MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Alamy.com => Topic started by: Goofy on August 07, 2014, 11:12
-
Okay, I've tried everything I can think of on how to get better results (sales) on Alamy but nothing seems to work for me. Any tips on how to keyword or if I should include more information on the other areas?
Thanks
8)
-
Forget it. I had about a dozen sales in 2012 and maybe 15 in 2013. So far this year, exactly 1 (one) sale.
It's over.
-
Forget it. I had about a dozen sales in 2012 and maybe 15 in 2013. So far this year, exactly 1 (one) sale.
It's over.
sad to hear the news...
-
Till July I sold more than in whole 2013. It'll be BYE :)
My tips:
- take a photo (what photo?*),
- prepare it (IPTC with perfect title, description and keywords when post processing),
- upload (about 10-100 in batch),
- repeat all above and don't look back over.
For me it works quite well ;)
To be serious. It's not a magic trick. I wrote about it before - I had better sales after delete some images from micros. I take care what is zoomed (your account in Alamy). Micro pricing is against my business in that case.
* Various photos! One of last sales was image of garbage in water, river after flood with plastic bottles, cans etc. (for $125) Few days later some tulip flowers growing, herb plant as well, food isolated and not isolated, ... RF and RM, doesn't matter.
May I see what kind of images you have? How many files in portfolio? PM me?
-
Alamy is not micro. Think differently, use images that are edgier than micro. Their core is news, books and editorial not commercial advertising. People doing things, illustrate an event, show something happening.
They do sell but think 5 sales per month instead of per hour like SS. Still they are my #2 agency. I have all micro images in a separate pseudo and a different pseudo for all RM images. Both sell.
Be careful with keywords, use only what really fits.
-
Okay, I've tried everything I can think of on how to get better results (sales) on Alamy but nothing seems to work for me. Any tips on how to keyword or if I should include more information on the other areas?
Thanks
8)
We're selling more images than ever before in our 15 year history so there is plenty of opportunity for revenue with us.
We are very different to microstock so a different strategy is needed. We sell licences from $10 up to $10,000+ but the average price per sale is around $100. You can expect to make fewer sales than you do on MS but for higher value.
You don't mention how many images you have or the type of work you have in your portfolio so it's impossible for us to give you any specific advice but if you want to post a link to your collection here we'd be happy to give you some pointers.
The photographers who do best with us submit well edited work regularly and keyword (relevantly) and thoroughly...
Cheers
Alamy
-
For those unfamiliar with Alamy, be aware that is $100 gross, of which we get $50 or $40. That is still a lot higher than my average - because I'm still in the UK newspaper scheme, which nets less than iS (exc).
In 2013, my sales at Alamy increased nicely; in 2014 they have shot down steeply, despite my CTR recently being around 4x Alamy's overall.
I only sell RM there and it may be that RF sells better. The people I read of who have good sales generally have upwards of 10,000 files.
-
for instance, the BBC website is using Alamy photos amost every day.
most of them are about travel locations and "people doing things".
i'm selling exactly that on alamy, no idea how other niches will perform, but the 100$ gross average is a bit on the high end in my experience.
-
Okay, I've tried everything I can think of on how to get better results (sales) on Alamy but nothing seems to work for me. Any tips on how to keyword or if I should include more information on the other areas?
Thanks
8)
We're selling more images than ever before in our 15 year history so there is plenty of opportunity for revenue with us.
We are very different to microstock so a different strategy is needed. We sell licences from $10 up to $10,000+ but the average price per sale is around $100. You can expect to make fewer sales than you do on MS but for higher value.
You don't mention how many images you have or the type of work you have in your portfolio so it's impossible for us to give you any specific advice but if you want to post a link to your collection here we'd be happy to give you some pointers.
The photographers who do best with us submit well edited work regularly and keyword (relevantly) and thoroughly...
Cheers
Alamy
The bolded text I highlighted above says it all and Alamy doesn't fully fill in the blanks. Alamy, how many images do YOU have and how many are being added per week? If you are adding, say, 200,000 per week (probably more), and you are adding, oh, I dunno, 100 new contributors per week, and Goofy, being one contributor, is adding 5 per week, the math and common sense should be the first explanation as to why sales are dropping (or non existent) for him and all contributors is pretty straight forward. You can use the logic fairly, I suppose, that you are a very different market, but the root cause of declining or non existent sales is the amassing of a ginormous collection on a magnitude that is killing stock for photographers yet pumping up revenue for Alamy. It's simply spreading growing revenue over an even faster growing contributor base, that is the real reason, not so much a 'different market'. I've been with you guys for around 8 years or thereabouts and I used to make A LOT more each month with my style of shooting, which hasn't changed much. Today, I am lucky to make 1/4 of what I used to make. And I know that it is due to incredible image & contributor growth as a weighted priority over a 'different market'. I am not saying your market isn't different, just that this explanation is far lower on a weighted scale than collection growth as it relates to declining/non-existing sales.
-
Okay, I've tried everything I can think of on how to get better results (sales) on Alamy but nothing seems to work for me. Any tips on how to keyword or if I should include more information on the other areas?
Thanks
8)
We're selling more images than ever before in our 15 year history so there is plenty of opportunity for revenue with us.
We are very different to microstock so a different strategy is needed. We sell licences from $10 up to $10,000+ but the average price per sale is around $100. You can expect to make fewer sales than you do on MS but for higher value.
You don't mention how many images you have or the type of work you have in your portfolio so it's impossible for us to give you any specific advice but if you want to post a link to your collection here we'd be happy to give you some pointers.
The photographers who do best with us submit well edited work regularly and keyword (relevantly) and thoroughly...
Cheers
Alamy
The bolded text I highlighted above says it all and Alamy doesn't fully fill in the blanks. Alamy, how many images do YOU have and how many are being added per week? If you are adding, say, 200,000 per week (probably more), and you are adding, oh, I dunno, 100 new contributors per week, and Goofy, being one contributor, is adding 5 per week, the math and common sense should be the first explanation as to why sales are dropping (or non existent) for him and all contributors is pretty straight forward. You can use the logic fairly, I suppose, that you are a very different market, but the root cause of declining or non existent sales is the amassing of a ginormous collection on a magnitude that is killing stock for photographers yet pumping up revenue for Alamy. It's simply spreading growing revenue over an even faster growing contributor base, that is the real reason, not so much a 'different market'. I've been with you guys for around 8 years or thereabouts and I used to make A LOT more each month with my style of shooting, which hasn't changed much. Today, I am lucky to make 1/4 of what I used to make. And I know that it is due to incredible image & contributor growth as a weighted priority over a 'different market'. I am not saying your market isn't different, just that this explanation is far lower on a weighted scale than collection growth as it relates to declining/non-existing sales.
If you're making less revenue than what you used to make in the past that could be down to a whole number of factors including:
- Increased competition across the whole market, not just on Alamy, are there better pictures available now of the subjects you shoot / shot?
- Not changing your content to suit the market (this is an example, without your name we don't know who you are or what your collection looks like). You do say though that your "style of shooting hasn't changed much". Buying habits and trends certainly have changed a lot in 8 years though.
- Not refreshing content to keep up with trends - eg if you shoot lifestyle, are your subjects now outdated etc?
The point is, we can't give any specifics to Goofy without knowing what his/her collection looks like and whatever way you look at it, the number of images he/she has submitted is important along with what we followed that statement with (but you didn't highlight) - the type of work they are producing. By type we're not only referring to the style/subject but also the quality and suitability for the market.
We've got contributors who make very good returns from only 1500 or so images and others who make very good returns from 50,000+ images - so number of images is important to an extent but not the be all and end all.
Sorry you feel that our collection is "killing stock for photographers yet pumping up revenue" for us. We remain one of the best places to sell your images if you're a stock shooter. We're non-exclusive and we offer 50% commission on all sales made.
We sell all kinds of imagery to all kinds of clients, but if you're submitting exactly the same work on Alamy that you have on the micros, it's feasible that a client will be aware of this and buy your work there. That's not to say you won't also sell this work with us, you will, but you have to be realistic with your expectations if you are submitting the same work elsewhere that is available much cheaper.
To get back on topic for the OP - if you're not comfortable sharing your details here please feel free to send us a PM and we'll be happy to look through your collection and give you some pointers as to where you can improve.
Cheers
Alamy
-
i joined Alamy from day 1 when they announced their maiden voyage here on MSG. i uploaded regularly, and my approval was 100%. granted, that the curator looked at one image and approves the rest, given that you know how to curate your own work.
the support was exemplary too, helping me consistently when i need to learn how to set the menu for editorials,etc. my portfolio was regularly growing, but after awhile of no sales, no zooms,etc..
i noticed that my portfolio was not even listed in their list of photographers.
so i asked how am i to be visible if clients do not know i exist in their list of photographers.
i got a sort of gibberish response, and i deleted my account.
it was a shame, because i liked the culture of Alamy ie. what they represented at the initial
. but as for this day, you see why i am not so gullible anymore when someone
announces they are the new flavour of the month, decade, whatever.
i see only vapor ;)
-
Okay, I've tried everything I can think of on how to get better results (sales) on Alamy but nothing seems to work for me. Any tips on how to keyword or if I should include more information on the other areas?
Thanks
8)
We're selling more images than ever before in our 15 year history so there is plenty of opportunity for revenue with us.
We are very different to microstock so a different strategy is needed. We sell licences from $10 up to $10,000+ but the average price per sale is around $100. You can expect to make fewer sales than you do on MS but for higher value.
You don't mention how many images you have or the type of work you have in your portfolio so it's impossible for us to give you any specific advice but if you want to post a link to your collection here we'd be happy to give you some pointers.
The photographers who do best with us submit well edited work regularly and keyword (relevantly) and thoroughly...
Cheers
Alamy
The bolded text I highlighted above says it all and Alamy doesn't fully fill in the blanks. Alamy, how many images do YOU have and how many are being added per week? If you are adding, say, 200,000 per week (probably more), and you are adding, oh, I dunno, 100 new contributors per week, and Goofy, being one contributor, is adding 5 per week, the math and common sense should be the first explanation as to why sales are dropping (or non existent) for him and all contributors is pretty straight forward. You can use the logic fairly, I suppose, that you are a very different market, but the root cause of declining or non existent sales is the amassing of a ginormous collection on a magnitude that is killing stock for photographers yet pumping up revenue for Alamy. It's simply spreading growing revenue over an even faster growing contributor base, that is the real reason, not so much a 'different market'. I've been with you guys for around 8 years or thereabouts and I used to make A LOT more each month with my style of shooting, which hasn't changed much. Today, I am lucky to make 1/4 of what I used to make. And I know that it is due to incredible image & contributor growth as a weighted priority over a 'different market'. I am not saying your market isn't different, just that this explanation is far lower on a weighted scale than collection growth as it relates to declining/non-existing sales.
If you're making less revenue than what you used to make in the past that could be down to a whole number of factors including:
- Increased competition across the whole market, not just on Alamy, are there better pictures available now of the subjects you shoot / shot?
- Not changing your content to suit the market (this is an example, without your name we don't know who you are or what your collection looks like). You do say though that your "style of shooting hasn't changed much". Buying habits and trends certainly have changed a lot in 8 years though.
- Not refreshing content to keep up with trends - eg if you shoot lifestyle, are your subjects now outdated etc?
The point is, we can't give any specifics to Goofy without knowing what his/her collection looks like and whatever way you look at it, the number of images he/she has submitted is important along with what we followed that statement with (but you didn't highlight) - the type of work they are producing. By type we're not only referring to the style/subject but also the quality and suitability for the market.
We've got contributors who make very good returns from only 1500 or so images and others who make very good returns from 50,000+ images - so number of images is important to an extent but not the be all and end all.
Sorry you feel that our collection is "killing stock for photographers yet pumping up revenue" for us. We remain one of the best places to sell your images if you're a stock shooter. We're non-exclusive and we offer 50% commission on all sales made.
We sell all kinds of imagery to all kinds of clients, but if you're submitting exactly the same work on Alamy that you have on the micros, it's feasible that a client will be aware of this and buy your work there. That's not to say you won't also sell this work with us, you will, but you have to be realistic with your expectations if you are submitting the same work elsewhere that is available much cheaper.
To get back on topic for the OP - if you're not comfortable sharing your details here please feel free to send us a PM and we'll be happy to look through your collection and give you some pointers as to where you can improve.
Cheers
Alamy
I don't disagree with your overall assessment made above but I was referring to your statement that you're selling more images than ever before. If that's true then my statement is also true, regardless of the competitive landscape. The number of image sales is going up yet contributor sales are going down at alamy. That means two simple things. You are forced to lower pricing to compete with microstock even though you target a very different market, and you are spreading these increased, or growing, image sales across way more contributors. As far as my images, I have a very broad collection and continue to look for new ideas and shoot to those. I also have a niche collection. When I say that my style hasn't changed much, I meant that I use the same lighting techniques, studio set ups etc, but my breadth of subject matter is getting broader as I add content. Not that in my previous comment I didn't dismiss your claims, just that my opinion, I believe, has more weight.
-
i joined Alamy from day 1 when they announced their maiden voyage here on MSG. i uploaded regularly, and my approval was 100%. granted, that the curator looked at one image and approves the rest, given that you know how to curate your own work.
the support was exemplary too, helping me consistently when i need to learn how to set the menu for editorials,etc. my portfolio was regularly growing, but after awhile of no sales, no zooms,etc..
i noticed that my portfolio was not even listed in their list of photographers.
so i asked how am i to be visible if clients do not know i exist in their list of photographers.
i got a sort of gibberish response, and i deleted my account.
it was a shame, because i liked the culture of Alamy ie. what they represented at the initial
. but as for this day, you see why i am not so gullible anymore when someone
announces they are the new flavour of the month, decade, whatever.
i see only vapor ;)
Really sorry to read this! Just for the record, it wasn't us who -1'd your post :)
The list of photographers we had was a trial brand page that contained links to most of the agencies who sell through us and around 100 of the more well known 'brand' photographers.
Considering we have 37,000+ photographers with images online with us, you can see that the vast majority of contributors were not on the list!
Aside from all that, the page got very little traffic and it no longer exists. Customers find work on Alamy via keyword search, not via any list of photographers.
Cheers
Alamy
-
I'm not sure what all the doom and gloom is about.
As I've said before, I started contributing in 2006, then I left in 2008, then I returned in 2011. The reason I left stock altogether is because I had to sell my equipment to help a relative. I pulled my images because I shut the company down altogether (I treat stock like a business, not a hobby).
With relation to revenue, my revenue has increased over the past 3 years
(http://i60.tinypic.com/o8bc07.jpg)
With relation to sales...they decreased last year, and have increased slightly this year and are on target to exceed all previous years...
(http://i60.tinypic.com/352hsew.jpg)
The tips.....
diversify your portfolio
diversify your keywording
get out and shoot
have patience
Keep in mind you are shooting for a different market. Your images are less likely to be used by bloggers, the local mechanic, or smaller companies. Your images are more likely to be used by larger advertising agencies, textbook buyers, news companies (except CNN who loves Shutterstock), etc.
My revenue isn't as high as some folks on Shutterstock but it's on par with various other agencies. You also have to keep in mind when comparing to other agencies that this is an unedited collection so people are going to have a lower "per image" return but they are also going to have less time spent editing per image in order to make the image "micro acceptable" (removing logos, replacing the sky to make sure it is blue, etc.).
-
i joined Alamy from day 1 when they announced their maiden voyage here on MSG...
Really sorry to read this! Just for the record, it wasn't us who -1'd your post :)
The list of photographers we had was a trial brand page that contained links to most of the agencies who sell through us and around 100 of the more well known 'brand' photographers.
Considering we have 37,000+ photographers with images online with us, you can see that the vast majority of contributors were not on the list!
Aside from all that, the page got very little traffic and it no longer exists. Customers find work on Alamy via keyword search, not via any list of photographers.
CheersAlamy
so you negated the -1 ;)
it is exactly responses like this that makes me reconsider where i should upload my new works when i am having my break during the coming months as winter arrives, and local businesses go into hibernation .
cheers for the prompt reply. gesture goodwill much appreciated
-
(http://i61.tinypic.com/so9tw8.jpg)
I guess it's just me, then.
-
([url]http://i61.tinypic.com/so9tw8.jpg[/url])
I guess it's just me, then.
No, it's not.....I am in a very similar boat as you.
-
I've never started on Alamy (well, I tried it out at one point), because most of what I read in the forums is people finding their work in European publications, realizing they never got paid for it, and the trouble they seem to have getting the fee. And the discounts, which seem to result in a few dollars for extensive RM rights. I don't have the time to deal with that kind of thing.
-
([url]http://i61.tinypic.com/so9tw8.jpg[/url])
I guess it's just me, then.
No, it's not.....I am in a very similar boat as you.
Me 3.
-
I've never started on Alamy (well, I tried it out at one point), because most of what I read in the forums is people finding their work in European publications, realizing they never got paid for it, and the trouble they seem to have getting the fee. And the discounts, which seem to result in a few dollars for extensive RM rights. I don't have the time to deal with that kind of thing.
True, but the RF model makes it almost impossible to know if a use was paid for or not.
RM sbould be easier to track, but Alamy doesn't care to pursue.
-
I think it's the same everywhere - the collections are now so big that, while the agency is selling more than ever, it's no longer worthwhile for a small contributor, unless they happen to own a very specific niche.
-
Yeah, walk around with your camera and point it at stuff and keep clicking, upload 10s of thousands of whatever comes out and some of it will probably find buyers.
-
Yeah, walk around with your camera and point it at stuff and keep clicking, upload 10s of thousands of whatever comes out and some of it will probably find buyers.
Actually it's called Street Photography and there's still demand for it.
-
I think Alamy is definitely worth the effort. It creates an outlet for images that I can't or don't place anywhere else. I also upload RF there that is not exclusive, but those shots don't sell as well on Alamy.
The only frustrating part for me is the review process and what people on their forum call the 'sin bin.' If one image in a batch of any size is rejected, that entire batch sits for 30 days with a status of 'Awaiting QC.' You can't look at it or determine which image was rejected or why. And a batch is every image uploaded since the last review, even if different batches. I try to scrutinize every image in my Alamy folder before uploading, but obviously miss something occasionally. To circumvent that, I will sometimes just upload 'safe' studio shots, but those don't sell as well there. Makes me nervous about uploading large batches.
Early on I questioned this and was told that the assumption is that if one image has a problem, then it is likely the other images shot at the same time will have the same problem. But, as with my micro agencies, I upload a wide variety of shots from different sessions and times.
But it's their playground and we have to play by their rules.
The good news is that batches that pass usually do so in less than 24 hours. Any batch I upload will pass the next business day.
-
I've been with these for a long time. Not specialist stuff - just regular hard work over a long time - in fact my port is less than 5k. Slow, gradual growth, culminating in getting an email off them a few months ago for breaking into the top 500 contributors earning wise.
No magic tip from me - but reward for hard work will do...
-
Congrats on the threshold, OldHand.
-
Thanks! - I never knew there was one till I apparently crossed it!
-
Yeah, walk around with your camera and point it at stuff and keep clicking, upload 10s of thousands of whatever comes out and some of it will probably find buyers.
Actually it's called Street Photography and there's still demand for it.
I think there's a difference between interesting documentary "street photography", and "here's the fence down the road from me, and this is the building next to it, and here's another, and here's the sign on the building" that some Alamy contributors do.
-
Started with Alamy in January 2014. Submitted hundreds of my best sellers, images that sell daily elsewhere. 0 sales. Stopped submitting because of their lazy review process where they check one image in a batch and refuse of deny the whole lot. So someone uploads 100 borderline garbage images, one barely passes, they all pass, search results get watered down. Another batch of 100 high quality, sale-able images, curator finds minor issue with one example, rejects them all and penalizes the contributor by delaying further reviews, and then they can't be bothered with specifying which image and why. Not a very well thought out system.
Then there's the lack of an upload option for video, and that new uploads seem to debut at the absolute bottom of search results without consideration of their quality or relevance, or a realistic chance of being seen let alone sold. Anyone with any success there had to be in years ago it seems. I definitely missed that boat. But since they offer a fair split and the faint hope of a healthy priced sale, I'll leave my content there. Not worth the time to continue uploading though, IMO.
-
I think there's a difference between interesting documentary "street photography", and "here's the fence down the road from me, and this is the building next to it, and here's another, and here's the sign on the building" that some Alamy contributors do.
not directed at Alamy, but all ms sites
... and we must not forget all those nice little flowers by the roadside, artistically-placed garbage bins, insects, birds, laundry of many colours, etc. these r inspirational as the toilet-seats, meat-coat, bars on the wall,etc we have in our national art musuems...
lest we forget, the ultimate street photographer ... papparazzi masterpieces of actresses bum-cracks, nipslips, hairpies coming out of cars,etc.. (but that's for another thread, of course).
-
I think there's a difference between interesting documentary "street photography", and "here's the fence down the road from me, and this is the building next to it, and here's another, and here's the sign on the building" that some Alamy contributors do.
not directed at Alamy, but all ms sites
... and we must not forget all those " nice little flowers by the roadside, artistically-placed garbage bins, insects, birds, laundry of many colours, etc. these r inspirational as the toilet-seats, meat-coat, bars on the wall,etc we have in our national art musuems" ;D
Yes, this is the difference between microstock and traditional stock.....those images of insects and birds and nice little flowers are getting licensed by natural history textbook producers, and as in the case of an image licensed at AGE about a year ago, that "laundry of many colours" image licensed for about 5 figures (in this case, it was stacked bath towels of many colours).
-
Stopped submitting because of their lazy review process where they check one image in a batch and refuse or deny the whole lot.
I actually like their review process, it treats photographers as professionals not children. Upload good work and you will not have any issues. I have not had a single image rejected in over a year. Try that on SS, DT or any other micro worth being on. (Probably just jinxed myself :) )
Anyone with any success there had to be in years ago it seems. I definitely missed that boat.
Disagree with that, I started in 2012 and Alamy is my #2 earner.
What is important to remember is that Alamy is NOT microstock. It takes a different mind set to be successful there. Normal everyday MS images do sell occasionally but their core is textbook, reportage, newspapers and so on. No one is going to buy an isolated tomato on Alamy when they can get it on MS for nothing.
And their reviewers look at things much differently than most MS sites. One tiny dust spot and you are rejected on Alamy, probably never be noticed on an MS site. But they will not reject you for borderline poor lighting, poor composition, or LCV. They are looking for technically correct photographs, and relying on you, the photographer, to decide if the content is worth uploading.
They are not for everyone, I find I have to put my "Alamy hat" on when shooting for them as it is things I would not think of sending to MS. I do send them as RF the best of my MS collection as well but use a different pseudo to keep that separate from my RM collection.
-
"Upload good work and you will not have any issues. I have not had a single image rejected in over a year."
Not by any means claiming my images are perfect, but they were certainly "good" enough to be accepted and make sales in multiple other places. While I do understand that they have a different kind of standard, and I admit I'm not quite clear on what that is exactly, I can't for the life of me figure out which image they deemed unworthy from a given group, or why. "Throwing out the baby with the bath water", as they say. Definitely doesn't make figuring out what they want any clearer either.
It can't be good for the collection as a whole and the search results to have a system that might allow what could be hundreds of poor quality images to "sneak" through in a batch because the reviewer just looked at one and found it "good enough". Quality control isn't just for children.
-
"Upload good work and you will not have any issues. I have not had a single image rejected in over a year."
Not by any means claiming my images are perfect, but they were certainly "good" enough to be accepted and makes sales in multiple other places. While I do understand that they have a different kind of standard, and I admit I'm not quite clear on what that is exactly, I can't for the life of me figure out which image they deemed unworthy from a given group, or why. "Throwing out the baby with the bath water", as they say.
It can't be good for the collection as a whole and the search results to have a system that might allow what could be hundreds of poor quality images to "sneak" through in a batch because the reviewer just looked at one and found it "good enough". Quality control isn't just for children.
Just click on the "failed batch" in red on the track submissions page and the rejection reason and rejected image is clearly marked. And I certainly did not mean to imply your images were not good, only that what Alamy thinks is 'good' is NOT the same as what MS sites think is 'good'. And they are not throwing anything away, you are free to resubmit all of the images in that batch except the rejected one without penalty or notice. Unlike most MS sites.
You might have a point about the collection as a whole, but I think most people with poor quality images get weeded out or just frustrated and leave. And those images quickly go to the bottom of the search and get lost anyway.
As I said it is not for everyone, no matter how good their work is, because it takes a different mind set and standards. It is hard to be good at both Alamy and MS because of that. My MS collection is there but most sales come from the RM stuff that is not on MS. You really do have to learn what they want, how it needs to be titled and keyworded and what quality standards they care about. That is a lot of work and might not be worth the effort if you are used to shooting MS style stuff.
Different styles, different sites. For example I have applied to Stocksy twice and been rejected twice. Not because my work does not sell elsewhere but because my style is not what they want. (Apparently, anyway or maybe I'm just not good enough:) )
-
"Just click on the "failed batch" in red on the track submissions page and the rejection reason and rejected image is clearly marked."
Clicked it, however all images in said batch just say "Failed QC" and the rejection reasons are all blank. Overall though, your points make perfect sense, thanks for the insight. Different strokes for different folks.
-
-1) What is important to remember is that Alamy is NOT microstock. It takes a different mind set to be successful there. Normal everyday MS images do sell occasionally but their core is textbook, reportage, newspapers and so on. No one is going to buy an isolated tomato on Alamy when they can get it on MS for nothing.
-2) Different styles, different sites. For example I have applied to Stocksy twice and been rejected twice.
so, is the money u make at Alamy good? or as good as u hoped to get from Stocksy?
do u consider Alamy in the same category as Stocksy?
-
"Just click on the "failed batch" in red on the track submissions page and the rejection reason and rejected image is clearly marked."
Clicked it, however all images in said batch just say "Failed QC" and the rejection reasons are all blank. Overall though, your points make perfect sense, thanks for the insight. Different strokes for different folks.
Did you have more than one batch open at that time? If so the failed image might be in another batch as all open batches get failed. Other than that I've no idea, I have always gotten a reason even if I did not agree with it.
-
-1) What is important to remember is that Alamy is NOT microstock. It takes a different mind set to be successful there. Normal everyday MS images do sell occasionally but their core is textbook, reportage, newspapers and so on. No one is going to buy an isolated tomato on Alamy when they can get it on MS for nothing.
-2) Different styles, different sites. For example I have applied to Stocksy twice and been rejected twice.
so, is the money u make at Alamy good? or as good as u hoped to get from Stocksy?
do u consider Alamy in the same category as Stocksy?
Alamy is my #2 earner behind SS. But it is more erratic, some months very good money, some months nothing at all. SS gives me a paycheck every month Alamy does not, but at the end of the year I feel I made money there. it is really no bother to upload the RF stuff to Alamy, all the keywording and so on has already been done and since I only upload material that has been accepted widely elsewhere I do not worry about QC much. The RM stuff is harder and I spend more time on it, but it is also fun to shoot things and not worry about how to frame every shot so there are no logos or people in them.
I think it is very hard to compare Alamy and Stocksy. I really like the artists cooperative idea behind Stocksy and really wanted to belong. I have a background in member owned cooperative management and thought it would be a good fit. I had no expectations of what I would make.
Alamy is very old school and many contributors there started with film and slides so the attitude is different. I like the agency, I think they try to treat contributors fairly and are very responsive to questions and issues. The upload / keyword system is dated, even archaic but likely too hard to change now. There is a plugin for Lightroom that makes things a lot easier though. Sales are erratic and if you are used to logging in to SS several times a day to see your sales you will be sorely disappointed.
Stocksy, is (to me) mostly a concept or idea. Since I was not accepted I have no idea how they operate or if I would like being there. I like the idea, I think it would be great to belong and help but as an outsider I cannot really give you any opinion on how they compare to Alamy.
-
Alamy is my #2 earner behind SS. But it is more erratic, some months very good money, some months nothing at all. SS gives me a paycheck every month Alamy does not, but at the end of the year I feel I made money there. it is really no bother to upload the RF stuff to Alamy, all the keywording and so on has already been done and since I only upload material that has been accepted widely elsewhere I do not worry about QC much. The RM stuff is harder and I spend more time on it, but it is also fun to shoot things and not worry about how to frame every shot so there are no logos or people in them.
I think it is very hard to compare Alamy and Stocksy. I really like the artists cooperative idea behind Stocksy and really wanted to belong. I have a background in member owned cooperative management and thought it would be a good fit. I had no expectations of what I would make.
Alamy is very old school and many contributors there started with film and slides so the attitude is different. I like the agency, I think they try to treat contributors fairly and are very responsive to questions and issues. The upload / keyword system is dated, even archaic but likely too hard to change now. There is a plugin for Lightroom that makes things a lot easier though. Sales are erratic and if you are used to logging in to SS several times a day to see your sales you will be sorely disappointed.
Stocksy, is (to me) mostly a concept or idea. Since I was not accepted I have no idea how they operate or if I would like being there. I like the idea, I think it would be great to belong and help but as an outsider I cannot really give you any opinion on how they compare to Alamy.
much appreciated u took the trouble 2 respond so promptly. cheers
-
Just to say: You have a private message from me a couple of days ago and I hope will get response from Alamy:)
Thanks!
Deyan
-
My Alamy earnings would probably be better if I didn't have some of the same RF photos on Alamy and the micros - nearly every time I have an image that's on both zoomed on Alamy, it sells on one of the micros, so I mostly stick with keeping the two portfolios separate these days.
I shoot a lot of travel, nature and editorial, so Alamy is a good outlet for my work and I've seen an uptick this year after a couple of years of dwindling sales. Since I'm licensing more images on my own these days, in order to protect the work I submit to publishers on my own, I've been uploading more as either RM or as RF without adding the same work to the micros.
My best sales on Alamy were $250+ and a few years back most were $100+, but this year my average sale there has been $48 (with $24 to me), which means I still get those $100+ sales but also some really small ones (ike Shady Sue, I'm in the newspaper scheme, meaning $3-16 sales). Sales are picking up and I expect 2014 to be much better than 2013.
Alamy was my best site last month, but that is still the exception rather than the rule. They've lowered their payout threshold from $250 to $75 and the minimum size photo from 48MB to 24MB since I started in 2008, so in that sense they are responding to the realities of the stock photo market (they also decreased royalties from 60% to 50%, still way above average). And recently they licensed a couple of my old 6MP images that I upsized to 48MB back in 2008, so old photos are selling there. Most of my travel and editorial stuff is illustrative editorial so I think they'll have a good shelf-life on Alamy. I'm averaging less than 2 but more than 1 sale per month with 600+ images.
Honestly, a lot of my travel stuff would sell equally well on both Alamy and micro (and many more times on micro) so I often have a hard time deciding where to place my work which makes it tough for me to give you advice. The best thing I can say is that the more work you have up there the better you'll probably do, and to point out the benefits of RM with this example: I have one photo that was purchased twice this month by a book publisher - since it was RM, they had to license it twice to use it twice in the same book. I have another that is RF and a magazine publisher with 20+ magazines licensed it once and can use it in all of their publications worldwide as many times as they want. The RM sales were both for more $ than the RF sale.
I also licensed that RM photo to a calendar company last year. Those 3 sales have netted me almost half as much as my best-seller ($-wise) on SS which has been licensed 261 times, including 10 ELs. Both images are comparable in many ways, of popular travel locations in New England, so I think the comparison is illustrative. Hard to say if I'd have earned twice as much on SS if I'd uploaded that same image there as RF instead, but it would require hundreds of sales, not just 3.
-
My Alamy earnings would probably be better if I didn't have some of the same RF photos on Alamy and the micros -
- I've been uploading more as either RM or as RF without adding the same work to the micros.
- payout threshold from $250 to $75
- minimum size photo from 48MB to 24MB
- Most of my travel and editorial stuff is illustrative editorial so I think they'll have a good shelf-life on Alamy. I'm averaging less than 2 but more than 1 sale per month with 600+ images.
Honestly, a lot of my travel stuff would sell equally well on both Alamy and The RM sales were both for more $ than the RF sale.
I also licensed that RM photo to a calendar company last year. Those 3 sales have netted me almost half as much as my best-seller ($-wise) on SS which has been licensed 261 times, including 10 ELs. Both images are comparable in many ways, of popular travel locations in New England, so I think the comparison is illustrative. Hard to say if I'd have earned twice as much on SS if I'd uploaded that same image there as RF instead, but it would require hundreds of sales, not just 3.
many changes happened since i was last there, for sure.
highlit edited your points taken to heart.
i too was with Alamy from their maiden voyage, but have long neglected it for micro
but these days micro has over-saturated itself , and i consider going back to RM ,
and ur port is pretty much in line with my new project of non-micro collections (travels, calendar ,
editorials).
it's good too the reduction to 24MB as min req. but i still think there can be a need
for the old 48MB. maybe Alamy might give an option to the higher-paying RM
to have this available upon request . i m sure the clients would prefer a 48mb
than 24mb as they will give better hard copy, cleaner, etc
for my own gallery quality hard copies i still prefer as high original px as they do print cleaner
posters,etc
maybe, as here mentioned, i should be looking to Alamy once again.
the RM editorials are what originally attracted me to Alamy.
thx
-
We are very different to microstock so a different strategy is needed.
It would be very interesting if you would spell out exactly how you feel you are different - given that so many of my images sell for less from Alamy than (other) images I have on iS sell for (totally different images and RM vs RF), and what our 'different strategy' should be.
One of the most frustrating things about Alamy IMO is that no matter how rare the subject matter of a file is, it can still be sold for peanuts because of a client's negotiated discount. I'm intrigued about what strategy I can adopt to prevent that.
-
Despite my best year at Alamy being 2013, my average sale gross was $42.63.
This year, not only have sales slumped, but my average in 2014 has been $36.24 gross.
Would also therefore be interested to know what kinds of images sell for the $100 gross you quoted - presumably high production value studio shots with models - except that is bread and butter for micro, and you're different.
Does RF sell better/for more than RM on Alamy?
-
Just to say: You have a private message from me a couple of days ago and I hope will get response from Alamy:)
Thanks!
Deyan
It will - but we're very busy at the moment so it might not be for a couple more days.
Despite my best year at Alamy being 2013, my average sale gross was $42.63.
This year, not only have sales slumped, but my average in 2014 has been $36.24 gross.
Would also therefore be interested to know what kinds of images sell for the $100 gross you quoted - presumably high production value studio shots with models - except that is bread and butter for micro, and you're different.
Does RF sell better/for more than RM on Alamy?
We're not ignoring this, just have a lot on at present and will respond shortly.
-
Despite my best year at Alamy being 2013, my average sale gross was $42.63.
This year, not only have sales slumped, but my average in 2014 has been $36.24 gross.
Would also therefore be interested to know what kinds of images sell for the $100 gross you quoted - presumably high production value studio shots with models - except that is bread and butter for micro, and you're different.
Does RF sell better/for more than RM on Alamy?
Sue, I have many shots of models. I have licensed exactly two images of the models I've shot in my portfolio at Alamy.
I uploaded a few more model shots from a recent session and they were zoomed immediately so I am hoping that this is changing.
As far as images $100 gross or more this year - they do exist. My average is 84.49 (gross) and I am also in the newspaper scheme. I won't show the images (I don't need everyone and their brother copying my images even if the majority are non-repeatable newsworthy images) but here is what I have seen personally reported to me as being licensed in 2014 that were $100 gross or over.
Country: Spain
Usage: Advertising/Promotion
Media: Point of purchase display
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing
Print run: up to 25
Image Size: up to 1/2 area
Start: 03 December 2013
End: 03 June 2014
$ 333.03
Country: World English Language
Usage: Editorial
Media: Textbook - print and e-book
Print run: up to 3 million
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1 page
Start: 21 April 2014
End: 21 April 2024
All terms and rights granted as per the Preferred Vendor Agreement dated 1st June 2010 prevail. World English Language rights plus two additional languages, flat rate per image, rights granted for the life of the edition.
$ 150.00
Country: World English Language
Usage: Editorial
Media: Textbook - print and e-book
Print run: up to 5,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1/4 page
Start: 23 April 2014
End: 23 April 2019
$ 115.00
Country: World English Language
Usage: Editorial
Media: Textbook - print and e-book
Print run: up to 25,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1 page
Start: 06 January 2015
End: 06 January 2020
Print run: 20,000 Duration :7 Years
$ 100.00
Note that three of the four $100 gross or above are editorial licenses. If you place editorial images on the micros, they may get licensed once or twice or 10 times for less than $1 each time....this is why I always say the micros are not the place for editorial images. Red Carpet and celebrities may be different, but not everyday editorial and newsworthy images.
-
Interesting.
Here are my non-'UK newspaper scheme sales' for this year (note how few, I'm running under 50% of last year's sales, and c30% of last year's $$) - sales figures below are gross, mostly 50% to me; a few distributor, 40% to me:
Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Textbook - print and e-book
Print run: Unlimited
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1 page
Start: 01 January 2014
End: 01 January 2024
$113.14
Country: Worldwide
Usage: iQ sale: Magazine, editorial print and digital use, up to DPS, cover and/or inside, repeat use for a single title
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing
Start: 04 February 2014
End: 04 February 2016
$75
Country: United States
Usage: iQ sale: Magazine, Any editorial digital use. cover or inside.One time use only.
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing
Start: 19 February 2014
End: 19 February 2016
$45
Country: Italy
Usage: Editorial
Media: Magazine - Print only
Print run: up to 50,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1/8 page
Start: 26 February 2014
End: 26 March 2014
$32.92
Country: United Kingdom
Usage: Editorial
Media: Magazine - Print only
Print run: up to 150,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: Spot size
Start: 22 March 2014
End: 22 June 2014
‘In-Context’ online usage included. Print run: 120,000. UK - Includes up to 5% overseas distribution
$40.85
Country: World English Language
Usage: Editorial
Media: Textbook - print and e-book
Print run: up to 50,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1 page
Start: 11 April 2014
End: 11 April 2024
$73.22
Country: Russian Federation
Usage: Editorial
Media: Magazine - Print only
Print run: up to 10,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1/2 page
Start: 01 April 2014
End: 01 May 2014
$44.79
Country: Worldwide
Usage: iQ sale: Magazine, editorial print and digital use, inside, repeat use within a single issue
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing
Start: 03 June 2014
End: 03 June 2016
$57.33
Country: Worldwide
Usage: iQ sale: Retail book. Editorial print + digital use. Up to DPS.inside.One time use only
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing
Start: 10 June 2014
End: 10 June 2039
$65.52
Country: Australia, New Zealand and Oceania
Usage: iQ sale: Magazine, editorial print and digital use, cover and/or inside, one time use only
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing
Start: 10 June 2014
End: 10 June 2016
$69.81
Country: Germany
Usage: Editorial
Media: Retail book - print only
Print run: up to 5,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1/8 page
Start: 01 May 2014
End: 01 May 2015
$46.74
Country: Germany
Usage: Editorial
Media: Retail book - print only
Print run: up to 5,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1/8 page
Start: 01 May 2014
End: 01 May 2015
$34.23
Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Editorial website
Placement: Single Placement
Image Size: up to full area
Start: 01 July 2014
End: 01 July 2017
Editorial web use, multiple placement; rights granted in line with customer agreement which may vary from invoice details above
$10.00
So you can see, only one sale over $100 gross, and my UK newspaper scheme sales take the average way down from the above.
AIUI, and Alamy can correct me if I'm wrong, the amount paid for a photo is dependent only on the discount the buyer has negotiated, and nothing to do with the quality or rarity of the image itself.
Also, Alamy have said that buyers in the UK newspaper scheme don't see images which aren't opted into the scheme (though presumably they could choose to look through the rest of the collection if the image was rare enough and they were willing to pay full a higher price), and you can't, AFAIK, opt rare images 'out'.
Note also the bizarre, internally contradictory terms bolded in the last sale noted.
It was noted above that the BBC website uses Alamy pics. I see them very seldom, and suspect they're a source of last resort. What I see mostly there is Getty for celebs and Thinkstock for ordinary stock photos. I had a sole Alamy photo of a certain UK location, and incredibly a 'national newsworthy' incident took place there a couple of months after I took it. I had exactly the spot where the incident happened - and the Beeb chose to use a 'near enough' fuzzy/distorted pic cropped from Google Earth.
As far as micros go, up until whatever disaster iStock visited on themselves in late Sept 2012, my editorial sales there were almost on a par with Alamy, and obviously for a lot more than $1 (and more than Alamy's UK Newspaper Scheme). Now my iS editorial and 'creative' sales are equally down the swannee. I was never on the others, but can't imagine making the effort for 25c at some other places.
-
I think one's average gross depends on a combination of image quality & scarcity, price negotiation, and luck. For any one sale, one of those factors can strongly determine price, but over time all factors matter.
I checked out my sales for past year, and average gross is within a few dollars of Ed's, so close to A's $100 gross average comment. I don't have any images on micros. Licenses were almost all editorial, and involved varied city sights, politicians, cars, animals, public celebrations and civic engagement...
- Ann
-
my overall gross is $53.4 per sale. for 2014 it is 69.3 (but a lot less sales so far compared to 2012) - 50% of 2013 with a bit past 50% of the year.
They were my #2 agency 2012 and 2013. Sales seem pretty random there though. I didn't have much there until they lowered the size requirement.
-
Well, whoopee, another dropped in from yesterday:
Country: Worldwide
Usage: iQ sale: Magazine, editorial print and digital use, repeat use within a single issue. Discounted re-use.
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing
Start: 12 August 2014
End: 12 August 2019
$10.75 (gross)
I would also, as well as the questions I asked above, like Alamy to confirm whether there's anything we can do (in terms of the photos we submit) to get larger value sales (the kind which make the 'average' $100 gross, as this one has just pulled my average even further down), or is it just buyer discount. That's a lot of usages for the price.
-
The key thing to remember is that its always the usage that is priced, not the image.
An image taken of the floor in front of you can fetch $10,000+ if that's what the client needs for an exclusive worldwide ad campaign.
We're not influential enough to determine industry prices. We have to respond to pricing trends in stock imagery that are dictated by the likes of Getty and Shutterstock.
All types of imagery sell for all ranges of prices with us but again it depends on the usage, not the image. There are no fixed trends. Our average price takes into account all sales and comes out at around $100.
It's impossible to comment further for your collection specifically Shady Sue as we don't know who you are. If you PM us your name we will be able to take a look at your collection and perhaps offer some advice if you would like us to.
-
The key thing to remember is that its always the usage that is priced, not the image.
An image taken of the floor in front of you can fetch $10,000+ if that's what the client needs for an exclusive worldwide ad campaign.
We're not influential enough to determine industry prices. We have to respond to pricing trends in stock imagery that are dictated by the likes of Getty and Shutterstock.
All types of imagery sell for all ranges of prices with us but again it depends on the usage, not the image. There are no fixed trends. Our average price takes into account all sales and comes out at around $100.
It's impossible to comment further for your collection specifically Shady Sue as we don't know who you are. If you PM us your name we will be able to take a look at your collection and perhaps offer some advice if you would like us to.
I have been saying for a few years in this forum that Alamy is becoming microstock because of pricing pressures from ms companies. And you just validated my many comments at msg that this is true. So unless microstock turns a corner to drive pricing upwards, and we know that's not going to happen, we can expect a continued downward trend at Alamy as microstock spirals into the abyss with the likes of FOTOLIA AND DPC and Deposit Photos to name a couple. So while some contributors put in unique images that are not microstock images, their commissions are effected by your overall pricing pressures. So that and the crowd sourcing of images and contributors we can very reasonably expect Alamy revenues to follow revenue trending of microstock in general.
Don't get me wrong, I still like Alamy. I am just trying to put some reasonable perspectives on what to expect as an Alamy contributor.
-
I have been saying for a few years in this forum that Alamy is becoming microstock because of pricing pressures from ms companies. And you just validated my many comments at msg that this is true.
We're not becoming microstock though.
There's a difference between us responding to certain price pressures (created by microstock and other leading "traditional agencies") and us becoming a microstock agency. That's certainly not on our road map and our average price points continue to reflect that.
Many of the deals we make to compete effectively with microstock are often for very specific usages in very specific markets/customers who primarily use microstock for sourcing stock imagery.
-
I have been saying for a few years in this forum that Alamy is becoming microstock because of pricing pressures from ms companies. And you just validated my many comments at msg that this is true.
We're not becoming microstock though.
There's a difference between us responding to certain price pressures (created by microstock and other leading "traditional agencies") and us becoming a microstock agency. That's certainly not on our road map and our average price points continue to reflect that.
Many of the deals we make to compete effectively with microstock are often for very specific usages in very specific markets/customers who primarily use microstock for sourcing stock imagery.
That good to hear. But the fact remains that, at least from the people commenting in the msg forums, our aggregate revenues are falling YOY. That leads me to conclude that a larger aggregate of your sales are competing with microstock and that the lions share of your contributors with decent, sellable content are also contributing to microstock. That means there is not much of a differentiation, if any, from the Alamy collection and, say, Shutterstocks collection, other than offset. The only differentiation might be in licensing terms, which are few and far between when a unique license is needed that would demand higher pricing.
-
I just made an online magazine sale with a RM image on Alamy. Once I take Alamy's share and the Distributor's share from the fee I receive $1.52.
I'm afraid I don't want any tips on how to make these kinds of sales, thanks.
In the whole of 2014 I have made one sale that earned more that $100 Gross. I make my entire living from stock. If I relied on Alamy, I'd be out of business tomorrow.
-
So unless microstock turns a corner to drive pricing upwards, and we know that's not going to happen, we can expect a continued downward trend at Alamy as microstock spirals into the abyss with the likes of FOTOLIA AND DPC and Deposit Photos to name a couple.
...it's not just microstock - it's ALL the players. You don't read about it in this forum, but AP is undercutting just as much as Getty (traditional Getty - not iStock) is undercutting. I have heard from Corbis editors that it's the reality of our industry these days.
I am hoping that the industry begins to mature (again) after the birth of digital distribution and prices increase.....I mean seriously, the industry needs to understand that if image pricing is based on distribution, then the price of a "web use" image should be HIGHER than that of an image used in a text book with 25,000 copies produced. Instead, it's backward because of pricing inherited from the days of analog.
-
So unless microstock turns a corner to drive pricing upwards, and we know that's not going to happen, we can expect a continued downward trend at Alamy as microstock spirals into the abyss with the likes of FOTOLIA AND DPC and Deposit Photos to name a couple.
...it's not just microstock - it's ALL the players. You don't read about it in this forum, but AP is undercutting just as much as Getty (traditional Getty - not iStock) is undercutting. I have heard from Corbis editors that it's the reality of our industry these days.
I am hoping that the industry begins to mature (again) after the birth of digital distribution and prices increase.....I mean seriously, the industry needs to understand that if image pricing is based on distribution, then the price of a "web use" image should be HIGHER than that of an image used in a text book with 25,000 copies produced. Instead, it's backward because of pricing inherited from the days of analog.
Good points, Ed. Thanks for adding another perspective.
-
So unless microstock turns a corner to drive pricing upwards, and we know that's not going to happen, we can expect a continued downward trend at Alamy as microstock spirals into the abyss with the likes of FOTOLIA AND DPC and Deposit Photos to name a couple.
...it's not just microstock - it's ALL the players. You don't read about it in this forum, but AP is undercutting just as much as Getty (traditional Getty - not iStock) is undercutting. I have heard from Corbis editors that it's the reality of our industry these days.
I am hoping that the industry begins to mature (again) after the birth of digital distribution and prices increase.....I mean seriously, the industry needs to understand that if image pricing is based on distribution, then the price of a "web use" image should be HIGHER than that of an image used in a text book with 25,000 copies produced. Instead, it's backward because of pricing inherited from the days of analog.
This discussion dovetails well with others going on now. The major problem as I see it is not that 'the industry' or companies are bad or need to change, that won't happen on its own. It's up to contributors to force change. What makes people think that buyers will continue to pay higher prices for the same work? If I was licensing an image I'd get it from the cheapest site, over time that is what is going to happen and what has been happening.
-
Two for me so far this month. Both at 50%.
Country: North America
Usage: Consumer goods
Media: Calendar
Print run: up to 20,000
Placement: Inside
Start: 01 January 2016
End: 01 January 2017
North America (with 3% abroad); Print Run: 25,000; Full page
$150 Gross
^ particularly pleased that someone chose this one - i really like it but honestly never expected it to sell. It's one of those images which I will look back at and remember the day I took it.
Country: Worldwide
Usage: iQ sale: Educational book, editorial digital use, inside, one time use only
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing
Start: 11 August 2014
End: 11 August 2039
$44.33 Gross
-
I've found Alamy sales slow, but nice :) better earners when they do turn up ;)
-
Hello i'm contributor in Alamy since firsts days of june, and i sell 1 photo, my income was 14.50 dollars (and i'm very happy about this).
Now the question... i always put RF when submit, i was wrong? it's better to use RM?
this point is not very clear for me cause i'm very new to the stocks.
Anyone can explain me clearly what mean and what is better to do?
:o :o :) :-[
-
Hello i'm contributor in Alamy since firsts days of june, and i sell 1 photo, my income was 14.50 dollars (and i'm very happy about this).
Now the question... i always put RF when submit, i was wrong? it's better to use RM?
this point is not very clear for me cause i'm very new to the stocks.
Anyone can explain me clearly what mean and what is better to do?
:o :o :) :-[
There is a difference, obviously, and which you prefer is your call, but:
1. If you have an image as RF somewhere else, it must be RF on Alamy.
2. If you have an image with property or people without releases, it must be RM on Alamy, so if you offer it as RF-editorial elsewhere, it can't be on Alamy.
-
Hello i'm contributor in Alamy since firsts days of june, and i sell 1 photo, my income was 14.50 dollars (and i'm very happy about this).
Now the question... i always put RF when submit, i was wrong? it's better to use RM?
this point is not very clear for me cause i'm very new to the stocks.
Anyone can explain me clearly what mean and what is better to do?
:o :o :) :-[
There is a difference, obviously, and which you prefer is your call, but:
1. If you have an image as RF somewhere else, it must be RF on Alamy.
2. If you have an image with property or people without releases, it must be RM on Alamy, so if you offer it as RF-editorial elsewhere, it can't be on Alamy.
Ok so i was right since now, RM i need to apply only with people or property without release and no upload on other sites like editorial, right?
I can continue upload as RF photos with no subject need release?
-
Hello i'm contributor in Alamy since firsts days of june, and i sell 1 photo, my income was 14.50 dollars (and i'm very happy about this).
Now the question... i always put RF when submit, i was wrong? it's better to use RM?
this point is not very clear for me cause i'm very new to the stocks.
Anyone can explain me clearly what mean and what is better to do?
:o :o :) :-[
There is a difference, obviously, and which you prefer is your call, but:
1. If you have an image as RF somewhere else, it must be RF on Alamy.
2. If you have an image with property or people without releases, it must be RM on Alamy, so if you offer it as RF-editorial elsewhere, it can't be on Alamy.
Ok so i was right since now, RM i need to apply only with people or property without release and no upload on other sites like editorial, right?
I can continue upload as RF photos with no subject need release?
Yes, and
Yes, if you wish.
-
Ok so i was right since now, RM i need to apply only with people or property without release and no upload on other sites like editorial, right?
I can continue upload as RF photos with no subject need release?
shadysue has already answered ur question. iow, two different questions two answers.
1) what u give to anyone as RF ... must be RF on Alamy and RF everywhere else.
2) editorials requiring no MR, if u put them in Alamy, there is no RF for editorials there...
only RM.
sooooooo, once those images are in RM, it cannot be submitted to any other agencies as RF.
u can submit them to other agencies if they too have RM.
what is RF in one must be RF everywhere else.
what is RM in one must be RM everywhere else.
-
thank you both ;)
-
“If you PM us your name we will be able to take a look at your collection and perhaps offer some advice if you would like us to.”
I have my portfolio in Alamy a few years and I really would like to know some advices from my agent,not jus Alamy other too. Comentaris,tips,corrections,something more “expressive” over the classic “artifacts” prayer.
There are a useful way to ask for that?
-
“If you PM us your name we will be able to take a look at your collection and perhaps offer some advice if you would like us to.”
I have my portfolio in Alamy a few years and I really would like to know some advices from my agent,not jus Alamy other too. Comentaris,tips,corrections,something more “expressive” over the classic “artifacts” prayer.
There are a useful way to ask for that?
my name is my nick in the forum, stefano carocci ;D ;)
-
I'm an Alamy contributor. I receive few dollars/year from them. The market is completely changed. Just 12 years ago, with same kind of job I was under assignment once a month, I have bought a big house, I had a wonderful studio and a darkroom, spending most part of the year travelling where the history borned. Today I have a lot of economic problem, the assignment are few and too short and I have to shot for microstock too. I spent seven years as professor of reportage at the Rome state University, and I would like to explain in few words what are the differences between Alamy and microstock imagery. It's very easy: it's a matter of language. While customers of microstocker needs easy concepts (an apple, a kiss, a writer, a dog), customers of the photographic agencies needs complex phrases (an apple certified as biological in India, a kiss among two neurotics in Dallas, Tom Clancy and not just a writer, the dog of the Queen of Portugal or soldier branding a specific weapons while fight against a tank). The introduction of microstock in the market has simplified the communication language of many media too, introducing the concept of fiction in the journalism, and using Istock images of a generic apple in article that talk about "poisoned cultivation of fruits in Marocco". The existance of Alamy is important for a political and social point of view, but we cannot expect to see good revenue if we use the same language to shot photographs for microstock and for Alamy
www.franzgustincich.it (http://www.franzgustincich.it)
-
Well said, Red On. Completely different point of view than what we usually read here. We are so obsessed with microstock race (shoot, upload, earn) that we forget about other values of photography.
But, there is only one thing I don't agree with you. Alamy is not the one. You overestimated it's importance. Maybe some other agency.
-
RedOn, you can send your quirky pictures to Alamy, but there's no way you can stop them selling for micro prices (at least, non-sub micro prices), as it's all down to what deal the buyer has with Alamy.
-
^ What constitutes micro prices today?
For example, my 4 most recent sales have been $45, $180, $150 and $44 - of which I get 50%. My lowest ever sale was $8 - but that was for 1 week news item (granted that includes archival - but after a week most articles are effectively dead).
^ I suppose those are micro prices compared with the 90s. But I think it would be unrealistic to expect much more given the democratisation of the whole process of submitting stock in general. And given the on going march of free social media content.
I have a lot of time for Alamy and their steady approach to things. But what are micro prices today ?
-
For example, my 4 most recent sales have been $45, $180, $150 and $44 - of which I get 50%.
My last: $125, $29, $40... Yes, poor, but I can't compare it with micros at all, far away...
What is my trick? Said so many times before: (1) quality, (2) keywords, (3) description, (4) variety, and somewhere at the end (5) quantity.
-
For example, my 4 most recent sales have been $45, $180, $150 and $44 - of which I get 50%.
My last: $125, $29, $40...
My last: $17.50, $3.95, $9.19 net.
-
ShadySue, your numbers are still much better than I was getting in micros... ;) Like 0.216 with 123RF, 0.30 with DP, 0.10 iS (hardcore), etc... ;)
-
ShadySue, your numbers are still much better than I was getting in micros... ;) Like 0.216 with 123RF, 0.30 with DP, 0.10 iS (hardcore), etc... ;)
I said non-sub micro prices. I chose not to be in these micros (is it possible for indies to get 10c on iS nowadays? [probably]).
I did, however, once get an insulting 40c from Getty. and of course that Getty Connect thing can net you 1c, but I don't pretend to understand that despite kind attempts to enlighten me.
And of course, now all iStock contributers have been forced into subs there. :(
-
What is my trick? Said so many times before: (1) quality, (2) keywords, (3) description, (4) variety, and somewhere at the end (5) quantity.
Note what Alamy said, "The key thing to remember is that its always the usage that is priced, not the image."
So as I said, it doesn't matter how wonderful or unique your image is, you could still get low prices and you can't shield any images, other than by opting out of the UK Newspaper scheme.
-
^ What constitutes micro prices today?
For example, my 4 most recent sales have been $45, $180, $150 and $44 - of which I get 50%. My lowest ever sale was $8 - but that was for 1 week news item (granted that includes archival - but after a week most articles are effectively dead).
^ I suppose those are micro prices compared with the 90s. But I think it would be unrealistic to expect much more given the democratisation of the whole process of submitting stock in general. And given the on going march of free social media content.
I have a lot of time for Alamy and their steady approach to things. But what are micro prices today ?
^ Why would someone vote down this straight question ? That's weird.
-
^ Why would someone vote down this straight question ? That's weird.
Maybe they don't like the cut of your jib? ;)
-
Note what Alamy said, "The key thing to remember is that its always the usage that is priced, not the image."
So as I said, it doesn't matter how wonderful or unique your image is, you could still get low prices and you can't shield any images, other than by opting out of the UK Newspaper scheme.
Yes, of course we sell licence not image. It's obvious, it's shorthand. The points I posted may help client decide if he'll choose your image or someone's else if he has option to choose :) (he mostly has). That's the trick to sell more than others... One of the tricks at least ;)
-
Well said, Red On. Completely different point of view than what we usually read here. We are so obsessed with microstock race (shoot, upload, earn) that we forget about other values of photography.
But, there is only one thing I don't agree with you. Alamy is not the one. You overestimated it's importance. Maybe some other agency.
Yes, of course, but are the minority of the market. That's the point. I would like to have more competition in quality of the information than in price.
-
RedOn, you can send your quirky pictures to Alamy, but there's no way you can stop them selling for micro prices (at least, non-sub micro prices), as it's all down to what deal the buyer has with Alamy.
Well, I don't think to produce quirky images (in microstock I sell mostly sterotypes), but my best images will not licensed for few money. It's very easy to delete a account. This summer I was called by the picture editor of a mass-circulation newspaper asking my pictures on Yazidis in Iraq. They propose to pay 15 Euro gross bill. I simply refused to publish for thise ridicoulos price. Then I was called by the director of a small monthly magazine (2,500 copies printed), and I sold three pictures for the same price: 15 Euro. It is no matter of microprices, but micro diffusion of the media and adequate price compared to it.
-
My numbers: $0, $0 and $0.
Portfolio consists of 200 top sellers (elsewhere) to test the waters, model shots, objects, locations, lots of variety. Been contributing since January 2014. Not a single sale. Only 4 "zooms".
Files get buried in the search results from their flawed system of accepting an entire batch after checking only one image. So if someone submits 100 nearly duplicate shots, 99 could be garbage, but if the one they look at passes, they all do.
Would really appreciate any actual "Tips on getting sales".
-
That's also true. There are some photographers that submit daily - also throughout Alamy Live News - real garbage. I don't like to indicate someone specific, but, effectively, I would like to know how many pictures is selling the photographer that once a week submit dozen of pictures shot from the terrace of his home under the description "today weather in Rome".
Alamy: please be more selective!
-
My numbers: $0, $0 and $0.
Portfolio consists of 200 top sellers (elsewhere) to test the waters, model shots, objects, locations, lots of variety. Been contributing since January 2014. Not a single sale. Only 4 "zooms".
Alamy has said more than once that typical micro shots tend not to sell well on Alamy, as buyers know they can get a huge choice of that sort of image on the micros.
OTOH, if your top sellers are selling well elsewhere on Macro sites, why not just stick with these, as you have found your market?
-
I've seen that written over and over again. "typical micro shots tend not to sell well on Alamy".
What I have not seen is anyone offering a single example of a what a typical "microstock" shot is compared to "what sells" on Alamy or other macros for that matter. Not asking for someone to give away their personal trade secrets, but any sort of comparison or example would be incredibly helpful. Been selling stock for five years and this has never been clear to me. Honestly just sounds like a nicer way to say, "Your shots must suck.". That's just not really a "tip on getting sales".
I don't sell on any macro sites yet, Alamy was my experiment in that world. And so far it's failing. And even if I was already selling elsewhere in macro, like most savvy contributors would probably agree, it's never smart to hold all your eggs in a single basket.
I like the idea of upping the game and selling where they treat us right, but zero is zero.
-
I've seen that written over and over again. "typical micro shots tend not to sell well on Alamy".
What I have not seen is anyone offering a single example of a what a typical "microstock" shot is compared to "what sells" on Alamy or other macros for that matter. Not asking for someone to give away their personal trade secrets, but any sort of comparison or example would be incredibly helpful. Been selling stock for five years and this has never been clear to me. Honestly just sounds like a nicer way to say, "Your shots must suck.". That's just not really a "tip on getting sales".
I don't sell on any macro sites yet, Alamy was my experiment in that world. And so far it's failing. And even if I was already selling elsewhere in macro, like most savvy contributors would probably agree, it's never smart to hold all your eggs in a single basket.
I like the idea of upping the game and selling where they treat us right, but zero is zero.
My sales used to be about $800 a month gross, say, three years ago. Almost overnight, they went to $600, then $500 then $400 now I am lucky to gross $100-150 a month. This month I am at $73. Pathetic. So for Alamy to say typical micro images don't do well on Alamy is (or used to be) misleading. But to your point about what constitutes micro, that is hard to define today versus when micro started. Stocksy is probably your best source of what "isn't really considered micro". But you can find a lot of that same look on micro, which makes defining "typical" near impossible. Now, if you want to use the simplest of definitions, isolated tomatoes on white are classic micro. There's probably a bazillion of those on Alamy and my guess is that they don't do so well.
-
What I have not seen is anyone offering a single example of a what a typical "microstock" shot is compared to "what sells" on Alamy or other macros for that matter.
I think that Alamy can be a good outlet for editorial specifics connected with current themes. Where as RF micro/stock tends to be more about generic themes. Clearly there is going to be lots of cross-over.
eg - a picture which is specifically and authentically about recycling in some particular city in China - vs a picture which has a recycling theme in general.
If I had a set of pictures which were specifically about recycling in China (or anywhere else) then I would be more inclined to send them to Alamy as RM - rather than to RF.
Something I do if I think I have a set which should sell sooner or later - is see how much is already there which is specifically about the same theme.
(I am RF exclusive at iStock. Editorial (apart from product shots) is not a main thing for them from what I can tell. And the prices they pay are quite low. So that is another factor. Also - the controlled vocabulary does not always lend itself to editorial specifics.)
ETA: but I am a very small fish - so what I say might not be the full story
-
Thanks a lot for those answers. Confirms to me that the content I have been submitting to them is certainly closer to what Alamy "could" want. But, that there really isn't a huge distinguishable difference between microstock and macro anyways, as opposed to the repeated claims that there is. Aside from the obvious isolated fruit shot and the like.
Also, Mantis confirms my theory that the "glory days" are long gone, that those still experiencing any success are probably with photos that have made the long journey to a favorable search result through the masses of passively approved content, over many years. Or current, editorial shots, which I keep seeing folks lament about the low pay for. I really don't shoot much "typical" content, but with the variety I have there, and if they had any life left, I would have made at least ONE sale in 9 months. I'll check back in, in a year or two.
If Stocksy is the defining style for macro, then the 98% of us who don't shoot in that incredibly narrow-focused style, aka "hipster-chic", are kinda screwed.
Tips on getting sales? Sell elsewhere. That's my answer!
-
Thanks a lot for those answers. Confirms to me that the content I have been submitting to them is certainly closer to what Alamy "could" want. But, that there really isn't a huge distinguishable difference between microstock and macro anyways, as opposed to the repeated claims that there is. Aside from the obvious isolated fruit shot and the like.
Also, Mantis confirms my theory that the "glory days" are long gone, that those still experiencing any success are probably with photos that have made the long journey to a favorable search result through the masses of passively approved content, over many years. Or current, editorial shots, which I keep seeing folks lament about the low pay for. I really don't shoot much "typical" content, but with the variety I have there, and if they had any life left, I would have made at least ONE sale in 9 months. I'll check back in, in a year or two.
If Stocksy is the defining style for macro, then the 98% of us who don't shoot in that incredibly narrow-focused style, aka "hipster-chic", are kinda screwed.
Tips on getting sales? Sell elsewhere. That's my answer!
Daryl,
Believe me when I say that my frustration has evolved to near anger over the continued decline in revenue, not just on Alamy but on the micros as well. I have shifted my strategy to produce video as well as stills. But with video, you can fall into the same trap as with photos....shoot what everyone else shooting video shoots.......beaches, nature, etc. I have uploaded my share of those, too. But in my humble. non-expert opinion to transition into video requires more than a camera to be successful. I have invested around $4k in lighting, software. I've also taken some training in animation, but man that stuff is tricky to do it right....but I'm learning and continue to dabble. I will say that I uploaded my first video just under a year ago. What I lost through my separation with FOTOLIA I have easily made up in video, plus some. I am up to 200 vids now, but intend to increase that substantially in 2015, along with continuing to shoot stills. I do bitch a lot in here and I shouldn't be so pessimistic, but it is hard when agencies simply and intentionally rob contributors of their hard earned money.
-
my frustration has evolved to near anger over the continued decline in revenue, not just on Alamy but on the micros as well.
The market has declined whilst the number of contributors and the availability of content (often free) has increased. Greater availability = fewer sales and lower prices, inevitably.
The same will happen with video. Also - I keep hearing anecdotally that the market for video is being hit by a bandwidth costs.
-
my frustration has evolved to near anger over the continued decline in revenue, not just on Alamy but on the micros as well.
The market has declined whilst the number of contributors and the availability of content (often free) has increased. Greater availability = fewer sales and lower prices, inevitably.
The same will happen with video. Also - I keep hearing anecdotally that the market for video is being hit by a bandwidth costs.
I agree with you on this, Bunhill. Video, too, will eventually erode. It's already eroded on sites like Istock, DT, FT, etc. When the video market moves more wholly into 4k, I anticipate bandwidth might impact costs far greater than today's storage capabilities for 1080P. Time will tell. I think, however, that video brings in more revenue "per video" than with images so I think that, if anything, we might be looking at lower commission rates if costs to manage video do indeed hit the P&L negatively. I say this as the alternative to killing video altogether. Or it could just be an excuse to claw more commissions, too.
-
.
-
My numbers: $0, $0 and $0.
Portfolio consists of 200 top sellers (elsewhere) to test the waters, model shots, objects, locations, lots of variety. Been contributing since January 2014. Not a single sale. Only 4 "zooms".
Alamy has said more than once that typical micro shots tend not to sell well on Alamy, as buyers know they can get a huge choice of that sort of image on the micros.
OTOH, if your top sellers are selling well elsewhere on Macro sites, why not just stick with these, as you have found your market?
Plus 200 pictures is not enough no matter how good. On Alamy it is a tiny drop in a large sea.
-
What I find interesting is that there are a few folks that place the same images on Alamy as they do on Microstock. There are two contributors that I've found in the past couple of weeks.
Contributor 1 has about 40,000 images on both Alamy and Shutterstock. On Alamy, those images are listed as RM, on Shutterstock, they are RF images (which is a blatant disregard of Alamy's terms of Service).
Contributor 2 has about 40,000 images on both Alamy and Shutterstock - images on both locations are listed as RF.
The common denominator of both contributors is they have multiple similar images (Alamy says no more of 5 similars). Contributor #1 is HUGE on similars and I'm surprised the other micros that she contributes to also allows this. I mean seriously, 30+ images of different angles of notebooks is out of hand. Contributor #2 has multiple food images - sometimes 15 or so images of different angles of the same shoot.
Those images aren't going to sell well on Alamy. That many similars are going to get buried at Alamy based on their search algorithm.
What do they need? Look through the zoom list at Alamy at what buyers aren't finding. A few weeks ago it was an image of a mop and bucket. Seriously.
Don't over think it - everyday life, people doing everyday things, people living their lives in different places. Those are the images that get licensed. Those are the types of images that I've licensed at Alamy.
I have only licensed two images of models at Alamy. Stay away from the easy subjects (kiwi's and strawberry's on a cutting board, a squirrel in your backyard, etc., etc.) Go out and shoot folks going about their everyday business. Those are the images that get licensed.
-
My numbers: $0, $0 and $0.
Portfolio consists of 200 top sellers (elsewhere) to test the waters, model shots, objects, locations, lots of variety. Been contributing since January 2014. Not a single sale. Only 4 "zooms".
Alamy has said more than once that typical micro shots tend not to sell well on Alamy, as buyers know they can get a huge choice of that sort of image on the micros.
OTOH, if your top sellers are selling well elsewhere on Macro sites, why not just stick with these, as you have found your market?
Plus 200 pictures is not enough no matter how good. On Alamy it is a tiny drop in a large sea.
Not that I was expecting earth shattering numbers of sales, but with 200 solid shots in a variety of concepts, ONE sale over 9 months isn't a lot to ask. How many images should be uploaded and for how long should they sit there, just to GAUGE a site's worthiness of ones time?
With a little over twice that amount I easily average a dozen or more sales a DAY in microstock. On Alamy, zero sales in 300 days.
Mop and bucket eh? So that's an example of the "not typical micro" selling macro shot on Alamy? Again, that just further confirms that there really is no difference in a micro and a macro shot, just how a contributor chooses to classify it. I don't have a personal issue with Alamy, as a matter of fact if they showed an inkling of promise I'd drop most micro sites in a heartbeat and sing their praises happily. 50% is as good as we can hope for. But there's nothing there anymore. No sales, and a terribly lazy review system that is causing a bloated search to drown anything new in that "sea".
I'm not over thinking it, but when there's a lot of vague misinformation going around and repeated non-specific claims that get shown to be BS with a minimal amount of scrutiny, I get it, it's not for me, probably not for most people getting into this now or in the recent past. Maybe 5-10 years ago, but it's just not worth the time in 2014.
About the video being more profitable, I totally agree, I'm a video guy originally in stock and 80% of my income is video sales. Alamy reps have sent a few direct messages asking me to add my videos. And if they got out of the 1990's and accepted uploads via FTP, I'd give that a try too.
-
I had 2 sales with just over 40 images and decided to upload everything that meets the size restrictions so just over 100 now. I would never expect anything particularly regular but netting $85 for a single crap isolation every now and again is a nice bonus. I actually think the strange ranking system might suit a small diverse port where very few sales and "zooms" have a big effect.
-
When you submit as a new contributor you get an average CT ranking, when you hit the first CT reshuffle, your stats will start to come in effect and you will probably be hit hard and pushed back in the search. Happened to me, and I never recovered.
As for the Alamy size of their library, Shutterstock is as big, but my new files do get found there and get sales. And every now and then I still manage to produce a 'stayer'. Although I agree with the drop and the sea theory, it seems that Alamy has a completely different working search compared to Shutterstock.
-
Alamy, like FAA, ranks the artist.
I'm guessing that SS ranks each image.
-
When you submit as a new contributor you get an average CT ranking, when you hit the first CT reshuffle, your stats will start to come in effect and you will probably be hit hard and pushed back in the search. Happened to me, and I never recovered.
As for the Alamy size of their library, Shutterstock is as big, but my new files do get found there and get sales. And every now and then I still manage to produce a 'stayer'. Although I agree with the drop and the sea theory, it seems that Alamy has a completely different working search compared to Shutterstock.
SS is still mainly a subs site. Customers will download more than they need because it doesn't cost them extra. On Alamy, buyers buy only the images they need, so you don't get the volume. Without cheap volume sales, is unlikely a small port will sell. Not impossible, but not comparable to micro sales and subs.
-
That doesnt explain why I am able to produce stayers on Shutterstock, in a pool of images as big as Alamy's.
-
That doesnt explain why I am able to produce stayers on Shutterstock, in a pool of images as big as Alamy's.
It kinda does. SS have many times the sales of Alamy so your odds are a lot better of getting those sales. When you get sales on an image it moves up in rank, then has better chance to become a "stayer". If you rather believe it is magic over math, go ahead.
-
I get plenty of on-demand and single, non-sub downloads every month on SS. Excluding them from the equation still confirms Alamy just doesn't perform.
As far as a search ranking the contributor rather than each individual image, that's just another poorly thought out way of doing things that is clearly helping kill FAA (the general consensus of folks here seem to confirm that) and makes absolutely zero sense no matter how you slice it. Each image should carry it's own weight. If a contributor has one image that sells well, it shouldn't make the weak images in their portfolio rank higher than superior shots from others that obviously suffer from a poor search rank to begin with. To me, that's just another factor showing how Alamy makes poor choices, almost every step of the way.
-
That doesnt explain why I am able to produce stayers on Shutterstock, in a pool of images as big as Alamy's.
It kinda does. SS have many times the sales of Alamy so your odds are a lot better of getting those sales. When you get sales on an image it moves up in rank, then has better chance to become a "stayer". If you rather believe it is magic over math, go ahead.
I didn't mention anything about magic. No need to get upset when I don't agree. I am just speaking from my own experience and responding to the topic. That is all.
-
I agree every image should rise or fall on its own - one of the problems with many of the sites like IS, DT, etc. I think I was on Alamy over a year before I had my first sale (for something like $5 of which I got 2.70) then 6 months later I had another small sale. During this time they changed their minimum size and I made an effort to get stuff uploaded. a few months later I started getting regular sales (with around 700 images) and I think I have only had 2 months w/ 0 sales since then. They are often my number 2 site after SS but sales seem pretty random events. My last 3 sales were $225 $7 and $74 (that is what the buyer paid - I get 50%). My sales were better in 2012 and were down about 1/3 in 2013 and are lower again this year. Upload is a pain, but it is probably worth it - or at least it was in the past.
-
Upload is a pain
It isn't if you upload in sets. i.e. - all of the pictures which will have the same core keywords and captions. And you batch edit. Done like that it's one of the fastest to upload to. Then you can quickly go through them and tweak any which need / don't any specific keywords different from the set.
Alamy exceeds my expectations. I am a realist.
-
Very funny coincidence that you and Ron (see the quote) half agree? But are both wrong about the "first reshuffle of rank based on ctr".
You are also making an error, in assuming that A and SS have the same markets or clients. One is microstock and has subscriptions and easy web use, the other is more oriented towards publications, even if they have smaller sales.
Everyone with a new account starts with a medium rank, and after the first reshuffle of the rank based on CTR, your images are pushed back or forward. I was doing okish in my first year but apparently a rerank pushed me back killing my sales, and I could recover from that. My work is mostly creative and not in high numbers. Which is why people work with several pseudonyms. they move sellers over to another pseudonym so that they keep a good CTR. People who are best at playing that system and throw everything against the wall to see what sticks, come out best. If you want to see an overabundance of similar images, go to Alamy. I have seen the sales threads, they are full of people with a dozen of sales per month out of tens of thousands of images. Alamy only sells 0.87% of their database annually. Shutterstock sells 300% just to give you an idea. Alamy reduced their royalties to fund their NY office and promised to increase sales with targeting US audience, but all that happened was a decline in sales. So people lost earnings on both fronts. For me Alamy is an ostridge with its head in the sand.
SS is about 80% of Alamy. Not a big difference, but when you are comparing 42 million to 51 million, that's 11 million images. Somehow percentages don't show how big of a difference 11 million is? SS is not "As big"
When you submit as a new contributor you get an average CT ranking, when you hit the first CT reshuffle, your stats will start to come in effect and you will probably be hit hard and pushed back in the search. Happened to me, and I never recovered.
As for the Alamy size of their library, Shutterstock is as big, but my new files do get found there and get sales. And every now and then I still manage to produce a 'stayer'. Although I agree with the drop and the sea theory, it seems that Alamy has a completely different working search compared to Shutterstock.
Yes the searches do seem to be slightly different in how they weight popular, new or finding words in groups of words.
Odd how similar your two conclusions are, and I'll repeat, wrong. Are you related to Ron? ???
You don't get shuffled on the first re-rank. Maybe not even after years. Not a giant secret, but the facts don't agree with the myth.
-
Okay, I've tried everything I can think of on how to get better results (sales) on Alamy but nothing seems to work for me. Any tips on how to keyword or if I should include more information on the other areas?
Thanks
8)
We're selling more images than ever before in our 15 year history so there is plenty of opportunity for revenue with us.
We are very different to microstock so a different strategy is needed. We sell licences from $10 up to $10,000+ but the average price per sale is around $100. You can expect to make fewer sales than you do on MS but for higher value.
You don't mention how many images you have or the type of work you have in your portfolio so it's impossible for us to give you any specific advice but if you want to post a link to your collection here we'd be happy to give you some pointers.
The photographers who do best with us submit well edited work regularly and keyword (relevantly) and thoroughly...
Cheers
Alamy
i have the same problem, only 4 sales in 2014, nevertheless my images sells very well elsewhere. here is the link to my portfolio: http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/FF28B93F-E889-44A4-ABD5-C7FBDE2EC00A/1/Dario%20Lo%20Presti.html (http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/FF28B93F-E889-44A4-ABD5-C7FBDE2EC00A/1/Dario%20Lo%20Presti.html)
am I doing something wrong?
thanks in advance
-
i have the same problem, only 4 sales in 2014, nevertheless my images sells very well elsewhere. here is the link to my portfolio: [url]http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/FF28B93F-E889-44A4-ABD5-C7FBDE2EC00A/1/Dario%20Lo%20Presti.html[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/FF28B93F-E889-44A4-ABD5-C7FBDE2EC00A/1/Dario%20Lo%20Presti.html[/url])
am I doing something wrong?
Only one question from me - do you have the same images on micros?
If I were client, I would take a look if I can get it cheap. And the rule says - don't cut the branch you're sitting on...
-
My charts haven't improved any since last I posted.
3/4 of the way through the year, my sales are 50% of last year, and gross is 40% of last year.
(http://www.lizworld.com/Alamy2.jpg)
(Though to be fair, I've only added c8% to my port this year.)
-
My Alamy chart looks just like yours ShadySue.
I guess no one wants the facts and would rather read the erronious claims and factoids posted by anonymous people. No substantiation and no way to verfiy their claims.
OK here it is:
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-alamyrank.asp?login=1 (http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-alamyrank.asp?login=1)
Part that would be of interest to the OP
Contributors who over-keyword or incorrectly keyword their images will be penalised, whereas those who are more accurate will gain greater visibility.
The Diversity Algorithm works alongside AlamyRank to show images from a mixture of contributors of a similar rank. This stops the search results from becoming overly dominated by collections with the highest combined scores of AlamyRank and relevancy.
Notice it's Alamy Rank not CTR?
Also the claim that someone did well until they reached the first re-rank is total rubbish. No one is re-ranked based on how new they are or membership age, it's based on how many sales you have made.
Until you trigger the ranking, people are placed at the same point as where we started, in the middle. (as per Alamy, not my imagination)
I will quote a second version of the same information:
"All collections that have recorded a sufficient number of Views to be statistically significant have are given an AlamyRank. However, if a Collection has insufficient Views or Sales in a measurement period, a median AlamyRank is applied."
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/find-images.asp?login=1 (http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/find-images.asp?login=1)
-
Just noticed, my 2014 Getty $$ to the end of August are about half of my Alamy $$ until the end of September, despite some really insultingly-low (sub $1) Getty sales.
However, I have 2739 pics on Alamy, and get 50% / 40% of sales.
But only 144 pics on Getty and only 20% of sales.
Hmmmm.
-
I heve seen important exclusive photographs sold for few bucks by "big players". I have seen the fall of the general quality of the photographs in this industry (I'm not thinking of technical quality, but conceptual, artistic, creative, communicative and all the kind of quality that is not depending by the gears and hardware) because the market was opened to amateur that are happy to see 20$ at the end of the months, and the clients are happy to save money. Alamy is plenty of this pictures, but they don't sell for cents. That's enough. This is a political vision.
-
I guess no one wants the facts and would rather read the erronious claims and factoids posted by anonymous people. No substantiation and no way to verfiy their claims.
I am not anonymous....I'm not providing erroneous facts.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/1sjyqd.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/167k29k.jpg)
The month of September was a slow month for me...only one image license reported at $60. I have found 3 other images used though during the month and they should show up on my October sales report.
I am currently at 4,732 images - the majority can be classified as "editorial" in nature.
My CTR is low as compared to the rest of Alamy (I only have one psuedo)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/28m1tl1.jpg)
I have uploaded 1,100 images since January 1 and my goal is to round out the year with adding at least another 268 so I end up at 5,000. I did not upload any images in the months of February or March due to other commitments.
Realistically speaking, I don't expect another payout from Alamy until 2015. My balance in my account completely cleared this month (with the exception of this month's image that was licensed).
My goal for next year is to add another 2,500 images of diverse topics. This will include isolations, models shot in studio, newsworthy images, and images of regular people going about their ordinary lives.
-
I heve seen important exclusive photographs sold for few bucks by "big players". I have seen the fall of the general quality of the photographs in this industry (I'm not thinking of technical quality, but conceptual, artistic, creative, communicative and all the kind of quality that is not depending by the gears and hardware) because the market was opened to amateur that are happy to see 20$ at the end of the months, and the clients are happy to save money. Alamy is plenty of this pictures, but they don't sell for cents. That's enough. This is a political vision.
Red On, I agree with you with relation of concepts, artistic, and creative images. However, I believe this is the trend. With the dawn of the internet, people want facts, they don't want fantasy. Rather than watching feel good comedies on television like the show 'Friends' they would rather watch and see reality television shows like 'Survivor' or 'The Biggest Loser' or a talent competition of some sort. My opinion is that is where the market has gone and thats what the buyers want - real people going about their daily lives.
Images of that type are harder to find on the micros than they are to find at places like Alamy, Aurora, AGE, etc.
-
I'll keep this simple. I like Alamy. It has potential and it's NOT Microstock. People need to keep their Micro images on Micro. It's not the same market! Don't expect your isolated tomatoes or business handshakes to sell, and especially don't assume that buyers are stupid and don't know how to search and find the same images (if on both Alamy and Microstock) for much less.
Now my graph and you'll see why I wonder what happened. I have not removed images, so I can assume my content is stale. Good lesson and I'll take credit for not uploading new to Alamy.
No problem with their search. I think they fill a spot in the marketplace.
(http://s5.postimg.org/uxhdwgd47/alamy_income_graph.jpg)
But, my income has dropped, which is a statement of fact, not some opinion or blaming them.
-
If I was to keep my micro port off alamy I would lose around $150 - $200 a month of income. I don't have too much isolated tomatoes or business handshakes tho.
-
Maybe you should try it, seems that's the standard of the industry. Toss in a girl with a headset, someone sitting with a computer in their lap, looking pensive, lone tree on a hill, girl jumping on a beach or hill, with a long flowing scarf or streamer (or Photoshop one in), and child blowing bubbles or the seeds off a dandelion. ;) That would be a start into the tsunami of similar images.
Really, you must have some interesting shots if they make money on Alamy and Micro. In which case I'd argue that you should remove them all from Micro (which is the same as not on both) So you aren't competing on price, against yourself.
That's was the point. If a buyer can find something on Alamy and also finds the identical shot on Microstock. All things being equal except price... Which would you expect them to buy?
And also consider that you are possibly one of the exceptions? The biggest repeating complaint is, people find their best selling Microstock images, don't sell at all on Alamy. People say the same 2000 images that make money on Microstock, make nothing on Alamy. And that's the reason for my answer.
Different market, different demand and... blah, blah, blah if they can get it for less from Micro, they will.
If I was to keep my micro port off alamy I would lose around $150 - $200 a month of income. I don't have too much isolated tomatoes or business handshakes tho.
-
Really, you must have some interesting shots if they make money on Alamy and Micro. In which case I'd argue that you should remove them all from Micro (which is the same as not on both) So you aren't competing on price, against yourself.
Well, if I removed them from micro I would lose couple thousand $ a month.
I don't want to lose either the couple thousand from micro or the couple hundred from Alamy. Why cut off any source of income if you don't have to?
Most micro ports may not do well in Alamy. I speak for myself only. Mine does okay. Maybe it is because I do not have the cliches, as you say.
-
The photographers who do best with us submit well edited work regularly and keyword (relevantly) and thoroughly...
yes but their dirty little secret is most of their images are about the UK.
-
The slow,painful, laborious task of keywording every image to see absolutely no returns on your invested time is enough to ask what is the fuss all about with Alamy ? I have had just 3 sales in getting on for 3 years. These images sell well on IS/SS. Waste of time.
-
I have had just 3 sales in getting on for 3 years. These images sell well on IS/SS.
It's been repeatedly pointed out that the sort of content which sells well as microstock is often but not always best suited to Alamy. Alamy is clearly best at selling timely, pertinent, trending editorial - i.e. images with relevant themes. Google Images is a good resource for seeing what is selling at Alamy.
The slow,painful, laborious task of keywording every image ...
Why not keyword your images in batches - using the batch editor. So you do all of the pictures from a given shoot together, simultaneously, and once. Then quickly tweak them individually for specifics.
-
I think there's a difference between interesting documentary "street photography", and "here's the fence down the road from me, and this is the building next to it, and here's another, and here's the sign on the building" that some Alamy contributors do.
I dunno, Sean, it's all high art, you know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentysix_Gasoline_Stations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentysix_Gasoline_Stations)
-
They tell me to hang in there and upload more images to get the sales. I upload more images and yet I still have 1 sale for the whole of 2014. Dire to say the least !
-
They tell me to hang in there and upload more images to get the sales. I upload more images and yet I still have 1 sale for the whole of 2014. Dire to say the least !
Might be worth thinking about a few more images with some sort of potential economic or business angle. Things which might trend. You could wait for ever for random rural stuff and steps to be news.