Sales at Alamy #2 Update from 2008 Thread

[donding]

sounds like that should work fine, dongding.
I don't remember the old version of managing images - partly because I didn't start submitting more than 1.5 images a month until a few months ago.

There should be two choices on your "My Alamy" page. There's the Manage Images (old version) and Manage Images V2.4. Both of them still show up on my main page. It still won't show my descriptions, just the keywords. It takes me forever to redo everything. I have tons of stuff that wouldn't work with micro I'm uploading there. Hope it's worth all the trouble. Have you had any luck with them? I've only sold a few long ago but nothing recent.

[RacePhoto]

sounds like that should work fine, dongding.
I don't remember the old version of managing images - partly because I didn't start submitting more than 1.5 images a month until a few months ago.

There should be two choices on your "My Alamy" page. There's the Manage Images (old version) and Manage Images V2.4. Both of them still show up on my main page. It still won't show my descriptions, just the keywords. It takes me forever to redo everything. I have tons of stuff that wouldn't work with micro I'm uploading there. Hope it's worth all the trouble. Have you had any luck with them? I've only sold a few long ago but nothing recent.

You mean you can't see the tab that says Description, right next to keywords, when you are in the editor? That's strange. Here's a screen snapshot. See the restrictions and attributes part for license type? Of course it's easy for me, I hit no model release for the Editorial images and zing, it's marked RM.

Description is not searched anymore.



ps Misguided attempt to accent the red background and add some flare to the food. It is distracting and ruins the shots. Oh well, live and learn! Rejected at IS and SS for "color balance". LOL

[RacePhoto]

When they find out they have been buying microstock images on alamy, I wonder how they react?

As it's the license they're buying and not the image it's their own fault if they react badly for buying something they don't need.

If I need turf for my lawn and buy 500 rolls from a bulk supplier only to find out that the shop down the road sells them in individual rolls and I could have just bought the 20 that I needed it's my own stupid fault, not that of the bulk supplier or the guy that grew the grass.

Not quite the same.

You buy a battery for your camera from a local shop and it's $59. Then you find the identical battery, same maker, for $3 on eBay. Do you just say, "oh well, I'm stupid" or say, "I'll never go to that store that rips me off." ?

A tradesman says he'll paint your door for only $100. The next week you find out he painted you neighbors door for $5, do you hire him again?

Of course if you are one of the idle rich with millions in the bank and you live off the interest, you may not care. The rest of us look for a fair and consistent price and value.

[RT]

When they find out they have been buying microstock images on alamy, I wonder how they react?

As it's the license they're buying and not the image it's their own fault if they react badly for buying something they don't need.

If I need turf for my lawn and buy 500 rolls from a bulk supplier only to find out that the shop down the road sells them in individual rolls and I could have just bought the 20 that I needed it's my own stupid fault, not that of the bulk supplier or the guy that grew the grass.

Not quite the same.

You buy a battery for your camera from a local shop and it's $59. Then you find the identical battery, same maker, for $3 on eBay. Do you just say, "oh well, I'm stupid" or say, "I'll never go to that store that rips me off." ?

A tradesman says he'll paint your door for only $100. The next week you find out he painted you neighbors door for $5, do you hire him again?

Of course if you are one of the idle rich with millions in the bank and you live off the interest, you may not care. The rest of us look for a fair and consistent price and value.

Your examples don't compare.

In your scenario the battery is the same identical battery with the exact same usage from both shops, whichever shop you purchase from you get the same thing. The tradesman is providing a service not a product so that's not even worth discussing.

The basic RF license you purchase from Alamy is not the same basic license that you purchase from microstock, it's the equivalent of a microstock extended license.

Maybe this scenario would help.

Two hire companies, exactly the same car. One company hires it out for a minimum of 7 day rental period at $500 and the other by the day at $100. A customer gets the car from the first company, he only needs the car for two days - he's paid $300 more for the purpose he required it for than if he went to the second company.  His fault not the hire companies or the car manufacturer - Same product different contract (i.e. license)

To understand this you and others need to completely remove the fact that the product is an image, we do not sell images we sell licenses to use an image. And in answer to people who ask why Alamy allow microstock images and don't separate them it's because (obviously) they understand this.

Edit - This might help understand it more. On iStock you can get an XL image for 20 credits but you can also get the exact same image in the exact same size for 145 credits. The image that the buyer downloads is identical but in one instance they're paying 125 credits more. Why is that?

[donding]

Description is not searched anymore.

I've since found the tab for description, call me stupid. I was just use to the old version where everything is right in front of you. I changed the default license type to none so I don't make the mistake of letting some through as RF when I want them as RM. I know the No model release ones and No property release ones automatically go to RM, but there are some I want as RM which I have a model release for.

As for the description are you saying I don't need to put in the description because it's not searched anymore? Why do they still have it?   

[ann]

When you zoom on an image, the description (at bottom) could be particularly important for editorial photos. When title tells the whole story, I've seen same info in description field.

[lisafx]

To understand this you and others need to completely remove the fact that the product is an image, we do not sell images we sell licenses to use an image. And in answer to people who ask why Alamy allow microstock images and don't separate them it's because (obviously) they understand this.

Edit - This might help understand it more. On iStock you can get an XL image for 20 credits but you can also get the exact same image in the exact same size for 145 credits. The image that the buyer downloads is identical but in one instance they're paying 125 credits more. Why is that?

Excellent explanation Richard.  This should lay the issue to rest.  But it won't, unfortunately.  This issue keeps cropping up and the misunderstandings persist in spite of every effort to explain. 

Suffice it to say I will keep licensing my images - micro and otherwise - on Alamy until they tell me I can't.  And that won't happen because they are making too much money on portfolios from micro producers. 

[RacePhoto]

To understand this you and others need to completely remove the fact that the product is an image, we do not sell images we sell licenses to use an image. And in answer to people who ask why Alamy allow microstock images and don't separate them it's because (obviously) they understand this.

Edit - This might help understand it more. On iStock you can get an XL image for 20 credits but you can also get the exact same image in the exact same size for 145 credits. The image that the buyer downloads is identical but in one instance they're paying 125 credits more. Why is that?

Excellent explanation Richard.  This should lay the issue to rest.  But it won't, unfortunately.  This issue keeps cropping up and the misunderstandings persist in spite of every effort to explain. 

Suffice it to say I will keep licensing my images - micro and otherwise - on Alamy until they tell me I can't.  And that won't happen because they are making too much money on portfolios from micro producers. 

People can license whatever they want, wherever they want. The original point is that the buyer is getting the same image for $200 at one place that they can download at another for $5. If someone wants to compete with themselves and waste time by uploading to Alamy, when the same product is for sale on 20 other sites for much less, that's their choice.

Considering all the smoke screen, that the license is slightly different. Lets not be so rude to assume that buyers live in a vacuum and are so stupid that they can't use a search or figure out that for $5 they can get the same image for most uses, for $195 less! If you go out to buy toilet paper, cookies, gas for your car or lunch meat (to just come up with some common consumables) You probably pay attention to prices. If you see the same package of meat from the same company at one grocery store for $3.98 and the next store for $5.98, you are going to tell me, you don't feel like store #2 is trying to stick it too you! 

I look at an image much like a bottle of Coke. It's the same no matter which store you get it from. It's identical, except for the price. Let me guess, people here who buy Coke products don't go to the Quick-Mart or a gas station that charges the highest prices for their regular supply, they watch for sales or buy at a store that has lower prices all the time. We SHOP.

The image that someone downloads and uses is identical from both sources. Throwing the the size is a red herring. The end use is the same or they wouldn't be looking in both places, one could be eliminated because of the license. But then we aren't comparing the identical image and license anymore, are we, if the use and size varies?

This might help understand it more. On iStock you can get an XL image for 20 credits but you can also get the exact same image in the exact same size for 145 credits. The image that the buyer downloads is identical but in one instance they're paying 125 credits more. Why is that?

No accounting for stupidity, but I wouldn't base my sales and income on a regular flow of the same. If it's the same image for the same use, that's the only explanation. If it's for a different use, it's in effect, not the same image anymore! Apples to apples, same size, same use, same license, and tell me again why licensing from Alamy for 40 times the Micro price isn't an insult to the buyer?

[ShadySue]

Edit - This might help understand it more. On iStock you can get an XL image for 20 credits but you can also get the exact same image in the exact same size for 145 credits. The image that the buyer downloads is identical but in one instance they're paying 125 credits more. Why is that?

I don't understand at all. Can you give some concrete examples where the "exact same image" on iStock is sold for 20 and 125 credits for the same size?

[Danicek]

Edit - This might help understand it more. On iStock you can get an XL image for 20 credits but you can also get the exact same image in the exact same size for 145 credits. The image that the buyer downloads is identical but in one instance they're paying 125 credits more. Why is that?

I don't understand at all. Can you give some concrete examples where the "exact same image" on iStock is sold for 20 and 125 credits for the same size?

I would assume Richard is referring to the fact that you can buy the exact same picture (i.e. even the same size, so the picture is really the same) as standard RF license and extended license. You get the same image but different license for its usage. That clearly shows that you are in fact licensing an image, not buying an image.

[RT]

The original point is that the buyer is getting the same image for $200 at one place that they can download at another for $5. If someone wants to compete with themselves and waste time by uploading to Alamy, when the same product is for sale on 20 other sites for much less, that's their choice.

They get the same image but they DO NOT get the same product, the product we sell is the license not the image.

As an independent you've got the exact same images on one microstock site as another but at different prices, and the buyers don't get anything extra, I don't see people making a song and dance about that.

I would assume Richard is referring to the fact that you can buy the exact same picture (i.e. even the same size, so the picture is really the same) as standard RF license and extended license. You get the same image but different license for its usage. That clearly shows that you are in fact licensing an image, not buying an image.

Exactly 'Danicek'


To add, I really don't care where anybody sells their images but I'm surprise at the amount of people who don't understand how stock agencies operate.

[RT]

I don't understand at all. Can you give some concrete examples where the "exact same image" on iStock is sold for 20 and 125 credits for the same size?

I don't need to give concrete examples, every image in your portfolio is for sale like this.

[ShadySue]

I don't understand at all. Can you give some concrete examples where the "exact same image" on iStock is sold for 20 and 125 credits for the same size?

I don't need to give concrete examples, every image in your portfolio is for sale like this.

Oh, right; you're talking about regular license and extended license. You need to be more precise when talking to those of us who can't second-guess.

[lisafx]

People can license whatever they want, wherever they want. The original point is that the buyer is getting the same image for $200 at one place that they can download at another for $5. If someone wants to compete with themselves and waste time by uploading to Alamy, when the same product is for sale on 20 other sites for much less, that's their choice.

Sorry Pete, but this is just complete BS.  My gross (not net royalties) sales at alamy so far this month are:

27.08
27.08
130.00
130.00
38.74
29.00
0.83

As you can see, out of seven sales, all but two of them are at prices comparable to what you would pay on the micros.  The argument that the prices at Alamy are so wildly different than the micros was legitimate five years ago, but these days it just doesn't hold water.  

I don't know why we have to go over and over the same arguments ad nauseum on this forum.  You don't think those of us who sell micro images on Alamy are doing the right thing.  Fine.  Duly noted.  

I don't think it is right to sell images on Thinkstock, but I figure it's your business and so I don't continuously bring it up.    

[madelaide]

About licenses, I recently purchased images at DT and I didn't have to click on any "I agree" terms of usage (unless I did it so automatically that I didn't registered having done that in any of the three times).  So do people really know what they're paying for in any site? I remember Elena from FP saying some people think they are purchasing a merchandise, not a digital file.

[RT]

I don't understand at all. Can you give some concrete examples where the "exact same image" on iStock is sold for 20 and 125 credits for the same size?

I don't need to give concrete examples, every image in your portfolio is for sale like this.

Oh, right; you're talking about regular license and extended license. You need to be more precise when talking to those of us who can't second-guess.

Sorry I wouldn't want you to have to read anything through, but as I was discussing the fact that we sell licenses and not images I presumed it was blatently obvious what I was referring to.

[RT]

I don't know why we have to go over and over the same arguments ad nauseum on this forum.  You don't think those of us who sell micro images on Alamy are doing the right thing.  Fine.  Duly noted.  

At times like this I think of the line in City Slickers where Mitch is trying to explain how to set the video so you can record one channel whilst watching another, "He doesn't get it, he'll never get it, even the cows know how to set the video now"

[sharpshot]

...I don't think it is right to sell images on Thinkstock, but I figure it's your business and so I don't continuously bring it up.    

No, that's what I do

[ann]

[....]

At times like this I think of the line in City Slickers where Mitch is trying to explain how to set the video so you can record one channel whilst watching another, "He doesn't get it, he'll never get it, even the cows know how to set the video now"

Video on VCR, right?  Why, even my cats don't remember how to work that anymore.    

[RacePhoto]

People can license whatever they want, wherever they want. The original point is that the buyer is getting the same image for $200 at one place that they can download at another for $5. If someone wants to compete with themselves and waste time by uploading to Alamy, when the same product is for sale on 20 other sites for much less, that's their choice.

Sorry Pete, but this is just complete BS.  My gross (not net royalties) sales at alamy so far this month are:

27.08
27.08
130.00
130.00
38.74
29.00
0.83

As you can see, out of seven sales, all but two of them are at prices comparable to what you would pay on the micros.  The argument that the prices at Alamy are so wildly different than the micros was legitimate five years ago, but these days it just doesn't hold water.  

I don't know why we have to go over and over the same arguments ad nauseum on this forum.  You don't think those of us who sell micro images on Alamy are doing the right thing.  Fine.  Duly noted.  

I don't think it is right to sell images on Thinkstock, but I figure it's your business and so I don't continuously bring it up.    

Sure, because you have the same images on Micro! (take a deep breath, that's 100% humor)

What I was trying to get to, is yes, licenses may vary and the price can vary according to license, but if someone is going to say something sells at X for one price and Y for another price, it's important that it's the same size, same license, identical in all respects. Otherwise, there's no way to compare. Diving off into, how images are licensed and sizes is true, but it evades the point of comparing identical sales and images.

The pictures on Thinkstock came from StockXpert. IS and SS were smart enough to refuse them. So what's happening is I'm getting 25c for a download instead of having the photos sitting on my hard drive earning nothing. Hey that sounds like the microstock pitch? Some of the IS images were already on StockXpert so I've already shot myself with those being out in the wild on ThinkStock subscription. Too late. You want sad? I make more on ThinkStock with the junk and old cast-offs than I do on BigStock. BigStock earns four to six times more, when I get a sale, but last month I sold nothing! Which place put more into the account?

Easy enough for me, RM on Alamy, RF on IS and SS. Now and then a large RF might go on Alamy, but I'm beginning to think that was a bad decision as well. They should all be RM no matter if it's a flower, bug or Editorial. I'm getting kind of tired of RF and cheap prices. Wish I could change all my images on Alamy to RM, except the one RF that sold, because it's too late for that one.

I don't have as many good stock shots as the majority of people here, especially you or Lisa, or the other serious micro shooters. (no shots with models at all!) On SS we all know, it's 25c, ThinkStock 25c, IS I'm still averaging around $1.50 a download. Alamy less volume, but bottom line is more dollars, averaging commission of $80 per image. 2009 Alamy produced more income on a small number of sales, than all the micro sites that I was with, added together. So I'm going where the money is. Dropped all the micros except IS and Partner, SS and "partner", when BigStock reaches $50 I'm done. StockXpert has had their chance, time to pull the plug on that. I can't get excited about $3-4 a month selling CrapStock on ThinkStock that came from StockXpert.

We're still in the same place. Some do well with a shotgun, selling everything, on every site they can get it on, working for small change and often not even annual payouts. Others find that specific targets and smaller numbers of distributors works better. I'd rather sit for nothing than work for nothing.

If I was buying photos, I'd look for the cheapest place that offered what I needed, and if people want to put their hard work up on Micro fro 25 cents to $1.50 that's fine. I'd take anything that you got from Alamy (maybe not the 83 center?) over the usual cheap micro payments.

And even though I'm against this because the question needs to be "percentage of what" What's the percentage paid at Alamy vs the percentage paid from a Micro site? When IS goes down to 15-20% for me, it will still be earning more than the rest of the micro sites, per download and bottom line. Alamy can be 50% which is nice, and they aren't trying to lower commissions or wring out every cent they can take from us. What's the percentage on SS? And that hypothetical image that could sell for 25 credits or 125 credits, how much is a credit worth in real money? Credits, canisters, vetta, partners, lower commissions, and all the rest, it's starting to sound like some kind of flim flam.

[RacePhoto]

And if the original question got lost in the endless debate. (I plead guilty)

Yes Alamy has lowered prices in many instances. They also lowered the commissions 5% last year to finance the USA office.

They are coming down to meet Micro and offering UK newspapers sweetheart deals.

It hasn't hit me, but probably people with more micro style images are getting more micro-like prices? I doubt if the PRI will ever be the same as Micro. I doubt if McDonalds makes as much on each $1 McDouble sale as a sit down restaurant selling a $9 burger. But the profit can be the same, after costs are deducted, or figuring on volume.

 I don't think RPI is a valid way to measure income. People should ideally have the same number of photos/images and see how much they make bottom line. That's what counts. Unfortunately having identical numbers of the same images on all sites, just doesn't happen.

You can't buy dinner with RPI! (or percentages) Just earnings

Want a really much better looking RPI? Delete all the non-selling images from a micro site. Hey that's odd, now the RPI just went up like a rocket, but the earnings remain unchanged. RPI only works comparing Micro to micro!

[sharpshot]

...On SS we all know, it's 25c...

No, it's $0.38, if you put in a small amount of work.  And they charge about the same as thinkstock and have to pay more reviewers.  I still think that if it wasn't for thinkstock, SS and others would of raised commissions by now, so we are probably losing more money because of them.  All people are doing by using them is showing that they don't mind how low a site sets commissions.  Don't you think the other sites will see that as an excuse to give us a worse deal in the future?

[hofhoek]

...On SS we all know, it's 25c...

No, it's $0.38, if you put in a small amount of work.  And they charge about the same as thinkstock and have to pay more reviewers.  I still think that if it wasn't for thinkstock, SS and others would of raised commissions by now, so we are probably losing more money because of them.  All people are doing by using them is showing that they don't mind how low a site sets commissions.  Don't you think the other sites will see that as an excuse to give us a worse deal in the future?

I agree 100%.  I also think that Thinkstock sells a lot of bad stuff too, hopefully they keep doing that....
On the subject of Alamy. I'm having a good month at Alamy sold 4 so far all $100 +.

[ShadySue]

Does anyone know where Alamy advertise or market?

[RacePhoto]

...On SS we all know, it's 25c...

No, it's $0.38, if you put in a small amount of work.  And they charge about the same as thinkstock and have to pay more reviewers.  I still think that if it wasn't for thinkstock, SS and others would of raised commissions by now, so we are probably losing more money because of them.  All people are doing by using them is showing that they don't mind how low a site sets commissions.  Don't you think the other sites will see that as an excuse to give us a worse deal in the future?

Sorry but it's 25c because that's what it is. Not everyone has $500 worth of sales. I think there was a poll last year and many people haven't reached the 38 level yet. So stop basing your "facts" on creative opinion. Just because you are doing well and have good returns, don't assume that everyone else does.

The company pays photographers 25 cents for each image that a customer downloads. Beginning May 1, (2007) founder and Chief Executive Jon Oringer announced Monday, anyone who sells more than $500 worth of images will get 20 percent more per image--30 cents.

And this: The base commission for a subscription is 25 cents. Once you make 500 dollars, your commission will be raised to 33 cents per download. The next raise is obtained when you reach 3000 dollars, bringing your commission to 36 cents. The last raise brings earnings to 38 cents per download, once your lifetime earnings reach 10 000 dollars.

Do you know how many people have $10,000 in downloads on SS? Because that's what it takes to make your claimed 38c "if you put in a small amount of work"

Want a number? 2000 downloads to get to 33 cents. 7575 more downloads to get to 36 cents. And another 19,444 downloads after that to make 38 cents. Come on, how many people have 30,000 downloads on SS? You really believe it's "if you put in a small amount of work"?

March 2010 here:

Question:    What Level of pay do you get for a 25-A-Day As of March 1st 2010  (Voting closed: April 01, 2010, 18:28)
25 cents (under $500 Level)    - 34 (22.8%)
33 cents (up to $3000 level)    - 43 (28.9%)
36 cents (3-10,000 level)    - 32 (21.5%)
38 cents (over $10,000 in sales)    - 34 (22.8%)
I don't submit on ShutterStock    - 6 (4%)
Total Voters: 149

73% do not make 38c a download = "if you put in a small amount of work"

If it wasn't for all the price cutting new sites, offering the lowest subscription rates possible, and people who upload everything they have, every time a new place comes around promising sales, maybe we'd be getting a raise from the stable outlets. Keep supporting dilution and low prices, but you rail on ThinkStock for selling at the same rates, to customers, as SS, DP and the rest? Not that I'm a fan of ThinkStock, but when they are selling at the same price, they aren't causing a market drop. They may be screwing us with low commissions, but they are pricing at comparable levels as the rest. Not like some other new place that is undercutting the market, giving away free photos to make it look like they have buyers, and offering people 25c an upload to get suckers to join them.

So it's OK to be a whore for a quarter on one site, and give them your portfolio for an extended period, but it's not OK to sell out for 25c a download at some other site, that's hosting old, stale, small files? Someone still needs to explain that to me?

I wish I knew what this has to do with Alamy earnings?

Aw, never mind I found you... Nice collection: very cool, over 4000 images.
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-68500p1.html

Darn nice, IS is even better!
http://tinyurl.com/37a5nhc