but bragging (as you misunderstood) was the last thing in my mind.. My motive was more like "why don't we all do something" instead of just talking?
Yes, I did interpret your previous post as bragging. Sorry if that's not what was intended. I also interpreted your "I couldn't care less what Alamy pays me" comment as a bit of a slap in the face to anyone who DOES care what they make.
I agree with your suggestion to start your own site, and have had my own for almost two years, as have a number of others here.
But it is mixing apples and oranges. Starting your own site is great and proactive, but it doesn't in any way justify or mitigate the agencies who represent your work lowering the commissions they pay you.
-
Seams like I'm blocked or you cant see my posts lately or you don't want to respond cause you have no rebuttal or defence in what i have been saying. but i way it anyway.
When are you people going to put on your big boy (and girl) pants on and stand up for yourselves!
I am not sure who this is directed to, but it's never a good sign when someone quotes Sarah Palin to try and win an argument. Not to mention being unable to master spelling of basic words and sentence structures. Sarah, I did not know you were doing microstock. How are pictures of Alaska selling?
If you notice, we are not all delighted with these changes.
I'll make you a deal. You send me a check for $60k to cover my daughter's last two years of college, and I will quit all the unfair sites right now. PM me if you need the name and address where to send the check. :)
Lets see if this makes it on line and does not get blocked, again.
@ lisafx,
wow thanks for your nice words, great to see this response on Thanksgiving morning.
It was not directed towards you, it was for everyone on this forum. don’t be so pompous to think everything is abt you!
Sarah Palin: I don’t think she was the one who coined that phrase? And the furthest thing from my mind was her?!
Wow, lisafx you are full of vile today. And I liked you. I think you were put up to this response. I have never seen you this mean, ever!
My my my, I must have touched a nerve or said something that you absolutely can not defend against. So you attack someones, spelling and sentence srtucture. Your back must be up against a wall. Very sad.
Why would I pay for your daughters college? Who are you to me?
I don’t need your address or name. I know your name and where you live, the next town over from me.
Then I guess I should have expected that kind of response from a Floridian.
So other then attacking me did you have a point to be made with this response???
My main point is: Just because some company’s dish it out does not mean you have to sit down to dinner WITH then. Acting as if they are family who care for you and your circumstance.
If you do that’s a choice YOU made!
We all have created these company’s by accepting there terms, over and over again.
I say it again they will pay us nothing if they could!
Did you not notice how nervous and weasely Mr. Alamy is in that video?
He is nervous cause he is afraid we will all unite and say that’s it that’s the last straw, im pulling out!
that’s why I have been suggesting we ALL put on our big boy pants on and not stand idly by while we are repeatedly abused by these company’s.
AND worst of all is that you defend them!!!!!!!
Ouchie, as you are anonymous, I don't know who you are, so you have an advantage on me. But you have COMPLETELY misinterpreted my post.
First off, regarding your post, I specifically stated "I am not sure who this is directed to", which indicates I was not assuming it was about me.
Secondly, your post lecturing others to "put on your big boy pants" seemed condescending and dismissive of nearly everyone posting in this thread, IMO. Surprised you didn't expect some pushback. FWIW, I never heard that expression before Palin used it, but even if it was around, she has certainly made it her own, along with "You Betcha" and some others.
And thirdly, I believe my other posts in this thread, including the one above this one, demonstrate that I am anything but defending Alamy over this. I am not at all happy about what they've been doing.
You have a happy thanksgiving too. Sincerely. FWIW, I wrote my post yesterday. :)
-
I can see that the best anyone can do is "start a site" and work hard to increase sales, so when an agency says "less money for you", we can be ready to say "then no images for you"!
Otherwise, no matter what we write on the forums, they will keep cutting commissions..
I might have worded it badly in my previous post but bragging (as you misunderstood) was the last thing in my mind.. My motive was more like "why don't we all do something" instead of just talking?
Starting your own site is great and proactive, but it doesn't in any way justify or mitigate the agencies who represent your work lowering the commissions they pay you.
it doesn't, but they will do it anyway..
that is why I ended my first post with "just do something and you too won't give a frog when the agencies do their thing.."
that's their thing.. as others said before, they want to pay us nothing if they can.. so we should do our thing and pay them nothing if we can :)
I can say I am a fair person and had they all paid me %50 I would probably have never started my own sites.. but they don't want to be fair..
so fair enough :)
-
that's their thing.. as others said before, they want to pay us nothing if they can.. so we should do our thing and pay them nothing if we can :)
I can say I am a fair person and had they all paid me %50 I would probably have never started my own sites.. but they don't want to be fair..
Well I definitely must have misinterpreted your first post, because I agree with both of your points above.
Always gonna care what I get paid, but if my own site were supporting me I would happily pull my images from any others who stepped on my toes.
-
Well I definitely must have misinterpreted your first post, because I agree with both of your points above.
I can blame myself for that a bit as well, because most of the times I am just too sarcastic as I believe it helps make my points heard better.. (sarcasm doesn't work on the forums as it does face to face)
-
I am just too sarcastic as I believe it helps make my points heard better.. (sarcasm doesn't work on the forums as it does face to face)
Totally agree. Clearly I had the same problem above. :)
Apologies to anyone who was offended by my two snarky posts. I have been spending too much time lately on the yahoo news forums, and things are pretty rough in there. Some of the nastiness must have rubbed off.
I stand by my opinions, but regret if I was obnoxious in putting them across....
-
I stand by my opinions, but regret if I was obnoxious in putting them across....
LOL I think if anybody else had written those posts nobody would have thought anything of it but you are known for your niceness.
Happy Thanksgiving. :)
-
When I saw the e-mail from Alamy I had a sinking feeling even before I opened it. I am sad to see another commission decrease. I put a lot of time into getting stuff up on Alamy last winter, and it has paid off - it has mostly made up for my almost complete loss if IS income (or maybe it was their opening of the US office that has resulted in my sales? - I am skeptical).
50% is still better than most sites, but Alamy uploading requires a lot more work than most sites too. They are a bit of a different animal.
I somehow suspect that like all the other sites that have dropped commissions along with grand words about increased marketing and more sales etc. etc., all it really means is less money for me.
-
I stand by my opinions, but regret if I was obnoxious in putting them across....
LOL I think if anybody else had written those posts nobody would have thought anything of it but you are known for your niceness.
Happy Thanksgiving. :)
"I think if anybody else had written those posts nobody would have thought anything of it but you are known for your niceness."
yea same here!
It was totally our of character of lisafx!
I guess everyone can have a bad day, once and a while.
FWIW: lisafx, i (just) changed my name cause i started to write, what some might say derogatory comments abt many stock agency's. I say i started saying the truth, in a harsh way. and the powers that be here did not want to let me post them and blocked it.
Hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving. I am sooo stuffed!
-
Can't we just enjoy what's good while it's good, rather than have to live in a constant state of gloom over what might come in the future?
It's one thing to be prepared for all eventualities, but to keep willing rain on a sunny day is just going to make every day a thoroughly miserable experience. Life's too short for all this bleedin' misery.
Cheer up! *.
And this is why I started this thread:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/the-end-is-nigh-what-will-you-do/msg281074/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/the-end-is-nigh-what-will-you-do/msg281074/?topicseen#new)
-
I don't understand the need of having re-distributors in these "acces for everybody" internet days. It was more undesrteable ten or twenty years ago, when customers had to be reached through more pedestrian means.
Because its one of the legal and safe ways how to take money from their contributors.
Just form (or indirectly join) another company and fund them with money taken away from original investors (graphics artists and photographers).
-
The MS industry is so on shaky ground in terms of differentiation, sites looking for the easy way out employ the "money grab" strategy. That is to take more of YOUR money without fixing the root cause of the problem, which can be greed or constant cost overruns or technological or managerial incompetence. Why is it that a company like Alamy chooses to cut commissions..FOR THE THIRD TIME? I believe that it is simple piss poor management who sees an opportunity to take a money grab because the rest of the industry is doing the same. MS, with only a few participants 7 years ago, was okay for awhile until more entrants came into the market and had to fight pricing pressures. So rather than to create hard line strategies to win, they join the ranks of grab n go. Alamy may have come across as "being honest" in their announcement, but it is simply nothing more than a money grab in my mind. They know it. I know it.
-
I'm upset but like most others I'm caught in the trap and just have to accept their decision.
Eventually, this industry may become worthless for contributors, so finding other ways of monetising our work (direct sales, galleries, PoD, whatever) is a good thing to do, but I suppose most of us will ride the roller-coaster pretty much to the end.
The fact that they push us into looking for alternatives does affect them (and the long-term prospects for the industry) as it will mean more competition and fewer images going to the stock sites.
-
I'm upset but like most others I'm caught in the trap and just have to accept their decision.
Eventually, this industry may become worthless for contributors, so finding other ways of monetising our work (direct sales, galleries, PoD, whatever) is a good thing to do, but I suppose most of us will ride the roller-coaster pretty much to the end.
The fact that they push us into looking for alternatives does affect them (and the long-term prospects for the industry) as it will mean more competition and fewer images going to the stock sites.
Hi Paul! wise words and thats exactly what will happen.
-
I'm upset but like most others I'm caught in the trap and just have to accept their decision.
Eventually, this industry may become worthless for contributors, so finding other ways of monetising our work (direct sales, galleries, PoD, whatever) is a good thing to do, but I suppose most of us will ride the roller-coaster pretty much to the end.
The fact that they push us into looking for alternatives does affect them (and the long-term prospects for the industry) as it will mean more competition and fewer images going to the stock sites.
I'd agree. I've been working selling my work in non-stock channels for a couple years now. Ever since things started turning nasty with us being squeezed I started looking to diversify.
-
I'm upset but like most others I'm caught in the trap and just have to accept their decision.
Eventually, this industry may become worthless for contributors, so finding other ways of monetising our work (direct sales, galleries, PoD, whatever) is a good thing to do, but I suppose most of us will ride the roller-coaster pretty much to the end.
The fact that they push us into looking for alternatives does affect them (and the long-term prospects for the industry) as it will mean more competition and fewer images going to the stock sites.
I'd agree. I've been working selling my work in non-stock channels for a couple years now. Ever since things started turning nasty with us being squeezed I started looking to diversify.
It's a vicious cycle; many of us came to stock from "other sources." Printed media had a bad spell in early 80s. I closed shop.
Digital changed things. I came out of retirement -- so to speak.
Change seems to happen much faster than when we(I) was younger.
Careers continue to change. Have and always will.
-
:'( As a photographer the commission cut really sucks! However, looking at the business side, I have to agree with James.
Using this time to build the business during a recession will be the best time to come out ahead as the global markets strengthen.
Freeing up some money to the company by cutting commissions if used properly the photographers will see more profits as a result of this, we all hope in the future.
As a real estate agent, the first company I went to work for gave me 80% commission, did not last very long since we did very little sales, made about 8K in 4 months, the next company I worked for gave me 60% and I went on to making over 100K that year because the company invested more to make the company highly visible and the best in the area. Was I happy to take the 20% hit on commission, hell no at first at the end of the year, hell yes.
If you read this James West, loosen up a bit on the acceptance rate, I am not saying accept everything, but there are a lot of very sell-able photos you are not accepting on Alamy, then you will attract more photographers to your site and you will see more photographers and clients it's that simple.
-
Freeing up some money to the company by cutting commissions if used properly the photographers will see more profits as a result of this, we all hope in the future.
They seem to want to expand their commercial collection and sales. I'm intrigued to see how they're going to take on the micros at their own game.
-
Freeing up some money to the company by cutting commissions if used properly the photographers will see more profits as a result of this, we all hope in the future.
They seem to want to expand their commercial collection and sales. I'm intrigued to see how they're going to take on the micros at their own game.
Only time will tell, it could also be the demise of Alamy as a company! Can you really reinvent the wheel? Usually the answer to that question is no, however, you can make improvements, so can they take on the micros at their own game? Only time will tell with smart business tactics.
-
When agencies cut commissions, they're making more money as of next week. And they're finding there's no reason they can't keep on cutting - except for maybe just a gradual reduction in the supply of new, quality images - a problem for the distant future.
This is like heroin to these companies.
There's always a rationalization. We're expanding the business, we're spending more on marketing (promise!), we need a new water heater. But when that temporary, short term need is past, the commissions never go back up.
-
:'( As a photographer the commission cut really sucks! However, looking at the business side, I have to agree with James.
Using this time to build the business during a recession will be the best time to come out ahead as the global markets strengthen.
Freeing up some money to the company by cutting commissions if used properly the photographers will see more profits as a result of this, we all hope in the future.
As a real estate agent, the first company I went to work for gave me 80% commission, did not last very long since we did very little sales, made about 8K in 4 months, the next company I worked for gave me 60% and I went on to making over 100K that year because the company invested more to make the company highly visible and the best in the area. Was I happy to take the 20% hit on commission, hell no at first at the end of the year, hell yes.
If you read this James West, loosen up a bit on the acceptance rate, I am not saying accept everything, but there are a lot of very sell-able photos you are not accepting on Alamy, then you will attract more photographers to your site and you will see more photographers and clients it's that simple.
Why didnt they cut their charity funding by 10 percent points? Why hit the people that pay for their yachts and holiday homes? F**k Alamy.
-
No point getting worked up about this when we've got the likes of Fotolia to worry about.
I don't see why anyone need worry about Fotolia. I left them over 2 years ago and don't miss them a bit. Just be done with them and end your worries.