MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Alamy.com => Topic started by: Alamy on January 26, 2018, 03:58
-
Hi Everyone,
As you may (or may not!) know, we do keep an eye on this forum to see what the community has to say about us :)
There is a theme that seem to come up a fair bit: People asking if Alamy is working for others and whether or not people have success with us. With this in mind, we've put together a series of blog posts called the $100k+ club, where we speak to photographers who have made at least $100,000 worth of sales on Alamy. We ask them for a few words about their experience and give them the opportunity to offer some insight to others.
We're up to part three now, and I thought some of you may find the posts interesting so I wanted to highlight them for you here.
- 100k club part 1: http://www.alamy.com/blog/100000-club-one-alamys-top-earning-photographers (http://www.alamy.com/blog/100000-club-one-alamys-top-earning-photographers)
- 100k club part 2: http://www.alamy.com/blog/the-100000-club-part-2-alamys-top-earning-photographers (http://www.alamy.com/blog/the-100000-club-part-2-alamys-top-earning-photographers)
- 100k club part 3: http://www.alamy.com/blog/100000-club-part-3-alamys-top-earning-photographers (http://www.alamy.com/blog/100000-club-part-3-alamys-top-earning-photographers)
Cheers
James Allsworth
-
Note that whenever Alamy comes here promoting themselves they always refer to 'x amount of sales' which is always the gross amount, never the net amount. When they say $100,000 what they really mean is gross sales value, which is equivalent to double that of net sales value. Of course many people have had success with Alamy, but let's get the amount of money right, otherwise it is deliberately misleading.
-
$100k isn't really a very impressive bar to set. It could mean an income of as little as $375 a month over 10 years for the photographer (45% commission on 10k a year/12 months).
Now $100,000 a year would be impressive, as would $1m in total sales, but I suppose 100k sounds impressive to relative newbies.
-
Yeah, a million in earnings might be worth hearing about. 100K just tells me people don't make much there compared to Shutterstock.
Ive been with Alamy since 2004 and have have done much better than I ever expected, with nearly $700,000 in gross sales in that time.
If I did my math correctly he's bringing home about $2,000/month-$24,000/year in royalties, which isn't terrible, but it sounds like he's the top of the top at Alamy. So there's no way you can make a living just submitting there. In fact, he goes on to say he has to make money doing other things because he doesn't make enough shooting stock. Depressing.
-
If I did my math correctly he's bringing home about $2,000/month-$24,000/year in royalties, which isn't terrible, but it sounds like he's the top of the top at Alamy. So there's no way you can make a living just submitting there. In fact, he goes on to say he has to make money doing other things because he doesn't make enough shooting stock. Depressing.
And he's a top-flight photojournalist, former chief photographer of a British daily paper noted in his day for its excellent photography.
-
I know. Sad. :(
-
Yeah, a million in earnings might be worth hearing about. 100K just tells me people don't make much there compared to Shutterstock.
... In fact, he goes on to say he has to make money doing other things because he doesn't make enough shooting stock. Depressing.
The classic argument is that SS et al (but SS in particular in recent times haven't increased their prices) have led the market to expect vastly lower prices for their imagery, so rpd at Alamy etc has decreased.
The tiny prices per images works when you can expect multiple sales of images, but many buyers now expect low prices even on unique images which may have only one or a very few sales.
My total net on Alamy is only a bit over my best year on iS, but that best year was 2012 and it's been rapidly downhill ever since. And I know as near 100% as d*mmit that my port would have fared poorly on SS.
That said, last year was my second best on Alamy, but it's all relative.
-
Applaud James for posting, but all things are relative. 100k over one year is quite different than 100k over 10 years. I have made 100k over 10 years on one site, but not Alamy. And those photographers are perhaps the exception, not the rule. Thus, they are probably one-offs. I would love to see more histogram data to see how the distribution of contributor revenue looks.
-
Thus, they are probably one-offs. I would love to see more histogram data to see how the distribution of contributor revenue looks.
It looks like a very steep curve with a very long tail, a handful earn thousands and thousands earn a handful. 10 years back DT released information from which you could work out their revenue distribution and I'm sure all the other sites have similar curves. If I remember correctly, it seemed likely that something like 90% of contributors would not even get to a payout (many of them with just a handful of images up for sale).
-
Thanks for share. I like that Alamy is fair agency. We must feed the sagencias that pay well and do not throw the prices
-
Thus, they are probably one-offs. I would love to see more histogram data to see how the distribution of contributor revenue looks.
It looks like a very steep curve with a very long tail, a handful earn thousands and thousands earn a handful. 10 years back DT released information from which you could work out their revenue distribution and I'm sure all the other sites have similar curves. If I remember correctly, it seemed likely that something like 90% of contributors would not even get to a payout (many of them with just a handful of images up for sale).
If tyler had the time he could set an anonymous poll where we give our income and fotolia rank. A graph of that would give you a good idea as fl is one of the biggest agencies.
-
Thus, they are probably one-offs. I would love to see more histogram data to see how the distribution of contributor revenue looks.
It looks like a very steep curve with a very long tail, a handful earn thousands and thousands earn a handful. 10 years back DT released information from which you could work out their revenue distribution and I'm sure all the other sites have similar curves. If I remember correctly, it seemed likely that something like 90% of contributors would not even get to a payout (many of them with just a handful of images up for sale).
You can describe a curve like the one you suggest by using a stat from Shutterstock's Annual Report for 2016.
"The content contributed by our five highest-earning contributors was together responsible for less than 4% of downloads in 2016"
Lets call "less than 4%" 3%, though it's more likely to be 3.9 recurring. That's 3% of 168,000,000 = 5,040,000 downloads. If the next five highest earners are responsible for 3% of what's left 162,600,000 and so on and so on, that should give you your curve.
You could also drop each iteration by say 0.1% if you want to leave more for those nearer the bottom with a payout, but even then they would be far from the bottom of the 190,000 contributors.
The average price per download was $2.88, though you would think if anybody is getting more than average, because many of us get less, it would likely be the top earners. If that was the case financially they would look better off than merely looking at downloads.
Your extrapolations may differ from mine, the difference between 3% and 4% make a big difference down the line.
I wonder if Alamy is much different, James?
-
By the way, I do like Alamy. It's one of a few agencies that I still bother to upload some stuff to.
-
Alamy was my best site last year (yes, beating SS - Alamy was up, and SS down a lot). Still, 100K total gross is not all that impressive over up to 15 years or possibly more - not that I am close, but I am not all that dedicated.
To get to the 100K gross on Is you would only get 15K total for yourself, more like 30K at SS, and closer to 40 to 50K at Alamy (depending on if you get distributor sales and how many).
It is good to see them posting here - and keeping an eye on what we might be posting.
-
My sales are up on Alamy, my income is down. Still a great site for fair treatment and a fair percentage of any sale I make.
The Alamy "Stock Photography Timeline" was interesting: http://www.alamy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Alamy-Stock-Photo-Timeline-Second-Edition.pdf (http://www.alamy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Alamy-Stock-Photo-Timeline-Second-Edition.pdf)
-
Hopefully none of the $100,000+ club members is stealing
like some of your other contributors:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/alamy-and-copyright-infringement/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/alamy-and-copyright-infringement/)
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/alamy-way-of-handling-copyright-claims/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/alamy-way-of-handling-copyright-claims/)
-
I've always found the gross total that Alamy and the forum under 'how was your month' to be both misleading and deluded. Evey other agency I know of present figures in net amount.
Last year I had a BYE on Alamy which was surprising and welcome. Despite my BYE being worse than my WYE at Getty RM (not Istock), I'm now uploading to Alamy and not Getty, since there are a lot of things not to like about Getty, first and foremost their need for total exclusivity, meaning you lose all control of your photos.
Overall Alamy is a good agency. They should get real and present in NET figures, plus cull millions of similar's and obviously bad photos. Otherwise it looks too much like a dumping ground for any photographer instead of the best editorial agency in the business.
-
I've always found the gross total that Alamy and the forum under 'how was your month' to be both misleading and deluded.
Alamy is older than any of the microstock agencies so its method of reporting sales did not have any of them to compare with, maybe it is in line with what some of the earlier agencies were doing. And you can't blame the agency if its contributors choose to report gross sales rather than their commission.
It makes far more sense to have a go at the agencies that like to hide the size of the slice of your sale they are helping themselves to by only reporting what cash commission they will pay without telling you what percentage of the sale it actually is. In the early days of microstock we all knew what percentage we were getting (20% from IS, 50% from DT) but pretty soon the owners started hiding the size of their slice, sometimes even using deliberate deception (pretend currency values) to do so.
-
When I went non-exclusive nearly three years ago I started to upload to Alamy with some enthusiasm. However I found sales very slow and the upload process tedious. After about a year I gave up and considered the effort not worth it. If it is indeed possible to make reasonable money at Alamy perhaps I should try again, but I must admit I am feeling somewhat reluctant.
-
When I went non-exclusive nearly three years ago I started to upload to Alamy with some enthusiasm. However I found sales very slow and the upload process tedious. After about a year I gave up and considered the effort not worth it. If it is indeed possible to make reasonable money at Alamy perhaps I should try again, but I must admit I am feeling somewhat reluctant.
Alamy is a grind to say the least. The only way to do well is to be very astute with what you upload. Too many contributors are uploading LCV images and way too many similars. Check out the portfolios of the 100k club, they are the masters.
-
When I went non-exclusive nearly three years ago I started to upload to Alamy with some enthusiasm. However I found sales very slow and the upload process tedious. After about a year I gave up and considered the effort not worth it. If it is indeed possible to make reasonable money at Alamy perhaps I should try again, but I must admit I am feeling somewhat reluctant.
Sadly, the new upload system is even more tedious (really badly implemented) if you do it properly, though if you keyword before upload, at least your files go on sale (showing as 'no releases', as you haven't been through the system to indicate that you have releases) without you doing anything else.
Still, if you haven't been involved since the changeover, you might want to revisit your old files to see if the system has mashed keywords together, or split keyword phrases. It's like some manual dexterity test trying to click on the right place on the stars or crosses. >:(
It's a really antique system, still no spell-checking - while uploading or worse still, while searching - and no stemming. I'm wading through my back catalogue correcting what the new system put in, but it's something to do during the interminable rainy days and seasonal long nights ...
-
Still, if you haven't been involved since the changeover, you might want to revisit your old files to see if the system has mashed keywords together, or split keyword phrases.
I wasn't aware of that. I just hope mine haven't suffered because, frankly, the effort involved in trying to make corrections to thousands of files wouldn't be justified by any likely additional returns.
It sounds horribly like "disambiguation" all over again.
-
Still, if you haven't been involved since the changeover, you might want to revisit your old files to see if the system has mashed keywords together, or split keyword phrases.
I wasn't aware of that. I just hope mine haven't suffered because, frankly, the effort involved in trying to make corrections to thousands of files wouldn't be justified by any additional returns.
It sounds horribly like "disambiguation" all over again.
It is, and from the forum it seems not everyone is doing it. It takes ages. I have lots of files where this has happened (about 30%). Still, it lets me check for typos, and some people are finding missed keywords, and I'm finding a few, but as I was on iS before I was on Alamy, I had a reasonable handle on keywords from the beginning there, even though they don't, of course, use the Getty CV (for better or worse, which is a matter of opinion).
There are now categories, much like iS's old categories, which we are supposed to add (not compulsory), but with no supplied evidence that buyers are using them to any great extent.
Also there's an 'editorial use only' button now for RM files, which I tick for files which have prominent people or brands (for the rest, the old 'needs release/no release' should suffice. I hope!)
And all the time, I'm realising how much more time/tedium it will take if indyref2 prevails and I have to remove UK and British from the majority of my files.
To be honest, I have no realistic hopes that the work will result in more sales (after all, Alamy's search splits and merges keywords randomly anyway), though I'd be delighted to be proved wrong!
-
And all the time, I'm realising how much more time/tedium it will take if indyref2 prevails and I have to remove UK and British from the majority of my files.
I wouldn't worry about that. Scotland will still be geographically part of the British Isles and I can't imagine anyone accusing you of spamming for legacy "UK"s. In any case, didn't the nats want to keep the Queen, so they wouldn't be cancelling the Union of Crowns, only the Act of Union.
There you go, I've just saved you from that!
-
And all the time, I'm realising how much more time/tedium it will take if indyref2 prevails and I have to remove UK and British from the majority of my files.
I wouldn't worry about that. Scotland will still be geographically part of the British Isles and I can't imagine anyone accusing you of spamming for legacy "UK"s. In any case, didn't the nats want to keep the Queen, so they wouldn't be cancelling the Union of Crowns, only the Act of Union.
They used to say that they wanted to keep the Queen, but that doesn't seem to be the case now, at least on the ground, if not officially.
There you go, I've just saved you from that!
;D ;D ;D
-
If you upload the same images to Alamy and to cheap sites, people buy them on the cheap sites. Alamy can work for you if you upload your premium stuff there and only there.
-
If you upload the same images to Alamy and to cheap sites, people buy them on the cheap sites. Alamy can work for you if you upload your premium stuff there and only there.
You should not be so sure about this. For every image you can find a microstock version even if they are not completely similar. Also for a buyer there is no guarantee that a Alamy image will be not added later to microstock. I made some high value sales on Alamy of images being in microstock. I think if someone needs a cheap image they go directly to microstock. Why search in Alamy and buy on micros instead of searching directly on micros. All those point let me think that Alamy buyers buy on Alamy for the largest part.
Mirco
-
If you upload the same images to Alamy and to cheap sites, people buy them on the cheap sites. Alamy can work for you if you upload your premium stuff there and only there.
I disagree with this in general. I have quite an overlap of images that are both on macrostock and microstock and they sell in both worlds.
This way the customer gets all his files from one source with the exact same license and especially buyers with bigger budgets are not going to hunt it all down with the various exclusive licenses to make sure all files have the same rights.
Plus the macros offer editor services, so you donīt even have to spend so much time looking for files, they do it for you.
I wish Alamy all the best, if they give me a sensible and simple upload system I will upload directly again.
But between low sales and the complicated uploads I very discouraged. But some of my images go there via partner portals, that is a lot easier for me.
-
If you upload the same images to Alamy and to cheap sites, people buy them on the cheap sites. Alamy can work for you if you upload your premium stuff there and only there.
I disagree with this in general. I have quite an overlap of images that are both on macrostock and microstock and they sell in both worlds.
This way the customer gets all his files from one source with the exact same license and especially buyers with bigger budgets are not going to hunt it all down with the various exclusive licenses to make sure all files have the same rights.
Plus the macros offer editor services, so you donīt even have to spend so much time looking for files, they do it for you.
I wish Alamy all the best, if they give me a sensible and simple upload system I will upload directly again.
But between low sales and the complicated uploads I very discouraged. But some of my images go there via partner portals, that is a lot easier for me.
But they have the most easiest system. Images only needs keywords and title. Upload them and they are directly on sale.
-
But they have the most easiest system. Images only needs keywords and title. Upload them and they are directly on sale.
If you have releases, you have to go through their system after upload, otherwise they will show as not having releases.
Granted, they will be on sale as unreleased if you don't.
-
But they have the most easiest system. Images only needs keywords and title. Upload them and they are directly on sale.
True. But how much exposure do they get if the keywords aren't prioritised and if you don't fill in the optional details? If failing to prioritise your top 10 keywords pushes your image behind all the prioritised ones, then your chances of getting a sale will be greatly diminished.
If a file doesn't make the first five or six pages for a given search it is pretty much dead.
-
But they have the most easiest system. Images only needs keywords and title. Upload them and they are directly on sale.
True. But how much exposure do they get if the keywords aren't prioritised and if you don't fill in the optional details? If failing to prioritise your top 10 keywords pushes your image behind all the prioritised ones, then your chances of getting a sale will be greatly diminished.
If a file doesn't make the first five or six pages for a given search it is pretty much dead.
At the moment, I'm not sure that doing that makes all that much difference.
I'm going through my back catalogue (am at Aug 2011 now), I guess I should test to see if their system is working yet.
The most obvious thing I can see in their search right now, and for the past month at least is that they are alternating contributors, so for one search (an event) where I and one other person submitted images, they are A, B, A, B all the way down, and I just found one search term where there are only two people have submitted files, I have one, they have about 20, and it's A, B, A, A A etc. So it seems like that is a policy, in some cases at least trumping Rank.
-
Alamy is a fantastic agency, especially if you submit UK & European editorial images. Generic microstock images on white background won't do well there, unfortunately.
As stated above, their keywording system is complicated and I wish they would do a better job at explaining how it works. I've come to the conclusion that Alamy may not even know how Alamy works.
The contributors that do understand the system are doing very well (they state this publicy) and getting good keyword rankings. Alamy provide a lot of analytics so if you know how to use it and have the patience, there's huge opportunities to increase CTRs.
As for our mere mortals, coming from a MS background, it's tough going to understand it all. Their latest "upgrade" with the traffic light system was a disaster.
I feel they have a bright future ahead, although contributors are certainly feeling the pressure of lowered incomes due to over-saturation, not too different to what's going on at MS. They're probably feeling some pressure from the success of some MS agencies as well as some editorial clients are shopping around. With those threats in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if Alamy introduce some sort of subs model soon, much to the fury of veterans on there (some are already upset that Royalty-Free is available on there!).
I have a lot more to say but I'll stop here. Go Alamy go!
-
But they have the most easiest system. Images only needs keywords and title. Upload them and they are directly on sale.
True. But how much exposure do they get if the keywords aren't prioritised and if you don't fill in the optional details? If failing to prioritise your top 10 keywords pushes your image behind all the prioritised ones, then your chances of getting a sale will be greatly diminished.
If a file doesn't make the first five or six pages for a given search it is pretty much dead.
At the moment, I'm not sure that doing that makes all that much difference.
I'm going through my back catalogue (am at Aug 2011 now), I guess I should test to see if their system is working yet.
Yes, but uploading is not much extra effort. It is just uploading. So still worth it.
-
Alamy is a fantastic agency, especially if you submit UK & European editorial images. Generic microstock images on white background won't do well there, unfortunately.
As stated above, their keywording system is complicated and I wish they would do a better job at explaining how it works. I've come to the conclusion that Alamy may not even know how Alamy works.
The contributors that do understand the system are doing very well (they state this publicy) and getting good keyword rankings. Alamy provide a lot of analytics so if you know how to use it and have the patience, there's huge opportunities to increase CTRs.
As for our mere mortals, coming from a MS background, it's tough going to understand it all. Their latest "upgrade" with the traffic light system was a disaster.
I feel they have a bright future ahead, although contributors are certainly feeling the pressure of lowered incomes due to over-saturation, not too different to what's going on at MS. They're probably feeling some pressure from the success of some MS agencies as well. With those threats in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if Alamy introduce some sort of subs model soon, much to the fury of veterans on there (some are already upset that Royalty-Free is available on there!).
I have a lot more to say but I'll stop here. Go Alamy go!
The mind boggles at how you could come to this conclusion, which micros are making a success of subs recently. The pressure would be the micros move to premium images and doing deals with and buying up editorial companies.
-
The mind boggles at how you could come to this conclusion, which micros are making a success of subs recently. The pressure would be the micros move to premium images and doing deals with and buying up editorial companies.
They cleverly called it "Download Packs". Here's a thread discussing it:
http://discussion.alamy.com/topic/7987-download-packs/ (http://discussion.alamy.com/topic/7987-download-packs/)
It appears to be only for personal usage at the moment.
-
The mind boggles at how you could come to this conclusion, which micros are making a success of subs recently. The pressure would be the micros move to premium images and doing deals with and buying up editorial companies.
They cleverly called it "Download Packs". Here's a thread discussing it:
[url]http://discussion.alamy.com/topic/7987-download-packs/[/url] ([url]http://discussion.alamy.com/topic/7987-download-packs/[/url])
It appears to be only for personal usage at the moment.
It's not just for personal use, all the columns are selectable.
-
Alamy is a fantastic agency, especially if you submit UK & European editorial images. Generic microstock images on white background won't do well there, unfortunately.
From the sales thread, it seems that submitters of North American content seem to do better, in general (in particular, they seem to get a higher rpd).
Also one of the $100k submitters from all of the blogs has, to my great surprise, a LOT of microstock-style isolations on white.
-
The mind boggles at how you could come to this conclusion, which micros are making a success of subs recently. The pressure would be the micros move to premium images and doing deals with and buying up editorial companies.
They cleverly called it "Download Packs". Here's a thread discussing it:
[url]http://discussion.alamy.com/topic/7987-download-packs/[/url] ([url]http://discussion.alamy.com/topic/7987-download-packs/[/url])
It appears to be only for personal usage at the moment.
They have just got rid of the middleman, the negotiator who did the deals, and made them available to everyone. This is nowhere near subs, and since istock put in a floor of 0.2C commission no one can compete in that market anymore.
-
They have just got rid of the middleman, the negotiator who did the deals, and made them available to everyone.
?????
-
They have just got rid of the middleman, the negotiator who did the deals, and made them available to everyone.
?????
At most stock sites enterprise customers get deals for bulk, these packs just democratise the practice, the prices are not new just formalised. Lots of people complained about Alamy prices getting lower over the years and not understanding why, just discounting and now it's there for all to see. A win win for everyone, more transparency for contributors, a one stop shop for customers and customer service can sort more important things. One thing its not is the direction of travel to competing with the micros for subs, which is what my mind was boggling at.
-
They have just got rid of the middleman, the negotiator who did the deals, and made them available to everyone.
?????
At most stock sites enterprise customers get deals for bulk, these packs just democratise the practice, the prices are not new just formalised. Lots of people complained about Alamy prices getting lower over the years and not understanding why, just discounting and now it's there for all to see. A win win for everyone, more transparency for contributors, a one stop shop for customers and customer service can sort more important things. One thing its not is the direction of travel to competing with the micros for subs, which is what my mind was boggling at.
A sub could be any price.
But even (apparently) non-sub sales can be pretty low:
http://discussion.alamy.com/topic/8964-slow-month-2018/?do=findComment&comment=160105 (http://discussion.alamy.com/topic/8964-slow-month-2018/?do=findComment&comment=160105)
-
The contributors that do understand the system are doing very well (they state this publicy) and getting good keyword rankings. Alamy provide a lot of analytics so if you know how to use it and have the patience, there's huge opportunities to increase CTRs.
It's all comparative but the first few posts in this thread indicate that even the most successful and professional of their contributors are lucky to be making $2,000 a month. That's nice money, of course, but it's not really a living wage in the West. People self-reporting "doing very well" can mean a lot of different things - the newbie picking up a $5 first sale tends to view him or her self as having a great achievement to report. Others like to exaggerate their success with vaguely-worded "woo-yay" type comments that paint them as stock-photo heroes.
-
if you know how to use it and have the patience, there's huge opportunities to increase CTRs.
But if everybody does it, everybody ends up back where they started (and that's assuming it works). Which means making a huge effort to achieve nothing. There can't be 1,000 people getting their picture onto the first page of a search.
-
Test result #1 is in:
I had a pic from 2011 featuring a particular boat. I had its name in the caption, but NOT in the keywords.
As the caption is searchable, my file was findable, at #12 of 504 on the ship's name. Not bad at all!
(NB: other photos I had of the same ship, with the name already in the keywords, but not yet as supertags, were dotted evenly throughout the search, as I've been noticing happens recently. Note that these files were below the file which didn't have the word in the keywords.)
(Creative and Relevant, which seem to be more or less the same, at least at the very top of a search)
Put the keyword as a supertag in last night. Since then the database has updated, the ship's name is now showing in the list of keywords and my pic is ... #12 of 504!
Still, it might be of benefit in a future search shake-up.
-
There can't be 1,000 people getting their picture onto the first page of a search.
What I've discovered is that Alamy is an encyclopedic database with buyers that are searching for exactly what they want (and our job to rank highly for those). Some of the search results I see in my analytics can be quite specific. Past few days I've had the following specific search results where my images came up:
- "ear human NOT animal NOT device"
- "BMW R75 ww2"
- "1960s cafe motorcycle"
- "theresa may florence speech"
- "london bridge terror attack 2017"
Dare I say this...since Alamy buyers tend, in general, be more "sophisticated" than at Microstock, some contributors can rank highly for niche subjects by anticipating those technical keywords and similars. I'm useless at botanic stuff but some contributors on there do quite well with exotic plants and know exactly how to keyword for those niche buyers.
I picked out the following exotic flower randomly from theflowerexpert.com and cross-checked on Alamy how many results there were searching for the scientific name (Cautleya Lutea)...and only 4!
http://www.alamy.com/search.html?CreativeOn=1&adv=1&ag=0&all=1&creative=&et=0x000000000000000000000&vp=0&loc=0&qt=Cautleya%20Lutea&qn=&lic=6&lic=1&imgt=0&archive=1&dtfr=&dtto=&hc=&selectdate=&size=0xFF&aqt=&epqt=&oqt=&nqt=>ype=0 (http://www.alamy.com/search.html?CreativeOn=1&adv=1&ag=0&all=1&creative=&et=0x000000000000000000000&vp=0&loc=0&qt=Cautleya%20Lutea&qn=&lic=6&lic=1&imgt=0&archive=1&dtfr=&dtto=&hc=&selectdate=&size=0xFF&aqt=&epqt=&oqt=&nqt=>ype=0)
Obviously not going to be a huge demand for this but competition is non-existent. Now, thinking more broadly about other specialist subjects...there's opportunities.
Being a specialist in one area is helpful...as well as anticipating what those buyers search for terminology. My port on there is too generalist at the moment, unfortunately, hence few downloads.
-
Obviously not going to be a huge demand for this but competition is non-existent. Now, thinking more broadly about other specialist subjects...there's opportunities.
This is why I've never been bothered about the lack of "high commercial value" images in my portfolio. A search on "beautiful woman" produces 3.7 million results, a search on Rana cretensis produces 3 results. Now, I could photograph beautiful women till the cows come home and not have much chance of getting a sale, whereas if I go and find a Cretan frog I'll get on the first page of results and if only one-in-a-million as many buyers search for the frog as for a beautiful woman my chances of a sale will almost certainly be better for the frog than for the woman.
I've applied this theory to microstock but it probably works even better for Alamy, where the sale value if I do eventually get a hit would probably be much higher than on the micros, so a single hit could justify all the work.
-
In the old days, I felt that was working well for me on iS, expecially as I could plus rare-supply species, which raised the price (but made me feel guilty if they were being bought by conservation organisations). With the rapidly dropping prices, and plussing almost uniquely being for expensive multi-model shoots, it's not so good now.
I'm having to do some rethinking, though. I looked up some species for AoA, and the number of searches recorded there in the past year*, and for two specific - not unusual - species, that number is fewer than the number of sales I had of that species on iS in the same time. Plus, a unique photo on Alamy can still go for under $5 if the buyer has a good discount (I've actually had that happen).
*I understand that these searches are not 'all searches', but searches from a selection of buyers. Peers used to say on the forums (take with a pinch of salt) that AoA was 'Alamy's top buyers', but support told me it was not only the 'top' buyers, but a cross-section.
-
I've applied this theory to microstock but it probably works even better for Alamy, where the sale value if I do eventually get a hit would probably be much higher than on the micros, so a single hit could justify all the work.
Absolutely and I would add that their Alamy Live News can be highly profitable - why would anybody send live news via microstock and wait hours/days until approval is beyond me. Now, i'm starting to sound like a poster-boy for Alamy haha
$500+ licenses do occur at Alamy, although the average tends to be about gross $50-75. This is compared with the 75cents or so for Microstock (my own data).
Plus, a unique photo on Alamy can still go for under $5 if the buyer has a good discount (I've actually had that happen).
I know what you mean. I had a gross $2.20 license of a Rights-Managed last week. That's just a slap in a face.
I assume you're not duplicating and licensing those unique images RM and exclusively? I'm not so sure anymore whether being exclusive and RM on Alamy is the best strategy.
*I understand that these searches are not 'all searches', but searches from a selection of buyers. Peers used to say on the forums (take with a pinch of salt) that AoA was 'Alamy's top buyers', but support told me it was not only the 'top' buyers, but a cross-section.
Even if they're not all searches, I find the daily analytics the best part of contributing to Alamy since they're screaming at us what clients are searching for. Makes it easier to work around those keywords to earn. Last 7 days there's been 6 sales for the keyword/phrase "Masseur Doing Massage On Man Body In The Spa Salon". *, I don't have any of those images ;D
-
I assume you're not duplicating and licensing those unique images RM and exclusively? I'm not so sure anymore whether being exclusive and RM on Alamy is the best strategy.
No, exclusive RF at iStock; I haven't uploaded there for over 18 months, but because of what I wrote above, I'm reconsidering, though at an average of c$2 (in the GODs, it was more like $7), it's hardly worth the effort of learning the new uploading system.
I upload RM at Alamy, and don't upload anywhere else. My life is 'irregular': I can't make advance decisions on where to go and shoot (not that the weather here was ever conducive to that), so no chance of building up and maintaining the large numbers necessary to supply the pukka wildlife libraries, but I'm lucky in that no-one depends on me financially, only for time.
-
Conversely, what's with v, sic, which is apparently the fourth-highest search term this month (under dog, London and Alamy, sic)?
ISTR the last time I looked, a few months (?) back, v and Alamy were high then too.
-
My Alamy is pretty much aligned with the ranks published on the right side of this page: 5.4% of my 2017 revenue. Not negligible, but far from the success story claimed by the OP.
They can do better.
Much better!
-
Not negligible, but far from the success story claimed by the OP.
They can do better.
Much better!
The only claim was that they had done blog posts with three people who had totalled more than $100k. Your experience doesn't contradict that.
I'm sure they would like to hear from you if you know how they can do "much better".
-
Now, the million dollar club would be truly impressive!
-
I suppose all sites have their customer base. But what's the point competing with yourself? Buyers are not dumb. It's very easy to have multiple accounts at different agencies and follow the cheap and free offers.
Also, if we're continue to support penny sites by uploading our work there, they are going to kill contributor friendly sites like Alamy.
If you upload the same images to Alamy and to cheap sites, people buy them on the cheap sites. Alamy can work for you if you upload your premium stuff there and only there.
I disagree with this in general. I have quite an overlap of images that are both on macrostock and microstock and they sell in both worlds.
This way the customer gets all his files from one source with the exact same license and especially buyers with bigger budgets are not going to hunt it all down with the various exclusive licenses to make sure all files have the same rights.
Plus the macros offer editor services, so you donīt even have to spend so much time looking for files, they do it for you.
I wish Alamy all the best, if they give me a sensible and simple upload system I will upload directly again.
But between low sales and the complicated uploads I very discouraged. But some of my images go there via partner portals, that is a lot easier for me.
-
You can simply forget that contributors will all stop at once supporting Microstock. Top contributors only on Shutterstock are making good money on there and i can not believe that they will just cancel this.
I never will understand the statement of "making pennies". Are people really seing at the end of the month a balance of few pennies on SS or maybe 400 dollars. The amount that is paid to the bank is important. A stock agency can make a payout of 115 million per year to contributors. I dont care if it contains millions of 50 cent sales of thousands of 500+ sales.
People support the agencies that gives the best monthly income and not per sale. Should i choose an traditional agency because it gives me 2 sales totaling 200 dollars or microstock that gives me 1000 sales for 500 dollars.
Its to late for changes and we life only one time to wait for a miracle.
-
Micro, if you expect little, you will get little. In the end it's up to you what you want. Contributors who look at the next penny ahead instead of looking a little bit further (even some animals can wait for reward - why can't photographers? Is it a matter of greed, selfishness ignorance or stupidity?) ruin it for the rest of the trade.
-
Yes. But the reward in this time we wait for will be most of the time much lower then the total of sales already made on microstock. It is again the 200x1 or 1x100 thing(when lucky).
You will not favour yourself by ignoring it. Take a well know microstock agency. 10 years ago they paid 3 million per year to.contributors. Now in 2017 they paid in 12 months time 115 million to contributors. Only in this 12 months. 1 agency. This says allready a lot where the money is.
-
Micro, if you expect little, you will get little. In the end it's up to you what you want. Contributors who look at the next penny ahead instead of looking a little bit further (even some animals can wait for reward - why can't photographers? Is it a matter of greed, selfishness ignorance or stupidity?) ruin it for the rest of the trade.
Total nonsense.
There's never any guarantee that because you want a lot you will get anything at all.
Digital technology changed the balance and opened the doors to the masses - that was what ruined things for the old-timers who were used to coining it in without encountering serious competition.
But I thought this old argument had died of boredom a decade ago.
-
And in fact, on some of the micros, buying a single image can be pretty expensive.
FWIW, I've seen at least a couple of magazines and editorial publishers who seem to buy mainly from SS and Alamy. I'm guessing (pure speculation) that they buy most from SS to keep end price down (which as a consumer I have to appreciate), but buy from Alamy when they can't get what they want at SS. And maybe use specialist agencies occasionally where even Alamy fails.
-
And in fact, on some of the micros, buying a single image can be pretty expensive.
FWIW, I've seen at least a couple of magazines and editorial publishers who seem to buy mainly from SS and Alamy. I'm guessing (pure speculation) that they buy most from SS to keep end price down (which as a consumer I have to appreciate), but buy from Alamy when they can't get what they want at SS. And maybe use specialist agencies occasionally where even Alamy fails.
The Shutterstock images being finable on magazines and other publications i can confirm.They seem to get deeper into the editorial market besides commercial.
Mirco
-
Not negligible, but far from the success story claimed by the OP.
They can do better.
Much better!
The only claim was that they had done blog posts with three people who had totalled more than $100k. Your experience doesn't contradict that.
I'm sure they would like to hear from you if you know how they can do "much better".
I'm no marketing expert, therefore I'm not in the position to advise anyone how to do better. If I'll be that expert, I would probably sell my stuff myself, instead of sharing revenues with third parties.
Meanwhile, since I'm not that expert, I delegate the job to agencies and focus on what I do better.
When looking at the bottom line, it is rather obvious who's doing a good job and who's lagging behind. I can tell that with very high accuracy. I'm an expert at it. I can tell with facts and numbers that Alamy is NOT a good performer. They can do better. Much better. :P
-
Not negligible, but far from the success story claimed by the OP.
They can do better.
Much better!
The only claim was that they had done blog posts with three people who had totalled more than $100k. Your experience doesn't contradict that.
I'm sure they would like to hear from you if you know how they can do "much better".
I'm no marketing expert, therefore I'm not in the position to advise anyone how to do better. If I'll be that expert, I would probably sell my stuff myself, instead of sharing revenues with third parties.
Meanwhile, since I'm not that expert, I delegate the job to agencies and focus on what I do better.
When looking at the bottom line, it is rather obvious who's doing a good job and who's lagging behind. I can tell that with very high accuracy. I'm an expert at it. I can tell with facts and numbers that Alamy is NOT a good performer. They can do better. Much better. :P
Agreed that they could do better, but almost certainly the people who report here are not fully representative of Alamy contributors (e.g. presumably a proportion of those who report on the poll here have the same pics on micros and Alamy). Also those reporting for Alamy will be reporting on stills alone, whereas the others will have many people reporting stills and video, or video only.
Combined with all the other caveats about the poll, it would not tell me anything more about Alamy than it does about the others in the poll.
What tells me most about Alamy is that they are celebrating people who have grossed over $100k over many years, which as others have pointed out isn't all that much net per year.
The other thing which tells something about Alamy* is their sales thread each month, when you can see how many thousands of files people have who make even a fairly modest amount of sales/money (and remember that most report gross).
*But it's only a very tiny number of Alamy submitters who post on the forums.
All that said, I still prefer Alamy to the micros, for all sorts of reasons.
But no-one's perfect (including me).
-
I'm no marketing expert, therefore I'm not in the position to advise anyone how to do better. ..... Alamy is NOT a good performer. They can do better. Much better. :P
In other words, your repeated insistence that they can do much better is what is known as an "unsupported assertion".
-
I'm no marketing expert, therefore I'm not in the position to advise anyone how to do better. ..... Alamy is NOT a good performer. They can do better. Much better. :P
In other words, your repeated insistence that they can do much better is what is known as an "unsupported assertion".
On the contrary: numbers are speaking very loudly: 5.4% of my revenue and number 6 among all my agencies are NOT indicators of good performance.
When I know for a fact that I'm sick, I go to a doctor. I'm expecting the doctor to cure me. I'm paying him to do just that. Do you also expect me to be able to advise my doctor on how to cure me? I doubt! When that doctor is failing to cure me and other doctors succeed, the only logical conclusion is that my doctor can do better. Much better. I can say that without having a degree in medicine, because I know for a fact that I'm still sick.
Replace doctor with mechanic. You are still allowed to declare a mechanic incompetent, even without knowing anything about engines, if he is not able to fix your car, when 5 other mechanics can do just that.
Replace mechanic with your favorite football team: you will certainly say that they can do better, if they end-up on the 6th position at the end of the championship (without you being a professional athlete)
Similarly, I will consider Alamy a good performer when they will be able to break into my Top3.
Until then, the factual assertion and the obvious conclusion are simple: they can do better! Much Better! :P
-
I'm no marketing expert, therefore I'm not in the position to advise anyone how to do better. ..... Alamy is NOT a good performer. They can do better. Much better. :P
In other words, your repeated insistence that they can do much better is what is known as an "unsupported assertion".
On the contrary: numbers are speaking very loudly: 5.4% of my revenue and number 6 among all my agencies are NOT indicators of good performance.
I will consider Alamy a good performer when they will be able to break into my Top3.
Until then, the factual assertion and the obvious conclusion are simple: they can do better! Much Better! :P
So every agency can do much better until it is number one in your sales list?
-
I'm no marketing expert, therefore I'm not in the position to advise anyone how to do better. ..... Alamy is NOT a good performer. They can do better. Much better. :P
In other words, your repeated insistence that they can do much better is what is known as an "unsupported assertion".
On the contrary: numbers are speaking very loudly: 5.4% of my revenue and number 6 among all my agencies are NOT indicators of good performance.
I will consider Alamy a good performer when they will be able to break into my Top3.
Until then, the factual assertion and the obvious conclusion are simple: they can do better! Much Better! :P
So every agency can do much better until it is number one in your sales list?
You replied too fast. See the doctor/mechanic edit on the post above.
I didn't say number one. I said top 3. Until then, an agency can do better. Moreover, when an agency is number 6, with only 5.4% of my revenue, then that agency can do MUCH better! As simple as that!
-
I'm no marketing expert, therefore I'm not in the position to advise anyone how to do better. ..... Alamy is NOT a good performer. They can do better. Much better. :P
In other words, your repeated insistence that they can do much better is what is known as an "unsupported assertion".
On the contrary: numbers are speaking very loudly: 5.4% of my revenue and number 6 among all my agencies are NOT indicators of good performance.
I will consider Alamy a good performer when they will be able to break into my Top3.
Until then, the factual assertion and the obvious conclusion are simple: they can do better! Much Better! :P
So every agency can do much better until it is number one in your sales list?
You replied too fast. See the doctor/mechanic edit on the post above.
I did't say number one. I said top 3. Until then, an agency can do better. Moreover, when an agency is number 6, with only 5.4% of my revenue, then that agency can do MUCH better! As simple as that!
Ah, but that's my point precisely. Why should top three be good enough? I think only the top spot in your list is good enough because, clearly, everybody else can do better, much better. You don't set the bar high enough. Alamy needs to adopt all the policies and practices or Shutterstock, or whoever is number 1, and not be satisfied until they have sold a billion licenses.
-
I'm no marketing expert, therefore I'm not in the position to advise anyone how to do better. ..... Alamy is NOT a good performer. They can do better. Much better. :P
In other words, your repeated insistence that they can do much better is what is known as an "unsupported assertion".
On the contrary: numbers are speaking very loudly: 5.4% of my revenue and number 6 among all my agencies are NOT indicators of good performance.
I will consider Alamy a good performer when they will be able to break into my Top3.
Until then, the factual assertion and the obvious conclusion are simple: they can do better! Much Better! :P
So every agency can do much better until it is number one in your sales list?
You replied too fast. See the doctor/mechanic edit on the post above.
I did't say number one. I said top 3. Until then, an agency can do better. Moreover, when an agency is number 6, with only 5.4% of my revenue, then that agency can do MUCH better! As simple as that!
Ah, but that's my point precisely. Why should top three be good enough? I think only the top spot in your list is good enough because, clearly, everybody else can do better, much better. You don't set the bar high enough. Alamy needs to adopt all the policies and practices or Shutterstock, or whoever is number 1, and not be satisfied until they have sold a billion licenses.
If you doubled earnings at all agencies they would all be doing much better, but percentages would remain the same. As the OP infers if you take inspiration from their $100,000 blog posts you the contributor could do much better and earn more for Alamy, you don't expect them to do the work, do you?
-
I'm no marketing expert, therefore I'm not in the position to advise anyone how to do better. ..... Alamy is NOT a good performer. They can do better. Much better. :P
In other words, your repeated insistence that they can do much better is what is known as an "unsupported assertion".
On the contrary: numbers are speaking very loudly: 5.4% of my revenue and number 6 among all my agencies are NOT indicators of good performance.
I will consider Alamy a good performer when they will be able to break into my Top3.
Until then, the factual assertion and the obvious conclusion are simple: they can do better! Much Better! :P
So every agency can do much better until it is number one in your sales list?
You replied too fast. See the doctor/mechanic edit on the post above.
I did't say number one. I said top 3. Until then, an agency can do better. Moreover, when an agency is number 6, with only 5.4% of my revenue, then that agency can do MUCH better! As simple as that!
Ah, but that's my point precisely. Why should top three be good enough? I think only the top spot in your list is good enough because, clearly, everybody else can do better, much better. You don't set the bar high enough. Alamy needs to adopt all the policies and practices or Shutterstock, or whoever is number 1, and not be satisfied until they have sold a billion licenses.
This is my criteria for "good performer", around that level of revenue.
If your definition for "good performer" is only applicable to number one, then it obviously means that, for you, Alamy can do MUCH, MUCH better, in order to become a good performer.
You should then agree with me that they can do "much better", before doing "MUCH, MUCH better" as you expect them to do.
This is not the Olympics, where some say that it is only important to participate. We can give Alamy a "participation" prize, if you prefer.
-
Hang on, though ... why do you think you know what ranking Alamy has for me? It was already in my top three for earnings last month. So perhaps it can't do better. It certainly already meets your criterion for an agency that's doing well.
-
Hang on, though ... why do you think you know what ranking Alamy has for me? It was already in my top three for earnings last month. So perhaps it can't do better. It certainly already meets your criterion for an agency that's doing well.
As I already said before, I'm not only looking at my own stats to state that Alamy is lagging behind (as you do)
My stats are virtually identical with the stats we see on the right side of the page.
Of course it doesn't mean certainty, but it means that there is a higher probability that I'm right and you are wrong.
It means that for me, as well as for many others, Alamy can do better. Much better! :P
-
Hang on, though ... why do you think you know what ranking Alamy has for me? It was already in my top three for earnings last month. So perhaps it can't do better. It certainly already meets your criterion for an agency that's doing well.
As I already said before, I'm not only looking at my own stats to state that Alamy is lagging behind (as you do)
My stats are virtually identical with the stats we see on the right side of the page.
Of course it doesn't mean certainty, but it means that there is a higher probability that I'm right and you are wrong.
It means that for me, as well as for many others, Alamy can do better. Much better! :P
Actually, it probably means we have different portfolios and supply different sites. I'm not on Adobe (I fell out with Fotolia) or Pond 5, and for a few months Alamy has been outperforming iStock-of-the-exciting-news-announcements.
But how can you compare, when Alamy and the micros sell into different markets? In the end it's apples vs oranges. And because a microstock commercial oriented site does well, that doesn't mean a midstock editorial oriented site should be able to produce the same returns.
If you are milking a cow and a goat* and you find that the goat produces less milk than the cow, it doesn't mean the goat can do much better - it means it is not a cow, it is a goat.
* I've milked both so this is a real-world comparison.
-
Hang on, though ... why do you think you know what ranking Alamy has for me? It was already in my top three for earnings last month. So perhaps it can't do better. It certainly already meets your criterion for an agency that's doing well.
As I already said before, I'm not only looking at my own stats to state that Alamy is lagging behind (as you do)
My stats are virtually identical with the stats we see on the right side of the page.
Of course it doesn't mean certainty, but it means that there is a higher probability that I'm right and you are wrong.
It means that for me, as well as for many others, Alamy can do better. Much better! :P
Actually, it probably means we have different portfolios and supply different sites. I'm not on Adobe (I fell out with Fotolia) or Pond 5, and for a few months Alamy has been outperforming iStock-of-the-exciting-news-announcements.
But how can you compare, when Alamy and the micros sell into different markets? In the end it's apples vs oranges. And because a microstock commercial oriented site does well, that doesn't mean a midstock editorial oriented site should be able to produce the same returns.
If you are milking a cow and a goat* and you find that the goat produces less milk than the cow, it doesn't mean the goat can do much better - it means it is not a cow, it is a goat.
* I've milked both so this is a real-world comparison.
Macro? Micro?
Please let me know if these January Alamy sales look like "macro" to you (don't forget to apply 30%-50% to those numbers), or if these January SS sales look like "micro" to you.
If both Alamy and SS have micro sales and macro sales (as you can see), your Alamy logic should also apply to SS. A self imposed exclusivity with SS should do you the same good as your self imposed exclusivity with Alamy.
Practice shows that, in this time and age when every single possible theme is covered from dozens of angles, exclusivity matters very little on your overall revenue.
Keep on deluding yourself that it does the job for you and Alamy. I can bet that you will get 30% more if you spread your eggs on multiple baskets!
What matters is the bottom line. The bottom line is that Alamy is number 6 with only 5.4% of sales. Not negligible, but they can do better, much better. :P
-
I don't know where you've got the idea that I've got self-imposed exclusivity with Alamy. I never said that. I'm on SS, iS, 123, DT, BS and CanStockPhoto as well.
I didn't call Alamy a "macro" either. It's a hybrid but it markets itself with generally higher prices than the others and doesn't aim primarily at the subscription market. Would it generate more money if it did? Maybe, who can tell? But then it wouldn't be Alamy, would it?
-
I don't know where you've got the idea that I've got self-imposed exclusivity with Alamy. I never said that. I'm on SS, iS, 123, DT, BS and CanStockPhoto as well.
I didn't call Alamy a "macro" either. It's a hybrid but it markets itself with generally higher prices than the others and doesn't aim primarily at the subscription market. Would it generate more money if it did? Maybe, who can tell? But then it wouldn't be Alamy, would it?
Ah Ok,
I assumed that when you said:
" how can you compare, when Alamy and the micros sell into different markets?",
you actually meant that is also our upload strategy. My bad.
My point is (see above examples) that both Alamy and SS are tapping both micro and macro markets (maybe mid-stock is a better term)
This is why I'm saying that Alamy can to do better than 5.4% of my revenue.
-
It's not totally logical to complain that Alamy "could do better" while supporting and praising the sites which undercut it.
-
My point is (see above examples) that both Alamy and SS are tapping both micro and macro markets (maybe mid-stock is a better term)
This is why I'm saying that Alamy can to do better than 5.4% of my revenue.
OK I'm going to stop boring everyone with replies after this. I just want to make a final observation, which is that SS has spent 14 years establishing its relationship with its customers. There's no reason to think any of those customers would switch to Alamy even if it duplicated the SS pricing and tried to copy the marketing techniques SS used and if they did start to switch, you can bet that SS would cut its prices - and our commissions - to counter that.
There's a long string of sites on the bottom of the list that have tried to duplicate the market of the successful few and failed. Its not an accident that iS, SS, DT, BS, Fot (Adobe), 123 and CanStockPhoto are all among the oldest sites. Only Pond 5 and Deposit Photos in the two top tiers were set up since 2005 IIRC. DP managed to break through with an extremely aggressive marketing strategy backed by a huge budget (but still only got to 6th place) and Pond 5 is for footage, not stills.
I recall someone observing that the reason DT didn't rise above 3rd place in the poll in the early days was probably because it paid commissions of 50%, which limited its advertising budget, while iS and SS had a lot more cash to put into promotions. So, really, the first thing Alamy would need to do if it was going to "do better" would be to cut the commissions to 20% or less.... Not really what we are looking for, is it?
-
Also remember last year when someone (Mirco?) persuaded people over on the Alamy forum (i.e. some of who don't come here as they don't supply the micros) to input their figures for the poll here - Alamy's earnings rating went up considerably, but people here didn't believe it.
Meaning other suppliers do better than most of us here (I can't poll for Alamy, as it would take my iS earnings out of exclusive, so both of the iS figures would be more inaccurate than they might otherwise be, and anyone else who is Exclusive RF at iS and RM on Alamy is in the same position).
-
Also remember last year when someone (Mirco?) persuaded people over on the Alamy forum (i.e. some of who don't come here as they don't supply the micros) to input their figures for the poll here - Alamy's earnings rating went up considerably, but people here didn't believe it.
Meaning other suppliers do better than most of us here (I can't poll for Alamy, as it would take my iS earnings out of exclusive, so both of the iS figures would be more inaccurate than they might otherwise be, and anyone else who is Exclusive RF at iS and RM on Alamy is in the same position).
Oh really? :o You really believed that? That was another publicity stunt coordinated by the likes of the OP. Lol!
What makes you believe that similar top earners from other agencies spend time updating the stats?
In my view, the selection of people using this forum is representative and gives a decent view of the relative positioning of all agencies on the marketplace. That stunt was such an obvious cheat! ;)
One more thing: Alamy can clearly do better. But it doesn't mean they should copy SS.
Of course we like to see 50% commissions! But this is not very efficient, if their strategy and price structure only leads to a dozen of sales a month or 5 times less revenue than the 3rd top competitor.
50% of nothing is nothing.
-
Also remember last year when someone (Mirco?) persuaded people over on the Alamy forum (i.e. some of who don't come here as they don't supply the micros) to input their figures for the poll here - Alamy's earnings rating went up considerably, but people here didn't believe it.
Meaning other suppliers do better than most of us here (I can't poll for Alamy, as it would take my iS earnings out of exclusive, so both of the iS figures would be more inaccurate than they might otherwise be, and anyone else who is Exclusive RF at iS and RM on Alamy is in the same position).
Oh really? :o You really believed that? That was another publicity stunt coordinated by the likes of the OP. Lol!
Now you're just being silly.
It was over on the Alamy forum and talked about there.
What makes you believe that similar top earners from other agencies spend time updating the stats?
Where did I say that?
In my view, the selection of people using this forum is representative and gives a decent view of the relative positioning of all agencies on the marketplace. That stunt was such an obvious cheat! ;)
Winky noted
One more thing: Alamy can clearly do better. But it doesn't mean they should copy SS.
Of course we like to see 50% commissions! But this is not very efficient, if their strategy and price structure only leads to a dozen of sales a month or 5 times less revenue than the 3rd top competitor.
For you.
Everyone's port is different, and some will do better at some agencies than others. Different buyers.
As said above, it's not rational to compare ports with e.g. lots of videos and vectors with ports on Alamy where videos are a virtual non-starter and AFAIK, they don't sell vectors.
So the poll tells us nothing at all about the relevance of Alamy photo-sales to micro-stockers, many of whom supply multiple media. And it doesn't really say anything to those who (like me) supply only photos for the same reason.
What individuals like you and I find is relevant and accurate, but only for each individual themselves.
-
Oh really? :o You really believed that? That was another publicity stunt coordinated by the likes of the OP. Lol!
Hey there,
You're of course entitled to your opinion, but I can confirm that no-one at Alamy had anything to do with encouraging others to post their results here. There was no publicity stunt.
Reading through the comments here, it seems many take the view that $100k gross sales (before commission deductions) is not a significant figure or "not enough to earn a living off". A couple of points on that if I may:
1 - The "$100k" club has a nice ring to it - as mentioned in my first post, many have made several hundred, but that's the minimum requirement to be featured
2 - Alamy has always been honest and has openly encouraged photographers to use us for additional revenue streams on top of their other ventures. We're non-exclusive. We want photographers to make the most they can from their portfolio. We'd love to be the only agency they use, but we've never claimed to necessarily be the only place you should place your work. Lots of photographers do use us exclusively and lots of photographers earn a very nice living from Alamy sales alone, but many have other irons in the fire too - whether that's private commissions, other full time jobs or the use of other non-exclusive libraries.
It's your call as to how you feel, but we read these forums to engage with photographers, learn and understand what's important to you. We're not here for any publicity stunts or tricks. I posted a link to these blogs because there are lots of questions posted here about "who's selling" and "whats selling" on Alamy, so hopefully they provide a bit of insight.
Cheers
James A
-
Also remember last year when someone (Mirco?) persuaded people over on the Alamy forum (i.e. some of who don't come here as they don't supply the micros) to input their figures for the poll here - Alamy's earnings rating went up considerably, but people here didn't believe it.
Meaning other suppliers do better than most of us here (I can't poll for Alamy, as it would take my iS earnings out of exclusive, so both of the iS figures would be more inaccurate than they might otherwise be, and anyone else who is Exclusive RF at iS and RM on Alamy is in the same position).
Oh really? :o You really believed that? That was another publicity stunt coordinated by the likes of the OP. Lol!
Now you're just being silly.
It was over on the Alamy forum and talked about there.
What makes you believe that similar top earners from other agencies spend time updating the stats?
Where did I say that?
In my view, the selection of people using this forum is representative and gives a decent view of the relative positioning of all agencies on the marketplace. That stunt was such an obvious cheat! ;)
Winky noted
One more thing: Alamy can clearly do better. But it doesn't mean they should copy SS.
Of course we like to see 50% commissions! But this is not very efficient, if their strategy and price structure only leads to a dozen of sales a month or 5 times less revenue than the 3rd top competitor.
For you.
Everyone's port is different, and some will do better at some agencies than others. Different buyers.
As said above, it's not rational to compare ports with e.g. lots of videos and vectors with ports on Alamy where videos are a virtual non-starter and AFAIK, they don't sell vectors.
So the poll tells us nothing at all about the relevance of Alamy photo-sales to micro-stockers, many of whom supply multiple media. And it doesn't really say anything to those who (like me) supply only photos for the same reason.
What individuals like you and I find is relevant and accurate, but only for each individual themselves.
Ok.
I see the reply from Alamy and I trust the stunt was not coordinated by Alamy representatives. But it was coordinated nevertheless, as you stated yourself.
This makes those significantly out of range samples just exceptions that any statistician would immediately discard form a decent evaluation.
Yet, for some naive people, those abnormal samples were somehow representative for the marketplace! Really?
The point you didn't get is that similar flawed samples could be triggered by any other group colluding to influence the polls.
You also keep on saying that it is only my situation. And I keep on repeating that it is NOT only my situation. My situation is very much aligned with the polls on the right side of the page, when there is no collusion. So it is not just about me, but a about a representative amount of micro/mid stockers. It is more probable that their current position (5th or 6th) is right. It is very unlikely that those spikes, putting Alamy first were a true picture of the marketplace.
Of course there are exceptions. Of course there are people doing well with Alamy. Never denied that.
Similarly, of course you can make money from, let's say, tennis. But don't give me examples like Serena or Roger and don't ask them to vote in a poll aiming to display averages. Serena and Roger are not representative for the average population. If they would vote in such polls, you will get a false impression that common people can make millions from playing tennis.
Anyway, Kudos to Alamy for being brave enough to advertise in this forum.
But it doesn't take away the fact, that statistically, they are on the 5th or 6th position, for the majority of us.
And this means that they can do better.
-
But it doesn't take a way the fact, that statistically, they are on the 5th or 6th position for the majority of us.
And this means that they can do better.
You're still not comparing like with like.
They choose not to sell vectors, and I have no idea what's happened to video there.
You could only compare if there was a section of the poll which only counts photo stills sales.
-
But it doesn't take a way the fact, that statistically, they are on the 5th or 6th position for the majority of us.
And this means that they can do better.
You're still not comparing like with like.
They choose not to sell vectors, and I have no idea what's happened to video there.
You could only compare if there was a section of the poll which only counts photo stills sales.
That's a fair and valid point!
The poll is looking at the bottom line, regardless of how and what these companies are selling. It is a good representation of the bottom line, for most of us, regardless of the media we sell.
Isn't it maybe exactly what they need to do in order to "do better, much better"? Why not selling videos? Why not selling vectors?
I don't do vectors, but I would love to see some of my videos sold by Alamy!
It also implies that you agree with me, when I say that those bogus spikes, putting Alamy on the first overall position, were not representative for the marketplace.
-
I only do stills, so I don't really care, but why would they start selling vectors when so many other places sell them so very cheaply?
I presume they have a reason for not developing their video sales, but I'm not privy to what the reason is.
-
Thanks for share. I like that Alamy is fair agency. We must feed the sagencias that pay well and do not throw the prices
Well, you never get the calculator price because they negotiate massive discounts for their clients. Lets not get ahead of ourselves here, Alamy slashes prices, they just don't update the calculator.
-
[snip]
Meaning other suppliers do better than most of us here (I can't poll for Alamy, as it would take my iS earnings out of exclusive, so both of the iS figures would be more inaccurate than they might otherwise be, and anyone else who is Exclusive RF at iS and RM on Alamy is in the same position).
I thought that iS polling alone indicated iS Exclusive in the Poll to the right. I was also under the impression that iS + Alamy was also scored as iS Exclusive. It's been a long time ago that I picked up that impression. Only Leaf could answer how the Poll works in this regard. I report iS + Alamy thinking my iS numbers go to the Exclusive number.
-
[snip]
Meaning other suppliers do better than most of us here (I can't poll for Alamy, as it would take my iS earnings out of exclusive, so both of the iS figures would be more inaccurate than they might otherwise be, and anyone else who is Exclusive RF at iS and RM on Alamy is in the same position).
I thought that iS polling alone indicated iS Exclusive in the Poll to the right. I was also under the impression that iS + Alamy was also scored as iS Exclusive. It's been a long time ago that I picked up that impression. Only Leaf could answer how the Poll works in this regard. I report iS + Alamy thinking my iS numbers go to the Exclusive number.
Leaf answered, but things might have changed since then I guess.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/rating-and-number-of-votes-showing-in-poll-results/msg448811/#msg448811 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/rating-and-number-of-votes-showing-in-poll-results/msg448811/#msg448811)
-
[snip]
Meaning other suppliers do better than most of us here (I can't poll for Alamy, as it would take my iS earnings out of exclusive, so both of the iS figures would be more inaccurate than they might otherwise be, and anyone else who is Exclusive RF at iS and RM on Alamy is in the same position).
I thought that iS polling alone indicated iS Exclusive in the Poll to the right. I was also under the impression that iS + Alamy was also scored as iS Exclusive. It's been a long time ago that I picked up that impression. Only Leaf could answer how the Poll works in this regard. I report iS + Alamy thinking my iS numbers go to the Exclusive number.
Leaf answered, but things might have changed since then I guess.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/rating-and-number-of-votes-showing-in-poll-results/msg448811/#msg448811[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/rating-and-number-of-votes-showing-in-poll-results/msg448811/#msg448811[/url])
I'm sure that info is more recent than my (likely faded) memory. Thanks for the link. Looks like I'm skewing the poll with the way I make entries.
-
But it doesn't take a way the fact, that statistically, they are on the 5th or 6th position for the majority of us.
And this means that they can do better.
You're still not comparing like with like.
They choose not to sell vectors, and I have no idea what's happened to video there.
You could only compare if there was a section of the poll which only counts photo stills sales.
Well, how wrong can a girl be?
:-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
They do sell vectors, but despite being on there since 2009 and watching them for a couple of years before that, I had no idea.
I don't recall ever reading a post by anyone on their forum, or here, discussing vectors there! I guess that could be that I have the very slightest interest in vectors, but still, I could tell you about other sites I'm not even on or interested in which sell vectors. How weird.
-
Everyone can do better but statistically 5th or 6th is in the top 5% of sites at least. Excluding video its probably top 4. So not exactly a basket case. The poll is a handy guide but no statistician would take the results seriously for all sorts of reasons...sample size is tiny for example
-
Everyone can do better but statistically 5th or 6th is in the top 5% of sites at least. Excluding video its probably top 4. So not exactly a basket case. The poll is a handy guide but no statistician would take the results seriously for all sorts of reasons...sample size is tiny for example
A small sample can reflect a large group within the margin of error, and be pretty accurate. Who is in the sample group means much more. We have volunteers taking the poll and many if not most, ignoring the poll. People who volunteer is not a way to get a valid sample group. A hypothetical way to get an interesting result would be have a requirement once a year, January 1st, for access to the forum, you must answer the poll. That has problems too as a forced poll some people might just click and go, not trying to give honest answers. But there you are, a big sample of all people who come here, once a year.
-
I agree up to a point but a sample of 100 or less is really very small the biggest flaw in the poll is its self selecting...in particular for Alamy where many of their contributors may not contribute to MS so less likely to be members. Having said that my feeling is the poll is roughly right in terms of order. Also it says nothing about distribution.....i.e a few Alamy "specialists" could do very well but those who just put their standard fare there extremely poorly bringing down the average.