Author Topic: Number of Alamy images online reduced? (Read 11718 times)

Oldhand · « **on:** July 31, 2009, 06:10 »

Hi there

Is it just me - yesterday Alamy has 17 million images online, today it's 16.63 million. Just wondered if anyone knew if there was a reason for this.

Had a look on Alamy forums quickly, and althoughI didn't get an answer, found this information about top contributors revenues.

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2009/02/03/3923.aspx

Apologies if this has been posted previously, I'm fairly new around here. Thought it made interesting reading.

Rgds

Oldhand

gostwyck · « **Reply #1 on:** July 31, 2009, 06:45 »

Thanks for that Oldhand __ very interesting stuff.

I presume the average RPI's being quoted are actually gross figures rather than net? Even if the figures are net I think they are surprisingly low, especially for the larger portfolios, in comparison to the Top 100 microstockers.

Oldhand · « **Reply #2 on:** July 31, 2009, 07:11 »

Hi Gostwyk

That's also my take on it - I am sure all the figures are gross. The relativley low RPI must be the result of a lot of their portfolio's not selling - obviously we have the differene between this model and a subscription one.

I re-keyworded half my portfolio on Alamy, which increased my Alamy rank substantially, so I am higher than the average. It's not led to any sales increase, and only a slight views one. For me they are an outlet on the slide.

More work required!

Oldhand

willie · « **Reply #3 on:** July 31, 2009, 07:18 »

Weeel, I was in there in the wee hours of the morning , tried their new editing program, and saw the DELETE button as I looked through my portfolio. I remember pressing DELETE to a large number of licensed images.
I don't remember how many images I deleted, but I don't think it was anything close to 0.37million

PixelBytes · « **Reply #4 on:** July 31, 2009, 09:41 »

Quote from: Oldhand on July 31, 2009, 07:11

I re-keyworded half my portfolio on Alamy, which increased my Alamy rank substantially, so I am higher than the average. It's not led to any sales increase, and only a slight views one. For me they are an outlet on the slide.

Sorry it didn't improve your sales, but this is good info. I didn't understand how the keywording affected your rank when I first uploaded to Alamy. I had thought of re-keywording more tightly, but it would be a huge PITA and not worth bothering if it doesn't substantially improve sales.

From the figures on that chart, it seems unlikely that many Alamy contributors could be making a living there alone. If the top 100 are averaging $50-60k then the average across all users must be quite low!

Out of curiosity, do you think this is because there are just so MANY contributors there and so many images?

To those of you who have long experience in stock, do you think the micros are headed the same way - high sales for the sites but low returns for individual contributors due to oversaturation?

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** July 31, 2009, 09:55 »

This month I have made more with alamy than most of the micro sites and I have less than 300 landscapes there. It looks like a good place to sell photos that are not that popular on the micros.

Adeptris · « **Reply #6 on:** July 31, 2009, 10:14 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 31, 2009, 09:41

<...
>...
From the figures on that chart, it seems unlikely that many Alamy contributors could be making a living there alone. If the top 100 are averaging $50-60k then the average across all users must be quite low!

Out of curiosity, do you think this is because there are just so MANY contributors there and so many images?

To those of you who have long experience in stock, do you think the micros are headed the same way - high sales for the sites but low returns for individual contributors due to oversaturation?

How many make a living from just one site or even many sites with microstock it is likely comparable, Alamy has a rare mix of photographers from new to old hands with many supplying other macro sites like getty, corbis or niche collections, some are providing other photography services either through a historical customer base or via thier own outlets, some are looking towards microstock to add to thier income.

Just like the microsites there are also many part time photographers that have other jobs as well, there are to many contributors in all areas of the industry as entry level kits becomes more affordable this will still grow, a lot of the success of mirostock has as much to do with the affordable kit being available just at the right time.

Microstock has done it's bit for the industry as it has brought many first time customers and artists to the world of stock photography, they have done this just by making the images affordable to everyone, however the growth of customers is far outstripped by the growth of the artists and images, so the investment for the photographer being much lower in comparision to when it was an elitist industry, and the potential for earning good revenue is also smaller as well, the key is to have other avenues open for your skillset taking a bit of income from each.

That is just the way I read it.

David

Oldhand · « **Reply #7 on:** July 31, 2009, 14:29 »

I heartly concur Adeptris.. I am an old niche supplier who adapted to supply direct, trad agencies, and now micro. If I had not, I would would not have been able to continue full time.

Re earlier comments on re-keywording:-

"Sorry it didn't improve your sales, but this is good info. I didn't understand how the keywording affected your rank when I first uploaded to Alamy. I had thought of re-keywording more tightly, but it would be a huge PITA and not worth bothering if it doesn't substantially improve sales."

I initally keyworded Alamy as I would editorial images supplied with news stories. This meant a lot of excess keywords which affected my Click through rate and rank. I had a very poor one, so after re-keywording I am now substantailly above average. On the good side I have seen all my pics move towards the first few page of searches. On the negative, sales are down. I always take a long term view though, so my odds are better of sales.

Adeptris points out suppliers are outstripping customers, very true. Funny thing with Alamy, search on someone like "William Shakespeare portrait"- 276 pictures, of which a very high percentage are the same! If you were the sole supplier of the most well known pic you would have cleaned up, now your sales will be diluted.

How to stand out from the mass, that's the key..

Rgds

Oldhand

Adeptris · « **Reply #8 on:** August 01, 2009, 04:44 »

Back to the OP's Question:

Getty have pulled Digital Vision and Photodisc RF images after failing to reach a new agreement, and the images are no longer being sub-distributed by Alamy, so that might account for the drop.

The positive being more chance for direct contributors to get a sale!

David

ptlee · « **Reply #9 on:** August 02, 2009, 08:20 »

Just noticed that it's now 16.43 million.

Cheers,
PTLee

RacePhoto · « **Reply #10 on:** August 03, 2009, 10:56 »

Quote from: Oldhand on July 31, 2009, 07:11

Hi Gostwyk

That's also my take on it - I am sure all the figures are gross. The relativley low RPI must be the result of a lot of their portfolio's not selling - obviously we have the differene between this model and a subscription one.

I re-keyworded half my portfolio on Alamy, which increased my Alamy rank substantially, so I am higher than the average. It's not led to any sales increase, and only a slight views one. For me they are an outlet on the slide.

More work required!

Oldhand

Tell me the secret, where do you find your Alamy Rank? I haven't been able to find anyplace where Alamy discloses our rank?

If you search around Alamy, you'll eventually find a dunce who knows how to mash the shutter button and uploads 20-30 of the same shot. One guy does color variations, four or five of each shot. (don't ask me why, I don't get it) That's why the RPI may be lower. On the other hand, there are some people with 200-300 photos who get regular sales. Same as micro, it's quality that sells, not always just the quantity.

puravida · « **Reply #11 on:** August 03, 2009, 11:22 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on August 03, 2009, 10:56

If you search around Alamy, you'll eventually find a dunce who knows how to mash the shutter button and uploads 20-30 of the same shot. One guy does color variations, four or five of each shot. (don't ask me why, I don't get it) That's why the RPI may be lower. On the other hand, there are some people with 200-300 photos who get regular sales. Same as micro, it's quality that sells, not always just the quantity.

agree with you on quality.
but you have to admit, flooding the site with 1,001 variations of the same image still gets your images found, and bury some legit stuff under your redundant images. How many buyers will look past the first 5 pages, to find your quality image?

actually, there should be a deterrent to stop this flooding of the same image with color variations.
truly PITA.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #12 on:** August 03, 2009, 12:17 »

Quote from: Oldhand on July 31, 2009, 06:10

Hi there

Is it just me - yesterday Alamy has 17 million images online, today it's 16.63 million. Just wondered if anyone knew if there was a reason for this.

Oldhand

I guess it's still Top Secret or hasn't made it's way around the forums or announcements. Here's what someone else says, which some of the Getty photographers may be able to confirm. Sounds reasonable but I can't say I found anything to verify it as factual.

Alamy is no long a distributor for Getty... this is the reason for the sudden big drop in the image count.

Someone else says that would be 800,000 RF images.

Lets see, StockXpert drops some partnerships. Getty drops Alamy distribution. StockExchange taken over by IS staff. Sounds like Getty consolidation to me.

RT · « **Reply #13 on:** August 03, 2009, 15:11 »

Pete,

It's no secret Alan Capel has said they removed the Getty content when they couldn't come to a satisfactory agreement.

http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=66895

Bottom of page 4.

Oldhand · « **Reply #14 on:** August 03, 2009, 15:15 »

Hi there - thanks for all the replies, as it was such a large drop it had to be either a cull of poor images (I am sure that would have been mentioned on the forum) or a big supplier pulling out. With that many images a getty pull out would make sense.

I know Alamy were going to delete some pics over the British heritage copyright problems, but not that many!

Re the comments about Alamy rank, my fault the confusion, out rank is secret. I was referrring to my click through rate (CTR). Mine was abysmal, as were the placement of images on searches. I rejigged half my old editorial captions, keeping everything to the minimum. Result, my CTR increased to double the Alamy average. Since then I am always on the first page of thereabouts depending on how popular the subject is.

I should have done it a year ago when sales (for me) were better. Now I'm getting seen but not downloaded.

It will be interesting to see Alamy's results when they publish them for this quarter.

Rgds

Oldhand

RacePhoto · « **Reply #15 on:** August 04, 2009, 01:15 »

Quote from: RT on August 03, 2009, 15:11

Pete,

It's no secret Alan Capel has said they removed the Getty content when they couldn't come to a satisfactory agreement.

http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=66895

Bottom of page 4.

That's what the forum says too, "bottom of page four" but when I look, all I see are novel use comments and people complaining about Microstock. Never did see the announcement. But I believe you, it's there someplace. I just can't find it?

Personally I wrote to Getty and sent a link to samples and asked if they would handle my images and after six months wrote again. Now it's been a year and still no reply, not even "go piss up a rope, your photos suck." Nothing... I'm sure they are busy with acquisitions and staff changes and probably getting emails by the hundreds from people, but you would think the biggest professional agency in the world could as least be polite enough to answer a serious inquiry?

Could be they are too busy with important projects like Flickr and StockExchange?

RT · « **Reply #16 on:** August 04, 2009, 03:21 »

It's no such much an announcement it's part of his reply about novel use, but just for you this is what he said:

"The number of images has reduced recently and will continue to reduce over the next few days because we could not reach agreement with Getty Images for renewing their distribution contract with us. This means that their collections have been removed from the site."

As for Getty don't bother writing to them they're renowned for not replying to emails, why not just go through the contributor application process, or failing that ring them.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #17 on:** August 05, 2009, 23:22 »

Quote from: RT on August 04, 2009, 03:21

It's no such much an announcement it's part of his reply about novel use, but just for you this is what he said:

"The number of images has reduced recently and will continue to reduce over the next few days because we could not reach agreement with Getty Images for renewing their distribution contract with us. This means that their collections have been removed from the site."

As for Getty don't bother writing to them they're renowned for not replying to emails, why not just go through the contributor application process, or failing that ring them.

Did that. The application was neither acknowledged as received nor rejected. The second time I did the same thing, got the same, non-response. Nada... Nothing... Zilch... Zero...

It's only a year now, maybe I should be more patient?

Oldhand · « **Reply #18 on:** August 06, 2009, 02:12 »

On the plus side I sold my first pic on Alamy for several months - one which was in "direct competition" to the Getty collection they withdrew - looks to be one of their UK editorial newspaper scheme ones.

I see Alamy have highlighted the photographers and agents they represent on the front page, with links to all sorts of great portfolios. I recognized a couple of names from Micro - Kirsty Pargeter (Under the selected showcase link) and Andres Rodriguez. Is he the same one as Micro, as he has a interesting gardening hobby.

http://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={FAFD3C48-3E35-4691-8137-603C2128A052}&name=Andres++Rodrigue%2E%2E%2E

Any one recognise any one else?

Rgds

Oldhand

madelaide · « **Reply #19 on:** August 06, 2009, 05:37 »

Maybe, like me, he opted to have different portfolios in micro and macro. I notice his flowers are identifies with scientific names (at least the ones I saw).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Number of Alamy images online reduced? (Read 11718 times)

Oldhand

gostwyck

Oldhand

willie

PixelBytes

sharpshot

Adeptris

Oldhand

Adeptris

ptlee

RacePhoto

puravida

RacePhoto

RT

Oldhand

RacePhoto

RT

RacePhoto

Oldhand

madelaide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors