MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Alamy cutting all commissions by 10%  (Read 29385 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: November 20, 2012, 14:10 »
0
You can delete 3000 images in 10 minutes. Just made!

are you leaving stock?


« Reply #51 on: November 20, 2012, 14:11 »
0
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

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #52 on: November 20, 2012, 14:14 »
+1
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?

« Reply #53 on: November 20, 2012, 14:19 »
0
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?

« Reply #54 on: November 20, 2012, 14:27 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 14:34 by loop »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #55 on: November 20, 2012, 14:32 »
0
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.

« Reply #56 on: November 20, 2012, 14:41 »
0
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

« Reply #57 on: November 20, 2012, 14:46 »
+3

...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.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #58 on: November 20, 2012, 14:49 »
0
We're nothing but modern day slaves to these peopleall 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.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #59 on: November 20, 2012, 14:49 »
+2
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.

« Reply #60 on: November 20, 2012, 14:54 »
0
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?

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #61 on: November 20, 2012, 14:59 »
0
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.

« Reply #62 on: November 20, 2012, 15:01 »
0
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

« Reply #63 on: November 20, 2012, 15:31 »
0
50:50 is still good deal, but definitely is not move in the right way...

« Reply #64 on: November 20, 2012, 15:53 »
0
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 :(

« Reply #65 on: November 20, 2012, 15:54 »
0
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?

« Reply #66 on: November 20, 2012, 16:05 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 16:31 by stockastic »

« Reply #67 on: November 20, 2012, 17:31 »
0
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.

« Reply #68 on: November 20, 2012, 17:54 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #69 on: November 20, 2012, 18:27 »
+1
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. 

« Reply #70 on: November 20, 2012, 23:04 »
0
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.


« Reply #71 on: November 21, 2012, 04:46 »
0
a couple posts from a petty quarrel were removed. 

Let's keep this discussion civil.

« Reply #72 on: November 21, 2012, 05:21 »
0
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.

« Reply #73 on: November 21, 2012, 09:08 »
+1
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???

« Reply #74 on: November 21, 2012, 10:16 »
+2
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
48 Replies
9256 Views
Last post August 22, 2011, 18:38
by Slovenian
22 Replies
5401 Views
Last post December 13, 2011, 05:18
by lagereek
3 Replies
2118 Views
Last post September 18, 2012, 09:23
by PeterChigmaroff
More price cutting?

Started by Uncle Pete Off Topic

6 Replies
1788 Views
Last post January 24, 2014, 19:24
by 4seasons
25 Replies
3018 Views
Last post June 30, 2019, 09:49
by Microstock Man

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results