MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Return - Editorial v Royalty Free  (Read 8713 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 09, 2011, 18:38 »
0
I was reading somewhere in someone's blog that rights managed license sell more than RF, however the return per image is lower, as the usage is very restricted.

Are some RM licenses as low as micro prices...is that true?

So is that true that the Royalty Free return per image is higher and generates more sales, because it has less rescritions?


ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2011, 19:03 »
+1
I was reading somewhere in someone's blog that rights managed license sell more than RF, however the return per image is lower, as the usage is very restricted.

Are some RM licenses as low as micro prices...is that true?

So is that true that the Royalty Free return per image is higher and generates more sales, because it has less rescritions?
As always, it depends.
For a start, your title is Editorial v Royalty Free, but your question is about RM v RF.
Editorial is a type of image, Royalty Free is a license for use of an image, as is RM.
Some RM licenses can be pretty low: these are generally either 'novel use', e.g. for a private blog, or for newspaper use, as some newspapers have heftydiscounts for bulk buying.
That said, e.g. iStock gives their biggest bulk buyers big discounts (which aren't advertised on the site) and some reported sales by iStockers via Getty have been as low as 6c, yup, six cents.
I had an RM sale on Alamy in early December for $500/$300 to me.
I've heard that on average, RF prices are higher than RM on Alamy, but that's only the tiny proportion of Alamy contributers who participate in the forums.
On Alamy, editorial images (i.e. where a model and/or property release would be needed for commercial use, but the release is not available) can only be sold RM, never RF (I say that because of your title, just to be clear).

RacePhoto

« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2011, 21:26 »
0
Probably because Alamy lists their RM as Editorial "L" for licensed, but it's really just RM. And yes you could have an image RF Editorial however that's unusual, and usually Editorial is RM. Don't ask me, but all things are possible, even if not common.

To answer the same question in a slightly different way than Sue.

It used to be a rule of thumb that RF brought in less than the Editorial on Alamy. It seems to have leveled out in the last two years, but until they produce the stats, I can't say, and it's only a guess.

There was that whole fiasco with "novel use" and then discounts for newspapers recently and some hangover about subscription rates offered to some preferred clients. But the offshoot is that RM/L and Editorial have been dropping in price and RF has been all over, but the two are meeting in the middle. That's according to people who sell more than I do, of both types, on Alamy.

My answer to the question, if asked for an opinion at the present time would be that both are bringing in about the same average returns, but depending on the content and materials, your sales could vary. I put up a shot RF that I thought might get some multiple downloads and compensate for the common nature of it. Sold for the same as my Editorial book covers, and I don't know who bought it or where it went.

For that reason alone, I'm thinking of asking them to make the whole collection of my photos, except the one that sold, into Licensed! If there's no price difference I might as well know who has it and what use?

I personally consider anything that has sold RF as out in the wild and it will always be impossible to track or account for who has it, where they bought it (if they did) or whether they should be giving photo credit. At least with RM there seem to be some more restrictions and better accounting. If the assumption about value by license is true and they are the same, I might as well know what happens to my images?

« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2011, 01:41 »
0
You are probably mixing up microstock and old-style agencies. In the traditional agencies, a royalty free photo sold for much higher prices than a rights managed one. Why? Because the RF buyer could use it over and over again while an RM buyer paid for a specific, limited use.

It makes sense to pay more for getting something forever than you do for having it for a limited time. Microstock, however, has turned that on its head because it couldn't spend time negotiating individual license details.

« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2011, 04:32 »
0
I personally consider anything that has sold RF as out in the wild and it will always be impossible to track or account for who has it, where they bought it (if they did) or whether they should be giving photo credit. At least with RM there seem to be some more restrictions and better accounting. If the assumption about value by license is true and they are the same, I might as well know what happens to my images?
But can you get from Alamy the information about whom did they license the image to? In the report, they only show the usage.

« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2011, 13:15 »
0
I found the blog I was reading, and the post is a year old.         http://bit.ly/6EUVyC

I got the impression RF would bring in more than RM after reading the blog...
I know, it all depends on a loooot of factors.

Monica

RT


« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2011, 14:17 »
0
If there's no price difference I might as well know who has it and what use?

They don't tell you 'who' has bought it, only the industry sector.

RacePhoto

« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2011, 04:08 »
0
If there's no price difference I might as well know who has it and what use?


They don't tell you 'who' has bought it, only the industry sector.


Yes to both of you. But the RF photo told me absolutely nothing at all useful, I'd rather have some idea where it went. Here are two examples. I have no clue who buys these, any of them, or where they are used and I have yet to find one in use. Yes I have searched my name and Alamy, and have a Google search analysis set up to report back, still nothing. This is what was reported.

Royalty-free    52 MB
7500 x 2406 pixels
4 MB compressed    $ 200.00

Traditional Licence    Country: United States
Usage: Editorial
Media: Textbook - print only
Industry sector: Media Industry
Sub-Industry: Publishing
Print run: up to 5,000
Placement: Front cover
Image Size: 1 page
Start: 19 June 2009
End: 19 June 2012
   $ 200.00


Here's Alamy revenue 1st quarter 2009 by type of photo. My point would be that this data is from the agency and depending on what photos people have, it could be that RF makes more or RM makes more. I'm not sure that there's an easy answer to the question. The author draws the same conclusion as many here. More competition, lower prices, but more volume. Meanwhile, higher prices for RF, more sales for RM. Less income from RF, more income from RM. Look at the total revenue numbers for Alamy.

http://www.abouttheimage.com/4115/a_look_at_alamys_1q09_reported_revenue/author3

   1Q08   1Q09   % change
% of revenue from RF   33%   29%   29%
Total Revenue from RF   US$ 2,731,923   US$ 1,675,139   -39%
Avg. RF license price   US$ 219.00   US$ 172.00   -21%
 
% of revenue from RM   67%   71%   
Total Revenue from RM   US$ 5,546,632   US$ 4,101,201   -26%
Avg. RM license price   US$ 149.00   US$ 105.00   -30%

I don't know if this answers which is the best return question, because there are two answers. Return per download RF is higher, return by sales dollars, RM is better.  ???

« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2011, 09:54 »
0
If you divide those figures into each other, you find that they made 9,739 RF sales in Q1 of 09, and 39,059 RM sales. I'm pretty sure they were boasting more than six million files back then, which suggests one sale for each 370 files online per month. I'm getting less than half that but most of mine are RF and their market tilts towards RM - newspapers and book publishers. It also helps to have British-related content as they have quite a few deals with UK newspaper companies.

I would say that RM offers the best prospects there, but that doesn't mean simply shooting images that would do for RF and marketing them as RM (though you can if you like, and being cheaper they will probably outsell similar RF images there), it means shooting the sort of stuff that will appeal to British newspapers and book publishers.

RacePhoto

« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2011, 16:23 »
0
If you divide those figures into each other, you find that they made 9,739 RF sales in Q1 of 09, and 39,059 RM sales. I'm pretty sure they were boasting more than six million files back then, which suggests one sale for each 370 files online per month. I'm getting less than half that but most of mine are RF and their market tilts towards RM - newspapers and book publishers. It also helps to have British-related content as they have quite a few deals with UK newspaper companies.

I would say that RM offers the best prospects there, but that doesn't mean simply shooting images that would do for RF and marketing them as RM (though you can if you like, and being cheaper they will probably outsell similar RF images there), it means shooting the sort of stuff that will appeal to British newspapers and book publishers.

Yeah I think you covered it. The question is more complicated than which makes more or which sells better. I mean yes RF sells great on micro, but it pays $1-2 per sale. You need 100 sales to equal one Alamy sale. However, many people make that per month and on Alamy don't get one sale every four months. So Micro pays more and the RPI is higher.

Looking at what someone gets per sale, Alamy is 80-100% better. Except when it's the UK newspaper special pricing where people might get $8 for a sale, which is only slightly better than Micro.

Bottom line, it depends on what you sell, and who buys it, more than if it's RF or RM.

Anyway, yes, you covered it quite well. :)

RacePhoto

« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2011, 00:41 »
0
Just had to post this update from Alamy. Hey about time and my compliments to them. I bet they got tired of the questions and confusion.

As you may have noticed, we have recently made the following changes to licencing terms throughout the contributor pages of our website and in Manage Images;

    * L or Licenced has now been replaced with Rights Managed

The reasons for doing this were to have consistency with what our customers see, for example RM or RF images. We felt having the term Licenced and Rights Managed was confusing as it means exactly the same thing. Rights Managed is also a standardised industry term.

    * Licenced Rights Protected or RP will now be referred to as Rights Managed Exclusive or RM-E

The term Rights Protected has been changed because it sounds slightly misleading, we feel Rights Managed Exclusive is more straight forward and self explanatory.

    * Royalty Free or RF will stay as it is

« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2013, 16:01 »
0
Hello again,
I am new at Alamy...
When editing the file, I should select the license type:
Royalty Free
Rights Managed
Rights Managed - Exclusive

Can I have your advices which one should I proceed with?
Thank you,
Alp


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
2995 Views
Last post October 02, 2016, 18:24
by increasingdifficulty
3 Replies
2019 Views
Last post January 13, 2017, 05:39
by HappyBunny
8 Replies
2728 Views
Last post April 08, 2017, 03:39
by ShadySue
20 Replies
5265 Views
Last post July 10, 2017, 15:39
by ravens
8 Replies
8302 Views
Last post September 11, 2017, 23:28
by stockload

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results