Author Topic: Alamy reducing commission from 50% to 40% (Read 26040 times)

Dumc · « **on:** December 04, 2018, 09:27 »

Just got e-mail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk5okHRFTgw&feature=youtu.be

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** December 04, 2018, 09:42 »

Late to the party. See other thread.

DavidK · « **Reply #2 on:** December 04, 2018, 09:50 »

Just got the email too. Won't bother watching the video though because by now I think II can guess what it says. Alamy is not a big earner for me but stil the news is yet another disappointment in a long list of disappointments in this industry. A 20% royalty cut with a low earner like them though translates into a 100% cut in my motivation to upload there anymore.

dpimborough · « **Reply #3 on:** December 04, 2018, 14:18 »

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/alamy-'good-news'!/

Mimages · « **Reply #4 on:** December 09, 2018, 08:22 »

I don't understand why this isn't being discussed here. The post in the general section, that I only looked at the other day so maybe it says more now, only had posts from people who seemed pleased about the commission drop. This is very much a topic for THIS section and for Alamy contributors.

I won't write out lots about it for now because, like with other threads here, only very few people comment. I wish the Alamy section here was used more as we have more freedom here to speak our minds than in Alamy's own forum (plus hopefully the disruptive "I know best" Alamy forum regulars aren't here). There are a few other places to write with fellow Alamy contributors but only tiny groups where new members aren't welcome. So it's either here on Alamy's own forums.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** December 09, 2018, 08:49 »

Quote from: Mimages on December 09, 2018, 08:22

I don't understand why this isn't being discussed here. The post in the general section, that I only looked at the other day so maybe it says more now, only had posts from people who seemed pleased about the commission drop. This is very much a topic for THIS section and for Alamy contributors.

I won't write out lots about it for now because, like with other threads here, only very few people comment. I wish the Alamy section here was used more as we have more freedom here to speak our minds than in Alamy's own forum (plus hopefully the disruptive "I know best" Alamy forum regulars aren't here). There are a few other places to write with fellow Alamy contributors but only tiny groups where new members aren't welcome. So it's either here on Alamy's own forums.

The only posts on this topic in the Alamy forum on this subject which have been deleted were very verbally abusive ones by (mostly)one particular person. Other than that, two threads have been allowed to run freely.
Whether anything will change is doubtful. Like Getty before them, they're just letting people vent, then will be back to business as usual.
There are other groups, one of which was referenced in one of these two threads and has welcomed 25 new members in the last few days.
BTW, venting here won't change anything either, but it may be cathartic.

Also, saying that on the other thread here you "only see comments from people who are pleased about the commission drop" is totally bizarre. I can only see this thread: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/alamy-'good-news'!, which I just read over again and don't see even one post indicating someone who is "pleased about the commission drop", a lot of disgruntlement expressed in different ways and some posts saying, yeah, it's bad, but really, where's better (bottom line: most of us are shafted wherever we go, and now Alamy is just as bad as the rest).

Mimages · « **Reply #6 on:** December 09, 2018, 11:53 »

Deleted. Giving up.

anon20200611 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 09, 2018, 16:43 »

*edited for link mistake

This thread is more appropriate both in category and title to have been discussing this, however most of the initial steam was released inside the general discussion.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/alamy-'good-news'!/

After I received the Alamy email and watched the video I tried to get more in depth information online about it. I posted my resources and thoughts in my article at TSPE.

http://thestockphotoeditor.com/index.php/2018/12/04/alamy-announces-reduction-royalty/

As I felt the article to be giving some insight but not 100%, I decided to email it to Mr James West, after his public invitation to receive thoughts in his personal email. I expressed my intention to do a follow up and kindly requested for some more information.

The information I asked was first about the current backlash and how it will affect Alamy. It's the LIFO of this case. To complete my article's main part I am also interested in how the administrative expenses are distributed in Alamy. After an incomplete search online, my first hints are that most of the expenses are the salaries and then the maintenance of 155M images, which are fixed costs. If these costs are too high for Alamy, also because of it's increased sales, therefore prohibit Alamy of investing to it's growth. In this case, contributors could better show some sense and comply with Alamy's decision, for everyone's better shake.

A revolution against someone who is still paying the highest rates (but not so high anymore) and that is trying to invest in growth to get more end customers should find contributors considerate and not angry, offensive or insulting.

I received Mr West's reply today that he will try to answer, but a little bit later, as he is busy at the moment replying to contributors that emailed him. When this data is collected, they will be made available shortly after.

Daryl Ray · « **Reply #8 on:** December 10, 2018, 08:14 »

First off, as in the title of this thread, we as contributors should really stop the continued misuse of the word "commission". A commission is a fee paid to a salesperson. We are the creators and owners of Alamy's content, the stock companies sell our content on our behalf and THEY make a commission on those sales. I would bet a months income that iStock came up with that little switch in definition. Giving a measly 15% "commission" to a contributor somehow sounds "better" than calling it what it is, an 85% commission for the sales people. The most accurate way of describing the Alamy move is that they gave themselves a 20% raise in their own commission.

"most of the expenses are the salaries and then the maintenance of 155M images" - I'm not buying that maintenance excuse for the cash grab. Tell that to Pond5 and their 22M images, along with their 13M videos, not to mention SFX, music, AE templates, PSD, illustrations, 3D. The nearly 5 million 4K video collection maintenance alone surely dwarfs any hosting costs Alamy has. Yet, Pond5 can still muster up a 50% split and survive. And somehow Pond5 is also able to review each submission, file by file, whereas Alamy barely glances at one image in each batch. Throwing out good content in one batch and blindly accepting garbage in the next.

Salaries, that may be an issue. But it's not our problem if they want to pay themselves such high salaries that 50% earnings off content that cost them zero to create can't cover, just as our equipment and production costs are not their concern with how we spend our half. If you can't run a microstock company splitting the sales 50/50, you can't run a company. And that was the only real positive thing Alamy had going for them. Pond5 is clearly hustling way harder than Alamy, evident in my experience at least, so they seem to know how to use their 50% effectively. Alamy, it's employees and contributors, would be better served to replace their poor management. They are the ones failing everyone involved. Then maybe "salaries" may not be as much of an issue.

No, this doesn't make Alamy anywhere near as bad as iStock, or even Shutterstock or Adobe when it comes to money splitting. But with all their other flaws, it surely takes them from barely relevant to pretty much irrelevant. We should always resist these kinds of negative changes and make them as uncomfortable for these companies as we can.

ravens · « **Reply #9 on:** December 10, 2018, 15:16 »

What is the plan regarding new uploads? (Is there a plan?)

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** December 18, 2018, 05:21 »

Quote from: ThomasAndreas on December 09, 2018, 16:43

A revolution against someone who is still paying the highest rates (but not so high anymore) and that is trying to invest in growth to get more end customers should find contributors considerate and not angry, offensive or insulting.

That's completely ignoring the fact that we already went from 60% to 50% to fund the US office. According to Alamy, that expansion went "far better than we expected", though most (of those who report) haven't seen any uptick in sales to the US. So most of us lost money to boost the earnings of a few (and, apparently, Alamy's bottom line). Despite them saying that expanding US operations at our expense surpassed expectations, we didn't get restored to 60%.

Orchidpoet · « **Reply #11 on:** December 18, 2018, 06:43 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 18, 2018, 05:21

Quote from: ThomasAndreas on December 09, 2018, 16:43
A revolution against someone who is still paying the highest rates (but not so high anymore) and that is trying to invest in growth to get more end customers should find contributors considerate and not angry, offensive or insulting.
That's completely ignoring the fact that we already went from 60% to 50% to fund the US office. According to Alamy, that expansion went "far better than we expected", though most (of those who report) haven't seen any uptick in sales to the US. So most of us lost money to boost the earnings of a few (and, apparently, Alamy's bottom line). Despite them saying that expanding US operations at our expense surpassed expectations, we didn't get restored to 60%.

I agree. Their capital investment should come from their own pocket.

Perhaps we can ask Alamy to take a cut because we have to upgrade our gears.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #12 on:** December 18, 2018, 11:25 »

Email this morning says they've decided to keep 50% for exclusive files.

If they sold more & more reliably I might consider exclusive files, but that's a non-starter (for me) with such a low volume agency.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #13 on:** December 18, 2018, 11:38 »

"If you can't run a microstock company splitting the sales 50/50, you can't run a company." How many microstock companies actually do this? For years SS have said that a 33/66 split in their favour is the sweet spot. We may not like it but a lot of companies have failed trying to prove them wrong. Contributors generally vastly underestimate the importance of marketing and its cost in my opinion. It may be unpalatable but thats the reality in my view.

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** December 18, 2018, 11:52 »

Anyway, the latest news is that exclusive-to-Alamy files are to stay at 50%, non-exclusive files go to 40%.
As my files are all de facto exclusive, except for a few at FAA which I can change*, that's great news, in my opinion.

*Unfortunately, Alamy now sells prints via a 3rd party, for very low prices. However, that can be opted out of, together with personal use.

Daryl Ray · « **Reply #15 on:** December 18, 2018, 12:52 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 18, 2018, 11:38

"If you can't run a microstock company splitting the sales 50/50, you can't run a company." How many microstock companies actually do this? For years SS have said that a 33/66 split in their favour is the sweet spot. We may not like it but a lot of companies have failed trying to prove them wrong. Contributors generally vastly underestimate the importance of marketing and its cost in my opinion. It may be unpalatable but thats the reality in my view.

Buy into the bs all you want, most companies take as much as contributors allow them to. Marketing, content management and payment processing is ALL they do. They don't create content, they don't pay for content, they have zero reasoning to take more than 50% as a sales commission to do their part in this business. iStock set the tone and many others followed suit because you guys keep feeding them content and choose to believe their "exciting news" press releases over common sense and logic. As for SS, I personally don't trust an assessment on an appropriate split from an agency that chooses to spend top dollar on lavish offices in a ridiculously high rent location and has an obligation to their executives and shareholders to constantly increase THEIR bottom line.

The long standing and continued success of Pond5 is all the proof we need that 50% is plenty to run a company efficiently. It's right in front of you. Believe in whatever reality you choose.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #16 on:** December 18, 2018, 13:37 »

Quote from: Daryl Ray on December 18, 2018, 12:52

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 18, 2018, 11:38
"If you can't run a microstock company splitting the sales 50/50, you can't run a company." How many microstock companies actually do this? For years SS have said that a 33/66 split in their favour is the sweet spot. We may not like it but a lot of companies have failed trying to prove them wrong. Contributors generally vastly underestimate the importance of marketing and its cost in my opinion. It may be unpalatable but thats the reality in my view.

Buy into the bs all you want, most companies take as much as contributors allow them to. Marketing, content management and payment processing is ALL they do. They don't create content, they don't pay for content, they have zero reasoning to take more than 50% as a sales commission to do their part in this business. iStock set the tone and many others followed suit because you guys keep feeding them content and choose to believe their "exiting news" press releases over common sense and logic. As for SS, I personally don't trust an assessment on an appropriate split from an agency that chooses to spend top dollar on lavish offices in a ridiculously high rent location and has an obligation to their executives and shareholders to constantly increase THEIR bottom line.

The long standing and continued success of Pond5 is all the proof we need that 50% is plenty to run a company efficiently. It's right in front of you. Believe in whatever reality you choose.

The reality is the top three agencies by a mile all offer 35% or less payout. That's the reality not my belief. Yes they are businesses so need to show a profit thats how it works. In 2017 SS revenue was 557.1 $m. Pond5s is estimated at $5.6M

stockastic · « **Reply #17 on:** December 18, 2018, 13:44 »

Alamy is the only place I still have photos. The only reason I left them there is that with Alamy I didn't feel like a chump every time I made a sale. If they can't hold the line at 50% anymore then I guess it's time to pull the plug.

dpimborough · « **Reply #18 on:** December 18, 2018, 13:51 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 18, 2018, 13:44

Alamy is the only place I still have photos. The only reason I left them there is that with Alamy I didn't feel like a chump every time I made a sale. If they can't hold the line at 50% anymore then I guess it's time to pull the plug.

You are in luck they just announced today that "exclusive" images will still get 50% none exclusive images 40%

ravens · « **Reply #19 on:** December 18, 2018, 13:59 »

Quote from: Daryl Ray on December 18, 2018, 12:52

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 18, 2018, 11:38
"If you can't run a microstock company splitting the sales 50/50, you can't run a company." How many microstock companies actually do this? For years SS have said that a 33/66 split in their favour is the sweet spot. We may not like it but a lot of companies have failed trying to prove them wrong. Contributors generally vastly underestimate the importance of marketing and its cost in my opinion. It may be unpalatable but thats the reality in my view.

Buy into the bs all you want, most companies take as much as contributors allow them to. Marketing, content management and payment processing is ALL they do. They don't create content, they don't pay for content, they have zero reasoning to take more than 50% as a sales commission to do their part in this business. iStock set the tone and many others followed suit because you guys keep feeding them content and choose to believe their "exiting news" press releases over common sense and logic. As for SS, I personally don't trust an assessment on an appropriate split from an agency that chooses to spend top dollar on lavish offices in a ridiculously high rent location and has an obligation to their executives and shareholders to constantly increase THEIR bottom line.

The long standing and continued success of Pond5 is all the proof we need that 50% is plenty to run a company efficiently. It's right in front of you. Believe in whatever reality you choose.

Agreed 100%. Plus, purchasing images is self service for the most part, that's not expensive for stock agencies to organize.

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** December 18, 2018, 14:21 »

Quote from: ravens on December 18, 2018, 13:59

Agreed 100%. Plus, purchasing images is self service for the most part, that's not expensive for stock agencies to organize.

At micros, yes.
Alamy actually offers some help in the process, if it's needed.

stockastic · « **Reply #21 on:** December 18, 2018, 14:26 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on December 18, 2018, 13:51

Quote from: stockastic on December 18, 2018, 13:44
Alamy is the only place I still have photos. The only reason I left them there is that with Alamy I didn't feel like a chump every time I made a sale. If they can't hold the line at 50% anymore then I guess it's time to pull the plug.

You are in luck they just announced today that "exclusive" images will still get 50% none exclusive images 40%

But they're not exclusive, because I still try to sell prints of some of them.

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** December 18, 2018, 14:29 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 18, 2018, 14:26

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on December 18, 2018, 13:51
Quote from: stockastic on December 18, 2018, 13:44
Alamy is the only place I still have photos. The only reason I left them there is that with Alamy I didn't feel like a chump every time I made a sale. If they can't hold the line at 50% anymore then I guess it's time to pull the plug.

You are in luck they just announced today that "exclusive" images will still get 50% none exclusive images 40%

But they're not exclusive, because I still try to sell prints of some of them.

The others will be exclusive, then.
Also we have yet to hear whether they'll be counted as exclusive if available at pos print sites and we have opted out of print (and PU) sales at Alamy for that image.

Daryl Ray · « **Reply #23 on:** December 18, 2018, 14:50 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 18, 2018, 13:37

Quote from: Daryl Ray on December 18, 2018, 12:52
Quote from: Pauws99 on December 18, 2018, 11:38
"If you can't run a microstock company splitting the sales 50/50, you can't run a company." How many microstock companies actually do this? For years SS have said that a 33/66 split in their favour is the sweet spot. We may not like it but a lot of companies have failed trying to prove them wrong. Contributors generally vastly underestimate the importance of marketing and its cost in my opinion. It may be unpalatable but thats the reality in my view.

Buy into the bs all you want, most companies take as much as contributors allow them to. Marketing, content management and payment processing is ALL they do. They don't create content, they don't pay for content, they have zero reasoning to take more than 50% as a sales commission to do their part in this business. iStock set the tone and many others followed suit because you guys keep feeding them content and choose to believe their "exiting news" press releases over common sense and logic. As for SS, I personally don't trust an assessment on an appropriate split from an agency that chooses to spend top dollar on lavish offices in a ridiculously high rent location and has an obligation to their executives and shareholders to constantly increase THEIR bottom line.

The long standing and continued success of Pond5 is all the proof we need that 50% is plenty to run a company efficiently. It's right in front of you. Believe in whatever reality you choose.
The reality is the top three agencies by a mile all offer 35% or less payout. That's the reality not my belief. Yes they are businesses so need to show a profit thats how it works. In 2017 SS revenue was 557.1 $m. Pond5s is estimated at $5.6M

They pay 35% or less because they can and people will still upload to them. You're not understanding my post. If their sole motivation is increasing their profits quarter after quarter, who do you think is going to be getting the decrease? Where do they "find" more profit? You and me. Showing the difference between the revenue of the different agencies actually further illustrates my point. SS takes 70% (probably more with the sub deals), so that comes to approximately $389 million in commissions from sales of things they didn't pay a cent to create, ship or purchase. You're telling me that $228 million (50%) wouldn't be enough commission to cover their costs to host digital files, process payments, pay staff and maintain (poorly at times) a database? I guess it isn't if you overpay ridiculous amounts for real estate and executive salaries. Somehow, Pond5 does it all with $2.5 million...

ravens · « **Reply #24 on:** December 18, 2018, 15:01 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 18, 2018, 14:21

Quote from: ravens on December 18, 2018, 13:59
Agreed 100%. Plus, purchasing images is self service for the most part, that's not expensive for stock agencies to organize.
At micros, yes.
Alamy actually offers some help in the process, if it's needed.

This is why I said "for the most part"...

Pauws99 · « **Reply #25 on:** December 18, 2018, 15:13 »

Quote from: Daryl Ray on December 18, 2018, 14:50

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 18, 2018, 13:37
Quote from: Daryl Ray on December 18, 2018, 12:52
Quote from: Pauws99 on December 18, 2018, 11:38
"If you can't run a microstock company splitting the sales 50/50, you can't run a company." How many microstock companies actually do this? For years SS have said that a 33/66 split in their favour is the sweet spot. We may not like it but a lot of companies have failed trying to prove them wrong. Contributors generally vastly underestimate the importance of marketing and its cost in my opinion. It may be unpalatable but thats the reality in my view.

Buy into the bs all you want, most companies take as much as contributors allow them to. Marketing, content management and payment processing is ALL they do. They don't create content, they don't pay for content, they have zero reasoning to take more than 50% as a sales commission to do their part in this business. iStock set the tone and many others followed suit because you guys keep feeding them content and choose to believe their "exiting news" press releases over common sense and logic. As for SS, I personally don't trust an assessment on an appropriate split from an agency that chooses to spend top dollar on lavish offices in a ridiculously high rent location and has an obligation to their executives and shareholders to constantly increase THEIR bottom line.

The long standing and continued success of Pond5 is all the proof we need that 50% is plenty to run a company efficiently. It's right in front of you. Believe in whatever reality you choose.
The reality is the top three agencies by a mile all offer 35% or less payout. That's the reality not my belief. Yes they are businesses so need to show a profit thats how it works. In 2017 SS revenue was 557.1 $m. Pond5s is estimated at $5.6M

They pay 35% or less because they can and people will still upload to them. You're not understanding my post. If their sole motivation is increasing their profits quarter after quarter, who do you think is going to be getting the decrease? Where do they "find" more profit? You and me. Showing the difference between the revenue of the different agencies actually further illustrates my point. SS takes 70% (probably more with the sub deals), so that comes to approximately $389 million in commissions from sales of things they didn't pay a cent to create, ship or purchase. You're telling me that $228 million (50%) wouldn't be enough commission to cover their costs to host digital files, process payments, pay staff and maintain (poorly at times) a database? I guess it isn't if you overpay ridiculous amounts for real estate and executive salaries. Somehow, Pond5 does it with $2.5 million. Think.

Why would you expect a business to do anything other than aim to increase its profits quarter after quarter? Up until now SS have done that by growing their business they have increased revenue per download and consequently payment to contributors.

Full Year 2017 highlights as compared to Full Year Key Operating Metrics
Paid downloads increased 2% to 172.0 million
Revenue per download increased 9% to $3.13

Of course I'd like them to reduce their operating costs and pay a higher percentage to contributors. The fact is there is no commercial reason for them to do so.

If a business came along and offered 50% to contributors and was actually able to seriously compete then I would be as pleased as anyone but there is very little evidence this is possible. The exception being Pond5 but that is only in the relatively new and fast growing video market. As that matures I would expect them to cut commissions and prices as has happened in every other digital market place.

Its not because SS are especially greedy. In any market where there is oversupply the suppliers will be the ones who get hit.

Daryl Ray · « **Reply #26 on:** December 18, 2018, 16:36 »

Don't wanna keep going in circles as it's venturing somewhat off-topic. But the difference between a public company like Shutterstock and the non-public companies is that the forecasted revenue increases can be unrealistic and tied to too many invested parties that just want a large return on those investments, and this eventually forces these companies to do things that non-public companies don't have to do to keep pushing the margin. Simplified, their piece of the pie must grow at any expense. So if it isn't increased revenue, it's from somewhere else. We are among the "somewhere else".

"Of course I'd like them to reduce their operating costs and pay a higher percentage to contributors. The fact is there is no commercial reason for them to do so. "

Exactly. If we held them accountable to treat us as partners rather than sheep that'll take whatever they offer no matter how small the portion, it would be very good commercial sense to pay us fairly. But again, iStock. They set the standard of greed so low that SS and Adobe are doing us a "favor" by "only" taking 70%.

At least we have to give Alamy some credit for walking back (at least a little) due to contributor outcry. Same thing happened with Storyblocks recently. Apparently we're not all busy trying to justify and make excuses for these greed-driven moves and actually making effort to push back. Thank gawd.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #27 on:** December 18, 2018, 16:55 »

Quote from: Daryl Ray on December 18, 2018, 16:36

Don't wanna keep going in circles as it's venturing somewhat off-topic. But the difference between a public company like Shutterstock and the non-public companies is that the forecasted revenue increases can be unrealistic and tied to too many invested parties that just want a large return on those investments, and this eventually forces these companies to do things that non-public companies don't have to do to keep pushing the margin. Simplified, their piece of the pie must grow at any expense. So if it isn't increased revenue, it's from somewhere else. We are among the "somewhere else".

"Of course I'd like them to reduce their operating costs and pay a higher percentage to contributors. The fact is there is no commercial reason for them to do so. "

Exactly. If we held them accountable to treat us as partners rather than sheep that'll take whatever they offer no matter how small the portion, it would be very good commercial sense to pay us fairly. But again, iStock. They set the standard of greed so low that SS and Adobe are doing us a "favor" by "only" taking 70%.

At least we have to give Alamy some credit for walking back (at least a little) due to contributor outcry. Same thing happened with Storyblocks recently. Apparently we're not all busy trying to justify and make excuses for these greed-driven moves and actually making effort to push back. Thank gawd.

Yes its an old argument and I guess we won't agree.

Non Public companies are often funded by loans and Banks or Investors who will be just as demanding as shareholders...look at Getty.

I measure the value of a site by the return on investment of my time...by that measure SS wins.

f9photos · « **Reply #28 on:** December 18, 2018, 18:11 »

we won! (almost

)

Quote

We recently sent an email regarding a change in the commission structure at Alamy where the commission contributors receive for direct sales will change from 50% to 40% in February 2019.

After careful review, and taking into consideration photographer feedback, we have come to the decision that images exclusive to Alamy will remain at 50%.

PZF · « **Reply #29 on:** December 19, 2018, 07:12 »

OK. 50% or 60% all round would have been great. BUT....
given most of us send mostly the same stuff to all agencies, it is us that have meant that agencies do largely end up selling the same stuff and that they cannot differentiate themselves by exclusive images which can't be found elsewhere. Hence price and commission competition.
What did we expect?
I hope that Alamy will take the initiative and try to get more exclusive stuff - maybe even get back to 60% for it, and try to gain market share as a result.
If all sites continue to sell the same stuff then commodity prices will be paid by customer to the agency - and by the agency to us.

Mantis · « **Reply #30 on:** December 19, 2018, 08:53 »

Alamay is able to do this because most of their content is non exclusive. Very little risk to their new revenue goals but a positive message they can send all while not really changing a thing on the pay cut.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #31 on:** December 19, 2018, 17:48 »

Quote from: Mantis on December 19, 2018, 08:53

Alamay is able to do this because most of their content is non exclusive. Very little risk to their new revenue goals but a positive message they can send all while not really changing a thing on the pay cut.

I don't even know how to mark images as exclusive on Alamy. I have a bunch.

noodle · « **Reply #32 on:** December 19, 2018, 18:23 »

Quote from: Mantis on December 19, 2018, 08:53

Alamay is able to do this because most of their content is non exclusive. Very little risk to their new revenue goals but a positive message they can send all while not really changing a thing on the pay cut.

The contributers who are already exclusive there, don’t know what they might be missing from posting images to other sites. So it’s awash for them, status quo.
Probably the vast majority of others who are on other sites they will take the 10 % less and stay everywhere.
The numbers here no doubt played a key part in Alamy coming to this ‘compromise’

ShadySue · « **Reply #33 on:** December 19, 2018, 18:35 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 19, 2018, 17:48

Quote from: Mantis on December 19, 2018, 08:53
Alamay is able to do this because most of their content is non exclusive. Very little risk to their new revenue goals but a positive message they can send all while not really changing a thing on the pay cut.

I don't even know how to mark images as exclusive on Alamy. I have a bunch.

Tick the exclusive box in the optional tab.

Orchidpoet · « **Reply #34 on:** December 19, 2018, 19:45 »

Does anyone know if we can sell "RM exclusive" through Alamy, and prints and so on through FAA and by oneself?

ShadySue · « **Reply #35 on:** December 19, 2018, 20:09 »

Quote from: Orchidpoet on December 19, 2018, 19:45

Does anyone know if we can sell "RM exclusive" through Alamy, and prints and so on through FAA and by oneself?

Someone who asked that question privately was told 'no'.
However, that was before the current proposals. James West said on the most recent video that the details of exclusivity would be shared during the first quarter of next year.

Orchidpoet · « **Reply #36 on:** December 19, 2018, 20:49 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 19, 2018, 20:09

Quote from: Orchidpoet on December 19, 2018, 19:45
Does anyone know if we can sell "RM exclusive" through Alamy, and prints and so on through FAA and by oneself?
Someone who asked that question privately was told 'no'.
However, that was before the current proposals. James West said on the most recent video that the details of exclusivity would be shared during the first quarter of next year.

Great to know! Thanks!

I rarely bothered to mark my photos as exclusive in Alamy. If I do it by hand one by one, it will take forever. I have asked if they can set all as exclusive, if I am still allowed to sell prints and products.

I must confess that I make far more selling prints and products myself than through Alamy.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #37 on:** December 20, 2018, 14:21 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 19, 2018, 18:35

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 19, 2018, 17:48
Quote from: Mantis on December 19, 2018, 08:53
Alamay is able to do this because most of their content is non exclusive. Very little risk to their new revenue goals but a positive message they can send all while not really changing a thing on the pay cut.

I don't even know how to mark images as exclusive on Alamy. I have a bunch.

Tick the exclusive box in the optional tab.

Thanks.

For the why, they are editorial, no acceptable proof of credentials going back that far, I have the IDs and things but old emails from 2008, for example, are long gone along with the computers they were on. Anything that I'd be clicking exclusive falls into that group that I most likely can't upload to SS. Also in the "good old days" of Alamy, remember we had to upsize images. I think that's against the guidelines for the other sites, which means, going back and re-editing some old news photos of questionable market interest.

On the other hand, clicking a box for 10% I might do?

jefftakespics2 · « **Reply #38 on:** December 21, 2018, 15:23 »

I earn so little from Alamy that it is inconsequential for me personally. When companies need more operating profit one of the ways to accomplish this is to squeeze their suppliers. In this case it is fairly easy for them. They recanted on the exclusive rate structure because some of their big contributors balked and they could not afford to lose them. As for the non-exclusive contributors there is really not much recourse aside from deleting your content. I agree with the comment about the term "commissions". This has always pissed me off. We earn royalties on our work. The agency (Alamy) earns a commission on the sale. Completely backwards.

pancaketom · « **Reply #39 on:** February 22, 2019, 00:29 »

I got an Alamy sale today.

I made $7.40 less than I would have with the same sale yesterday. It was also a lot easier to see how much I actually made from the sale when it was a 50/50 split. I'd be perfectly willing to do the calculations if the 60/40 split was the other way though.

I wonder who and how the screws will tighten next.

dpimborough · « **Reply #40 on:** February 22, 2019, 10:49 »

Quote from: pancaketom on February 22, 2019, 00:29

I got an Alamy sale today.

I made $7.40 less than I would have with the same sale yesterday. It was also a lot easier to see how much I actually made from the sale when it was a 50/50 split. I'd be perfectly willing to do the calculations if the 60/40 split was the other way though.

I wonder who and how the screws will tighten next.

And they are now taking the 1 cent difference after the royalty split that used to go to the contributor.

They must be desparate if they are now taking $0.01

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #41 on:** February 22, 2019, 10:52 »

Quote from: pancaketom on February 22, 2019, 00:29

I got an Alamy sale today.

I made $7.40 less than I would have with the same sale yesterday. It was also a lot easier to see how much I actually made from the sale when it was a 50/50 split. I'd be perfectly willing to do the calculations if the 60/40 split was the other way though.

I wonder who and how the screws will tighten next.

You mean how low can they go and who's leading the race to the bottom and lowest commissions for us.

I hate to say "old timers" but honest, since I started, I've watched the agencies nibble and cut and adjust, almost always down. Only upwards changes I've seen were SS when they added the highest level to subs, which is a long time ago. Not sure about Single and On Demand, they didn't exist back then. And the AdobeStock recently raising commissions to make them more consistent.

Every other announcement has been, no more referrals, cuts in commissions, drops in prices, removing levels, adding new partners (which are always lower returns for us), changing pricing packages = discounts which means we get less, and all kinds of Good News or Exciting Changes that always mean, they make more and we make less.

I won't know on Alamy until I get some sales, but I just went through and marked almost everything as Exclusive. A small number are too close to call, similar, I didn't bother. I seldom uploaded the same things to Alamy that I have on Microstock. I didn't want to get into that game and I don't know how many buyers would be so set in their ways that they wouldn't at least check SS, FT or IS when they found something on AL?

With the lower Alamy prices I have more downloads now and make less money. I'll guess if I get the same number of downloads in 2019, I'll make less money than 2017 or 2018? OK so I'm not going out of my way to feed the slightly better than Microstock agency, unless it's something I think will do better there, like travel or scenic.

Lets all give Alamy a year and come back to see what we found out?

dpimborough · « **Reply #42 on:** February 22, 2019, 11:36 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 22, 2019, 10:52

Quote from: pancaketom on February 22, 2019, 00:29
I got an Alamy sale today.

I made $7.40 less than I would have with the same sale yesterday. It was also a lot easier to see how much I actually made from the sale when it was a 50/50 split. I'd be perfectly willing to do the calculations if the 60/40 split was the other way though.

I wonder who and how the screws will tighten next.

You mean how low can they go and who's leading the race to the bottom and lowest commissions for us.

I hate to say "old timers" but honest, since I started, I've watched the agencies nibble and cut and adjust, almost always down. Only upwards changes I've seen were SS when they added the highest level to subs, which is a long time ago. Not sure about Single and On Demand, they didn't exist back then. And the AdobeStock recently raising commissions to make them more consistent.

Every other announcement has been, no more referrals, cuts in commissions, drops in prices, removing levels, adding new partners (which are always lower returns for us), changing pricing packages = discounts which means we get less, and all kinds of Good News or Exciting Changes that always mean, they make more and we make less.

I won't know on Alamy until I get some sales, but I just went through and marked almost everything as Exclusive. A small number are too close to call, similar, I didn't bother. I seldom uploaded the same things to Alamy that I have on Microstock. I didn't want to get into that game and I don't know how many buyers would be so set in their ways that they wouldn't at least check SS, FT or IS when they found something on AL?

With the lower Alamy prices I have more downloads now and make less money. I'll guess if I get the same number of downloads in 2019, I'll make less money than 2017 or 2018? OK so I'm not going out of my way to feed the slightly better than Microstock agency, unless it's something I think will do better there, like travel or scenic.

Lets all give Alamy a year and come back to see what we found out?

Give them a year and all you'll see is lower sales prices and reduced income.

Then give them a year or two and they come back with a 70/30 split in their favour.

I had an RM exclusive sale today and made a whole 98 cents

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #43 on:** February 22, 2019, 12:07 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on February 22, 2019, 11:36

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 22, 2019, 10:52
Quote from: pancaketom on February 22, 2019, 00:29
I got an Alamy sale today.

I made $7.40 less than I would have with the same sale yesterday. It was also a lot easier to see how much I actually made from the sale when it was a 50/50 split. I'd be perfectly willing to do the calculations if the 60/40 split was the other way though.

I wonder who and how the screws will tighten next.

You mean how low can they go and who's leading the race to the bottom and lowest commissions for us.

I hate to say "old timers" but honest, since I started, I've watched the agencies nibble and cut and adjust, almost always down. Only upwards changes I've seen were SS when they added the highest level to subs, which is a long time ago. Not sure about Single and On Demand, they didn't exist back then. And the AdobeStock recently raising commissions to make them more consistent.

Every other announcement has been, no more referrals, cuts in commissions, drops in prices, removing levels, adding new partners (which are always lower returns for us), changing pricing packages = discounts which means we get less, and all kinds of Good News or Exciting Changes that always mean, they make more and we make less.

I won't know on Alamy until I get some sales, but I just went through and marked almost everything as Exclusive. A small number are too close to call, similar, I didn't bother. I seldom uploaded the same things to Alamy that I have on Microstock. I didn't want to get into that game and I don't know how many buyers would be so set in their ways that they wouldn't at least check SS, FT or IS when they found something on AL?

With the lower Alamy prices I have more downloads now and make less money. I'll guess if I get the same number of downloads in 2019, I'll make less money than 2017 or 2018? OK so I'm not going out of my way to feed the slightly better than Microstock agency, unless it's something I think will do better there, like travel or scenic.

Lets all give Alamy a year and come back to see what we found out?

Give them a year and all you'll see is lower sales prices and reduced income.

Then give them a year or two and they come back with a 70/30 split in their favour.

I had an RM exclusive sale today and made a whole 98 cents

I won't disagree with the likelihood of anything you wrote, but I'd like to give the new program a fair chance, before deciding. I'd expect income for anyone with regular numbers to be down 10%?

Didn't we start at 60/40 We got 60 they took 40. Then it went to 50/50 and a slight adjustment when they added partners, 50/50 of the 35% that was left. Now it's 40/60 (our cut starts first to keep it the same) and I suppose somewhere in the future, we might see 30/70, I don't think for at least a few years, but so what, that's not great news either way.

Let me express my view. For 40% and if I understand 40% of 35% when a partner makes a sale? I'm not going to go out of my way to upload much new to Alamy. I don't think they care, just like I don't think most of the agencies care if 1 person, or 100 people or 1,000 people, stop uploading, or clear out and leave. They have millions of images, all they need, with duplicates of nearly every subject.

The only choice we have is where we want our work to be sold, and that choice for myself is getting smaller and smaller as they (the agencies) take a bigger cut, until I'm not feeding them anything anymore. Personal decision and I honestly don't think any of them are concerned about getting enough good materials for the market.

Haven't I said this before?

I'd rather sit for nothing than work for nothing.

pancaketom · « **Reply #44 on:** February 22, 2019, 22:32 »

Today they rubbed salt in the wound. A sale from last week was refunded and repurchased for the same price, except they took 20% more of it and I got 20% less. ouch.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #45 on:** February 23, 2019, 16:44 »

Ouch for sure. What a bummer.

ShadySue · « **Reply #46 on:** February 23, 2019, 17:04 »

Quote from: pancaketom on February 22, 2019, 22:32

Today they rubbed salt in the wound. A sale from last week was refunded and repurchased for the same price, except they took 20% more of it and I got 20% less. ouch.

Ohm, that's nasty.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #47 on:** February 25, 2019, 14:50 »

Quote from: pancaketom on February 22, 2019, 22:32

Today they rubbed salt in the wound. A sale from last week was refunded and repurchased for the same price, except they took 20% more of it and I got 20% less. ouch.

How did that work? What I mean is, we got a 10% cut, how did they take 20%? I don't understand.

obj owl · « **Reply #48 on:** February 25, 2019, 15:18 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 25, 2019, 14:50

Quote from: pancaketom on February 22, 2019, 22:32
Today they rubbed salt in the wound. A sale from last week was refunded and repurchased for the same price, except they took 20% more of it and I got 20% less. ouch.

How did that work? What I mean is, we got a 10% cut, how did they take 20%? I don't understand.

I sold an image on the 20th Feb for $200 of which my cut is 50% or $100. If I had sold that image on the 21st Feb my cut would be 10% less at 40% equals $80. As you can see that would be 20% less than the day before. They may be only taking 10% more commission, but they have got 20% of your earnings.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #49 on:** February 25, 2019, 15:26 »

Quote from: obj owl on February 25, 2019, 15:18

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 25, 2019, 14:50
Quote from: pancaketom on February 22, 2019, 22:32
Today they rubbed salt in the wound. A sale from last week was refunded and repurchased for the same price, except they took 20% more of it and I got 20% less. ouch.

How did that work? What I mean is, we got a 10% cut, how did they take 20%? I don't understand.

I sold an image on the 20th Feb for $200 of which my cut is 50% or $100. If I had sold that image on the 21st Feb my cut would be 10% less at 40% equals $80. As you can see that would be 20% less than the day before. They may be only taking 10% more commission, but they have got 20% of your earnings.

Clear as the Sunrise in the morning, over the ocean. I read it as taking 20% more from the sale not 20% less money. Thanks, I understand.

Yes we're back to the math parts, where a 10% cut will cost us 20% in earnings.

But it's still a 10% cut... and in the future we'll only get $80 for a sale of $200 instead of $100. Both true

dpimborough · « **Reply #50 on:** February 26, 2019, 02:51 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 25, 2019, 15:26

Quote from: obj owl on February 25, 2019, 15:18
Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 25, 2019, 14:50
Quote from: pancaketom on February 22, 2019, 22:32
Today they rubbed salt in the wound. A sale from last week was refunded and repurchased for the same price, except they took 20% more of it and I got 20% less. ouch.

How did that work? What I mean is, we got a 10% cut, how did they take 20%? I don't understand.

I sold an image on the 20th Feb for $200 of which my cut is 50% or $100. If I had sold that image on the 21st Feb my cut would be 10% less at 40% equals $80. As you can see that would be 20% less than the day before. They may be only taking 10% more commission, but they have got 20% of your earnings.

Clear as the Sunrise in the morning, over the ocean. I read it as taking 20% more from the sale not 20% less money. Thanks, I understand.

Yes we're back to the math parts, where a 10% cut will cost us 20% in earnings.

But it's still a 10% cut... and in the future we'll only get $80 for a sale of $200 instead of $100. Both true

Its not a 10% cut it never was it was always a 20% cut thats why it's so disgusting.

Reducing the royalty rate from 50% to 40% is 10 percentage points but in real terms a 20% cut in revenue.

i.e. $100 sale @ 50% split gives $50
$100 sale @ 40% gives $40

20% of $50 is $10 hence $40 is a 20% reduction

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #51 on:** February 26, 2019, 13:11 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on February 26, 2019, 02:51

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 25, 2019, 15:26
Quote from: obj owl on February 25, 2019, 15:18
Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 25, 2019, 14:50
Quote from: pancaketom on February 22, 2019, 22:32
Today they rubbed salt in the wound. A sale from last week was refunded and repurchased for the same price, except they took 20% more of it and I got 20% less. ouch.

How did that work? What I mean is, we got a 10% cut, how did they take 20%? I don't understand.

I sold an image on the 20th Feb for $200 of which my cut is 50% or $100. If I had sold that image on the 21st Feb my cut would be 10% less at 40% equals $80. As you can see that would be 20% less than the day before. They may be only taking 10% more commission, but they have got 20% of your earnings.

Clear as the Sunrise in the morning, over the ocean. I read it as taking 20% more from the sale not 20% less money. Thanks, I understand.

Yes we're back to the math parts, where a 10% cut will cost us 20% in earnings.

But it's still a 10% cut... and in the future we'll only get $80 for a sale of $200 instead of $100. Both true

Its not a 10% cut it never was it was always a 20% cut thats why it's so disgusting.

Reducing the royalty rate from 50% to 40% is 10 percentage points but in real terms a 20% cut in revenue.

i.e. $100 sale @ 50% split gives $50
$100 sale @ 40% gives $40

20% of $50 is $10 hence $40 is a 20% reduction

Yup, got it.

dpimborough · « **Reply #52 on:** February 27, 2019, 05:13 »

Oh and the other dubious thing is that Alamy are now creaming off 1 cents from certain sales or in some cases 2 cents.

In the past rounding off sales after commision they would err on the side of the contributor and give the 1 cent to them. Now it looks like they are keeping the rounding off and I see on their forum some people are not getting the full 50% as contracted.

This company just slipped from being the most trust worthy in my view to slightly less than trust worthy

PedroToledo · « **Reply #53 on:** February 27, 2019, 05:26 »

My first sale on Alamy was in 2016 $125 for my pocket, one of my last sales was $0,65. The problem is not only the cut 50% to 40%

Fairplay · « **Reply #54 on:** February 27, 2019, 05:36 »

Less sales, less royalties, one of the hardest uploading process, many refunds, less than 1% of my stock earnings!
I'm asking myself why I'm still uploading?
Maybe it's time to stop wasting my time!

Dumc · « **Reply #55 on:** February 27, 2019, 13:02 »

And they give students to keep 100% of the sale price. Someone here said that, I don't know if it's true. Instead of splitting 50/50 with students they prefer to take 20% from regular contributors. Really disgusting.

dpimborough · « **Reply #56 on:** February 27, 2019, 14:38 »

Quote from: Dumc on February 27, 2019, 13:02

And they give students to keep 100% of the sale price. Someone here said that, I don't know if it's true. Instead of splitting 50/50 with students they prefer to take 20% from regular contributors. Really disgusting.

Its quite correct students do get 100% royalties and Alamy also dump cash in to charities

Distributors get 40% Alamy take another 30% then the distributors never pay up and Alamy never pay up in that case

I'm rapidly getting pissed off with them.

ShadySue · « **Reply #57 on:** February 27, 2019, 15:11 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on February 27, 2019, 14:38

Quote from: Dumc on February 27, 2019, 13:02
And they give students to keep 100% of the sale price. Someone here said that, I don't know if it's true. Instead of splitting 50/50 with students they prefer to take 20% from regular contributors. Really disgusting.
Its quite correct students do get 100% royalties and Alamy also dump cash in to charities

I think it's more that Alamy was started in the main as a business enterpise to fund family charities.

One of which, an alleged 'educational charity', I can't even understand how it gets charity status as it's just some software to crunch relative exam attainment levels in schools, which to my mind is a commercial operation, and a dubious one at that (speaking as a former teacher).
To me, an 'educational charity' is e.g. an organisation which donates supplies to deprived school areas, or maybe sponsors important educational research, or funds teachers to teach in the developing world, or stuff like that.