MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Alamy.com => Topic started by: GrayMouse on March 13, 2019, 07:07

Title: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: GrayMouse on March 13, 2019, 07:07
Hello to all,

is it just me who think alamy is not 'well'? Does anyone has some better information?

They reduced commission from 50% to 40%, but are there some new benefits to keep the situation little bit balanced?
Also, image is sold, but money hang somewhere... I sold several images and over 2 months I saw 0 USD, then appeared 12 dollars. it is just ridiculous...

Comparing to SS I am selling everyday also extended licenses.

Well, I think I will stop uploading new content..
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: Pauws99 on March 13, 2019, 07:16
Hello to all,

is it just me who think alamy is not 'well'? Does anyone has some better information?

They reduced commission from 50% to 40%, but are there some new benefits to keep the situation little bit balanced?
Also, image is sold, but money hang somewhere... I sold several images and over 2 months I saw 0 USD, then appeared 12 dollars. it is just ridiculous...

Comparing to SS I am selling everyday also extended licenses.

Well, I think I will stop uploading new content..
Alamy has always been like this no generally it does not sell as well as Shutterstock but I don't think anything is "wrong". We all have decide which sites are worth uploading to. Theres a lot that are worse than them.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ShadySue on March 13, 2019, 07:17
Hello to all,
is it just me who think alamy is not 'well'? Does anyone has some better information?
Are you very new to the game?

Quote
They reduced commission from 50% to 40%, but are there some new benefits to keep the situation little bit balanced?
Exclusive images are 50%.
How many other agencies do you know which pay even 40%?
Quote
Also, image is sold, but money hang somewhere... I sold several images and over 2 months I saw 0 USD, then appeared 12 dollars. it is just ridiculous...
That may be your opinion, but it's the way Alamy works. They give buyers time to pay, which is a relatively USP compared to having to pay in advance at the micros.

Quote
Comparing to SS I am selling everyday also extended licenses.
Yeah, probably; but Alamy generally focusses more on Live News and secondary editorial.
In addition, obviously prices at Alamy are being kept down by the likes of SS.
Quote
Well, I think I will stop uploading new content..
Everyone has to work out what's best for them.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ravens on March 14, 2019, 04:08
I second to ShadySue's reply.

Alamy and Shutterstock are not comparable. SS is purely a RF microstock site.

Consider the rights you are giving out. If you license 100 images royalty free for 0,25-0,38 USD (or whatever SS is paying these days), you end up giving lots of image rights for pennies.

I'd rather sell fewer images for more, with the possibility of different licensing options (RM/RF) so Alamy works for me.




Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: Brasilnut on March 14, 2019, 06:46
I second to ShadySue's reply.

Alamy and Shutterstock are not comparable. SS is purely a RF microstock site.

Consider the rights you are giving out. If you license 100 images royalty free for 0,25-0,38 USD (or whatever SS is paying these days), you end up giving lots of image rights for pennies.

I'd rather sell fewer images for more, with the possibility of different licensing options (RM/RF) so Alamy works for me.

What we rather do or not is really irrelevant. We're here to provide a service to buyers.

Why can't you sell at both? Today, I've had the same image sell on both Alamy and SS...

"RM is dying" as per Robert Harding Founder:

Quote
What clients want is a simple way of buying an image that does not require any controlled administration afterwards. Its all part of the 'need it now' and 'haven't any time to mess about' syndrome. Modern clients do not really understand Rights Managed nor do they want to fill in long dropdown menus with all sorts of decisions and limits many of which they may not know themselves nor will they be able to administrate. Hence the popularity of Royalty Free.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: Pauws99 on March 14, 2019, 07:05
I second to ShadySue's reply.

Alamy and Shutterstock are not comparable. SS is purely a RF microstock site.

Consider the rights you are giving out. If you license 100 images royalty free for 0,25-0,38 USD (or whatever SS is paying these days), you end up giving lots of image rights for pennies.

I'd rather sell fewer images for more, with the possibility of different licensing options (RM/RF) so Alamy works for me.

What we rather do or not is really irrelevant. We're here to provide a service to buyers.

Why can't you sell at both? Today, I've had the same image sell on both Alamy and SS...

"RM is dying" as per Robert Harding Founder:

Quote
What clients want is a simple way of buying an image that does not require any controlled administration afterwards. Its all part of the 'need it now' and 'haven't any time to mess about' syndrome. Modern clients do not really understand Rights Managed nor do they want to fill in long dropdown menus with all sorts of decisions and limits many of which they may not know themselves nor will they be able to administrate. Hence the popularity of Royalty Free.
We all have the right to choose how to sell our images though....we just have to accept the financial consequences. We are here to provide a service that provides an acceptable income for ourselves.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: Uncle Pete on March 14, 2019, 07:40
Some great answers. Yes Alamy is different from Microstock. That's the easiest way to view them.

While Alex is right, an image on Microstock can also sell on Alamy, I'll say in  10 years, for myself, that has happened once. While the other way, something on Alamy selling on Microstock, happens more often.

Different buyers, different content sells better. Same as SS vs AS where different images sell better on each.

40% of almost nothing nothing sold, might be 40% but it's much less than I get at Microstock sites. At this stage I lack motivation to upload to Alamy.  :) That can change, but for right now, I'll work where I make the most.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ravens on March 14, 2019, 09:53


What we rather do or not is really irrelevant. We're here to provide a service to buyers.

Why can't you sell at both? Today, I've had the same image sell on both Alamy and SS...


[/quote]

You say we are here to provide a service to the buyers. What will the buyer think when the exact same photo costs just cents on SS and 10 USD minimum on Alamy? Isn't it confusing?  Is it good service? They probably won't be happy finding out that the image they just bought at 150 USD on Alamy costs a fraction of that on SS.

True, we are here to provide a service, but it's not a free service. We're trying to earn income (like Pauws99 here already mentioned). Everyone needs to decide for themselves what works. Personally I would rather keep RM and premium RF images on Alamy and on better paying agencies, and keep my "standard" RF images on micro sites.

Travel photography, the genre Robert Harding represents, is heavily competed. It may be true that some genres (like travel) sell better as RF. However this doesn't mean RM would be dead. For many genres and industries, it is alive and well. RM is not inflexible, it can be tailor made for the buyer.

Interesting that on the stock photography site Robert Harding - a photographer -  founded contributors earn only 30%. !


Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ShadySue on March 14, 2019, 12:07

What we rather do or not is really irrelevant. We're here to provide a service to buyers.

Why can't you sell at both? Today, I've had the same image sell on both Alamy and SS...

You say we are here to provide a service to the buyers. What will the buyer think when the exact same photo costs just cents on SS and 10 USD minimum on Alamy? Isn't it confusing?  Is it good service? They probably won't be happy finding out that the image they just bought at 150 USD on Alamy costs a fraction of that on SS.

It's not that simple. If they wanted a pic for cents on SS, they'd need to have needs into the hundreds per month. If they were big buyers, they could negotiate huge discounts on Alamy.
In any case, exclusive and non-exclusive on Alamy should let the buyer know s/he can't get the same image elsewhere, or that they can, and are free to shop around. (I'm not sure if that info is currently available to the client. Maybe I'm missing it?)

Not sure why you think that $10 is a "minimum on Alamy". I've had distributor RM sales as low as 66c net, meaning they paid $2.20 for the image.
OTOH, it's many years since I had any sort of sale which was anything like the amount quoted on the file's page on Alamy.
I recently looked back at my Alamy sales, and even several years back, I had months where my average rpd was $4.50, and none of these distributor sales, nor NU, which I'm not in.
Note that Alamy confirmed on this very forum years ago that it's nothing to do with the file, it's to do with the discount the buyer negotiated.

After 2.5 years submitting to Alamy alone, I'm back to splitting my files, some to Alamy as RM, some to iS as RF, different files on each.

Of course, buyers should be paying a lot more for RF files than they do for RM-non-exclusive, but it'd be difficult to push that genie back in the bottle .
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: Brasilnut on March 14, 2019, 12:20
Quote
You say we are here to provide a service to the buyers. What will the buyer think when the exact same photo costs just cents on SS and 10 USD minimum on Alamy? Isn't it confusing?  Is it good service? They probably won't be happy finding out that the image they just bought at 150 USD on Alamy costs a fraction of that on SS.

Buyers are free to shop around as much as they want, but the reality is that few do for many reasons. Licensing is more complicated (and yes often confusing) than just pricing. Just because it's more expensive doesn't necessarily mean it covers the users' needs.

I don't deal directly with the buyers so can't comment on service. I would say that Alamy offers an excellent service. I had a query this morning that was dealt with within 1 hour and lots of emails back and forth. My latest CS experience with SS was terrible. 

I've had 50cent net sales on Alamy as well and $112 net on SS so it can work both ways.

Quote
Personally I would rather keep RM and premium RF images on Alamy and on better paying agencies, and keep my "standard" RF images on micro sites.

I also do this. I have some 1,000 images on Alamy which are RM exclusive. Then some 370 on Robert Harding as exclusive. So far I'm not sure this has been the most profitable strategy but works for me.

Quote
However this doesn't mean RM would be dead. For many genres and industries, it is alive and well. RM is not inflexible, it can be tailor made for the buyer.

Agreed. Robert Harding did state that it was "dying", not "dead" though. My book covers at Arcangel are and should be RM for obvious reasons, including exclusivity. Imagine the same book cover image on multiple books...disaster.

Quote
Interesting that on the stock photography site Robert Harding - a photographer -  founded contributors earn only 30%. !

That's correct.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ShadySue on March 14, 2019, 12:46
I've had 50cent net sales on Alamy as well and $112 net on SS so it can work both ways.
And I've had the same file selling for high and very low prices on Alamy RF; and also high and low prices for the same file on iS. (Different files on each agency).
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ravens on March 14, 2019, 12:50

Not sure why you think that $10 is a "minimum on Alamy". I've had distributor RM sales as low as 66c net, meaning they paid $2.20 for the image.



The wording wasn't the greatest - 10 USD was merely an example. My own experience is that sales on Alamy are rarely under that. I am not on Novel Use though, years back it used to generate 1.00 sales so wasn't too happy.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: Dumc on March 14, 2019, 12:55
2 of my highest sales at alamy were for 100$ net, RF, and both pics avaliable on other sites.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ravens on March 14, 2019, 13:15
I've had 50cent net sales on Alamy as well and $112 net on SS so it can work both ways.
And I've had the same file selling for high and very low prices on Alamy RF; and also high and low prices for the same file on iS. (Different files on each agency).


Yes, it can go both ways, but high sales are more common on Alamy, and much less common on SS, iS, and similar.







Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ShadySue on March 14, 2019, 13:19
My book covers at Arcangel are and should be RM for obvious reasons, including exclusivity. Imagine the same book cover image on multiple books...disaster.

It happens:
http://www.indiebooklauncher.com/resources-diy/the-dangers-of-stock-photos-on-book-covers.php (http://www.indiebooklauncher.com/resources-diy/the-dangers-of-stock-photos-on-book-covers.php)
and I've seen others in the past.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ShadySue on March 14, 2019, 13:31
I am not on Novel Use though, years back it used to generate 1.00 sales so wasn't too happy.
From reports on Alamy's forum over the past few months, it seems that NU nowadays might well be an initial offer to New Users, as the uses seem very standard, but the prices are tiny.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: dragonblade on March 14, 2019, 20:41
I have an extremely small port on Alamy so I'm definitely not a veteran by any means. I made one sale after a few months. And that was ages ago - seems like a distant memory now. Total was about $20 and my half was about $10. I don't have much motivation to upload new stuff there now but I still do it on occasions. I might actually get a second sale one day and maybe even a third. Though I bet that will be a long, long time time away. I can really see that you need to have the patience of a saint to do well on Alamy.

And by the way, the one image that sold on Alamy is also available on the micro sites.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: PZF on March 15, 2019, 08:43
Sales dead though since 21st Feb though  :o :o :o
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: obj owl on March 15, 2019, 08:52
Sales dead though since 21st Feb though  :o :o :o

Are your images exclusive or non exclusive?
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ShadySue on March 15, 2019, 09:06
Sales dead though since 21st Feb though  :o :o :o
My sales are up this year (relative to my usual, though I added over 33% to my port there last year), but my 2019 average rpd is under $9 net.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: Uncle Pete on March 15, 2019, 09:15
Sales dead though since 21st Feb though  :o :o :o


Are your images exclusive or non exclusive?


Yes mine are some of both?  :)

My book covers at Arcangel are and should be RM for obvious reasons, including exclusivity. Imagine the same book cover image on multiple books...disaster.

It happens:
[url]http://www.indiebooklauncher.com/resources-diy/the-dangers-of-stock-photos-on-book-covers.php[/url] ([url]http://www.indiebooklauncher.com/resources-diy/the-dangers-of-stock-photos-on-book-covers.php[/url])
and I've seen others in the past.


Interesting but slightly biased and negative. Tell me though, EL on SS is $200 and we get $28? Or did the author pick a worst case.


Not sure why you think that $10 is a "minimum on Alamy". I've had distributor RM sales as low as 66c net, meaning they paid $2.20 for the image.




The wording wasn't the greatest - 10 USD was merely an example. My own experience is that sales on Alamy are rarely under that. I am not on Novel Use though, years back it used to generate 1.00 sales so wasn't too happy.


Apples to Apples,, if someone wants one image or a two pack, $29 using SS for the example, they aren't going to be paying a sub price, and if someone has a subscription, they aren't likely to be buying much from Alamy for RM or the list prices there.

Personally, nearly everything on Alamy is exclusive, and I don't know, but there's a tiny portion that are on Micro and Alamy as the same. I used to argue the same as you, how would a buyer feel if they just paid $200 for an image and then saw it on Shutterstock. I like to be honest but if they do that, it's not my problem. I'm positive I've seen files viewed on Alamy and later purchased on SS or AS. So with that, no I don't choose to have many files on both Microstock and Alamy, but if someone else thinks that's a good plan, that's their business.

On a somewhat related side note, I have uploaded the identical image to Alamy full size, lets say 50MB or larger stitched panorama, and uploaded a 8MP version to Microstock. I felt if someone paid more they should get more.  ;D The rest of the split images mostly have the same going on. Alamy, full size, Microstock downsized versions.

Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ShadySue on March 15, 2019, 09:17
Sales dead though since 21st Feb though  :o :o :o

Are your images exclusive or non exclusive?

Is there any way buyers can see that info? Or set a filter?

Is there any indication that Alamy is favouring exclusive files in search?
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: Sammy the Cat on March 15, 2019, 09:51
Sales dead though since 21st Feb though  :o :o :o

Are your images exclusive or non exclusive?

Is there any way buyers can see that info? Or set a filter?

Is there any indication that Alamy is favouring exclusive files in search?

I have a buyers account with Alamy and there is no way to select "exclusive" files that I can see.

As to favouring exclusive files in the image searches its doesn't appear to be the case as I have none exclusive files (RF) that do appear in searches lower than my RM/RF exclusive images but to be honest I've no idea how they arrange "creative" and "relevant"
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ShadySue on March 15, 2019, 09:58
Sales dead though since 21st Feb though  :o :o :o

Are your images exclusive or non exclusive?

Is there any way buyers can see that info? Or set a filter?

Is there any indication that Alamy is favouring exclusive files in search?

I have a buyers account with Alamy and there is no way to select "exclusive" files that I can see.

As to favouring exclusive files in the image searches its doesn't appear to be the case as I have none exclusive files (RF) that do appear in searches lower than my RM/RF exclusive images but to be honest I've no idea how they arrange "creative" and "relevant"
That's what I'm finding.
I can't work out 'creative' or 'relevant' either; and for many searches, the first page at least is identical. I don't even know how they decide which searches to split and which not to. Maybe that's over-assuming that some sort of actual thought has gone into it!

Seems like the usual 'diversity algorithm' still rules.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: Pauws99 on March 15, 2019, 10:04
Being a cynic why would they encourage exclusive images when they make more from non-exclusive? Or are the prices different?
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: Sammy the Cat on March 15, 2019, 10:45
Being a cynic why would they encourage exclusive images when they make more from non-exclusive? Or are the prices different?

The prices are the same its just the revenue split.  I would agree with your conclusion.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ShadySue on March 15, 2019, 10:50
Being a cynic why would they encourage exclusive images when they make more from non-exclusive? Or are the prices different?
The prices are the same.
I guess the advantage of highlighting exclusive images might be to discourage buyers from shopping round (but Alamy don't think that happens to a great extent).
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: Pauws99 on March 15, 2019, 10:57
Being a cynic why would they encourage exclusive images when they make more from non-exclusive? Or are the prices different?
The prices are the same.
I guess the advantage of highlighting exclusive images might be to discourage buyers from shopping round (but Alamy don't think that happens to a great extent).
I guess its a good marketing ploy to say we have xxx exclusive images....actually selling those specific images not so much ;-)
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: Sammy the Cat on March 17, 2019, 08:04
Well that explains why Alamy have trouble getting the money in looks like they need a credit controller.  Lets hope whoever gets the job is a darn sight tougher with late payers ;D

https://www.alamy.com/work-for-us/uk-jobs/Credit_Controller-mar2019.asp (https://www.alamy.com/work-for-us/uk-jobs/Credit_Controller-mar2019.asp)
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: ravens on March 18, 2019, 03:19
Being a cynic why would they encourage exclusive images when they make more from non-exclusive? Or are the prices different?
If an agency can offer something special and different - exclusive -  it is an asset. Buyers get bored seeing the same images accross all agencies.
Title: Re: Alamy is not 'healthy'
Post by: Pauws99 on March 18, 2019, 04:36
Being a cynic why would they encourage exclusive images when they make more from non-exclusive? Or are the prices different?
If an agency can offer something special and different - exclusive -  it is an asset. Buyers get bored seeing the same images accross all agencies.
Yes its good to offer them not so much to sell them ahead of non-exclusive.